Kerala Court October 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sleeba Thomas @ Sleeba M.T Vs. Seena Mol Abraham, D/O.Abraham and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
O R D E R THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Tr.P(C).No.308 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of October, 2010 ORDER This petition is for transfer filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thodupuzha. That is a suit filed by petitioners to set aside certain documents, recovery of damages and for consequential reliefs. Respondent No.4, one of the defendants in the suit is a lawyer practicing in the courts at Thodupuzha including the Sub Court. Petitioner requested that the case may be transferred to the Sub Court at Muvattupuzha, Perumbavoor or Ernakulam considering convenience of the parties. 2. All the respondents are served of whom respondent Nos.1 and 4 have entered appearance and respondent No.1 has filed a counter. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that there is threat for life of respondent No.1 if respondent No.1 has to go to Muvattupuzha, Perumbavoor or Ernakulam to contes...
Mohammed Iqbal Vs. Abdul Rehman and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- On 22/3/1997, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, Abdul Rehman for the purpose of constructing a commercial building and thereby the complainant availed the service of the 1st opposite party for construction of a commercial building. An agreement for construction of the building was entered into between the complainant and the 1st opposite party on 22/3/1997. As per the terms of the said agreement, construction of the building was to be completed within a period of 12 months. Time was an essence of the said agreement. The plinth area of the said building was 12185 Sq. ft. and that the 1st opposite party agreed to construct the said building at the rate of Rs.287/- per Sq.ft. An advance amount of Rs.5.lakhs was paid to the 1st opposite party on 22/3/1997 and the balance amount was to be paid in instalments as the wor...
Sasikumar,s/O.Ramakrishnan Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bail Application No. 6768 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATE: 27th day of October, 2010 O R D E R In this Petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.456/2010 of Kanjar Police Station for an offence punishable under Sec. 376 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 19.8.2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail w.e.f 08.11.2010 on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfactio...
Viswanathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No.6715 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 27.10.2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.476/2010 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323,324,326,506(ii) and 498A I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 10.11.2010 or on 11.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioner has be...
Suresh Kumar,aged 24,s/O.Surendran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. .............................. B.A.No. 6578 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the 7th accused in Crime No.831/2010 of Nemom Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 308 I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 10.11.2010 or on 11.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfi...
Binu Kuriakose Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................. Bail Application No. 6646 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated: 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.523/2010 of Thrikkodithanam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 308 IPC, seeks his enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 13.8.2010. The petitioner was arrested on 13.9.2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter-alia that the injured in this case sustained a bone deep injury on the forehead with a knife wielded by the petitioner who is involved in two other murder cases and the present crime was committed while he was on bail in the Paul Muthoot murder case. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, ...
M/S.Samsung India Electronic Private Ltd Vs. the Intelligence Inspecto ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 32641 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of a transport effected by them, pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued under section 47(2) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short the KVAT Act). LCD Televisions and Monitors, transported by the petitioner to its dealers at Thrissur and Palakkad, were intercepted by the 1st respondent. As per Ext.P4 notice, the transport was accompanied only by a Delivery Note. The reason for detention noted in Ext.P4 is as follows:- "As per the accompanying D/Note, there are 10 Nos. of LCD TV. The Driver said that one item (Sl. No.4 in the commodity column) has been delivered at Palakkad. So, the vehicle should have contained 9 Nos. of TV. But on physical verification, the vehicle actually contain 21 Nos. of T.V. Hence, prima facie, there is no nexus between the load and the document accompanied...
Aslam Mohammed, S/O.A.B.Andunhi Vs. the Station House Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ----------------------- Bail Application No. 6606 of 2010 --------------------------------------- DATED: 27th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.111/2005 of Kumbala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.654/2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail.Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the penden...
Ashraf, S/O.Abdulla and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. .............................. B.A.No. 6756 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.139/2010 of Vidyanagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 10.11.2010 or on 11.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied th...
Noor Mohammed, S/O.Khader Rawther Vs. Moideen Rawther, S/O.Khader Rawt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.557 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Defendant in O.S.No.409 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Palakkad is the petitioner before me. Respondent, his brother alleging that he permitted petitioner to reside in the building in the suit property sued for mandatory injunction, damages for unlawful use and occupation and other reliefs. Petitioner claimed right of Kudiyiruppu and title by adverse possession. The case came up for trial in the list on 03-03-2009. Petitioner remained absent and there was no representation. The suit was decreed ex parte. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1306 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte decree on 30-03-2009. Application was dismissed on 06-06-2009. Petitioner preferred C.M.A.No.89 of 2009 and the same was dismissed. Hence this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »