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.
Kumar, S/O. Kochucherukkan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No. 6905 of 2010 ------------------------------- DATED: 27th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 30 of 1998 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range, for offencespunishable under Sections 55 (a) and 58 of Abkari Act, and whose case is now pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge for trial of Abkari Act Cases, Neyyattinkara as S.C. No. 275 of 2003, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner before court, 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. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the court below and seek bail by filing an application for regular bail. Accordingly, If the petitioner surrenders before the court below within two weeks from today and files an application for regular b...
Subinsha Vs. District Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R R. BASANT & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) No. 398 of 2010 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to search for, trace and produce Ramshitha, a young girl, aged about 18 years (date of birth 19.8.1992). She is a student of Plus two course. She is residing along with her parents and her brother. The petitioner and the alleged detenue Ramshitha were in love. According to the petitioner, she had come to his house and both of them had eloped earlier. She was aged about 15 years then. Later she was produced before the Magistrate. As Ramshitha had not attained the age of 18 years then, she was sent along with her parents. According to the petitioner, Ramshitha had wanted to go with him and she had asserted that as soon as she attains majority she will join the petitioner. The p...
Jankiyamma, W/O.Ravindran Vs. K.R.Suresh, S/O. Ramakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
O R D E R THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.558 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 in E.P.No.63 of 2009 in O.S.No.255 of 2007 of the court learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha is the petitioner before me. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for lateral support for plaint A schedule belonging to them from plaint B schedule belonging to petitioner and respondent No.3. The matter was referred to the Adalath where there was settlement and an award was passed. As per that award parties agreed that petitioners and respondent No.3 will leave 3feet vide space on the eastern extremity of their property to provide lateral support for property of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was also agreed that if on account of petitioners and respondent No.3 removing earth compound wall of respondent Nos.1 and 2 collapsed, petitioners and respondent No.3 will make necessary arrangements to restore the w...
theyyamma George Vs. the Manager, Kerala Financial Corporation. Distri ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR:MEMBER The order dated:30/10/2009 in CC.50/09 of CDRF, Idukki is being assailed in this appeal by the complainant who is aggrieved by the disposal of the Forum below with the observation that as the complainant has already approached the Honble High Court of Kerala, it is not proper for the Forum to decide the case put forth by the complainant. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she is running a small scale industry in the name and style Thopppil Hollow Bricks and that she had availed a loan from the opposite party/Financial Corporation amounting to Rs.9.5lakhs by mortgaging 50 cents of land comprising survey No.1478/I-A of Karikode village and that at the time of execution of the agreement the rate was 20.5 towards the interest and 2% towards additional interest in case of default. The complainants case is that the Idukki district in which the complainants unit is situated had been notified as industrially backward area in Kerala and as ...
S. Anand Babu Vs. the Manager, Kerala Transport Co. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant and respondents 1 and 2 were the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively in OP No. 545/2003 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party National Insurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to the damages sustained by him on account of the damage caused to the household articles which were transported from Agra to Tripunithura under the policy insurance issued by the second opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd. The complainant also alleged deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party Kerala Transport Company in causing damage to some of the household articles, which were entrusted with the first opposite party for transportation from Agra to Tripunithura. Thus, the c...
The General Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondents were the complainants in CC.138/06 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not allowing the benefit under the Liability Waiver Scheme to the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased chitty subscriber, Prabhakaran who joined in the chitty No.5/04 as chital No.47 with sala of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said chitty was prized in his name on 4/10/2004 and the prized chitty amount was put in FD on 5/11/2004. The complainants have also alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not allowing the insurance benefits under the aforesaid Liability Waiver Scheme. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the subscriber, Prabhakaran was not entitled for the benefit under the Liability Waiver Scheme becaus...
Beena, W/O.Nalakath Faisal, Vs. Ali Jaffer, S/O.Nalakath Late Abdul
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.442 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. 1. This petition is filed by the judgment debtor in E.P.No. 359 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 o 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda. That is a suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The matter was settled in Adalath as per which petitioner had to pay the amount due to the respondents with interest. On account of non-payment of the entire amount, respondents filed E.P.No.359 of 2009 and property of petitioner has been brought up for sale. Though several grounds are urged in this petition now the request is only for some time to pay the amount due under the decree. Learned counsel seeks six (6) months' time to discharge the liability. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant four (4) months' time from 20.11.2010 to the petitioner to di...
Basil Baby, S/O.Baby Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V.RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5589 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 ORDER 1. The order dated 22/9/2010 is recalled since such an order granting bail was never in the contemplation of this Court and as agreed to by both sides, the said order came to be passed by mistake. Consequential order if any granting bail passed by the Special Court, (NDPS) Thodupuzha shall also stand cancelled. B.A.No.5589 of 2010 is disposed of afresh as herein below:- 2. The petitioner, who is accused No.6 in Crime No.8 of 2009 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kottaym for an offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, seeks anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 4. 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 In...
A.Jamal, S/O.Abdul Rahiman Vs. the Station House Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ............................. B.A. No. 6653 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 26th day of October, 2010 ORDER 1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Crime No.325/2010 of Adhur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323 and 324 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 11.11.2010 or on 12.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being ...
Sudheesh @ Sudhi, Aged 26 Years Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V.RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.6681 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 ORDER 1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.255 of 2010 of Kanakakunnu Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 02/10/2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offence, 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 with effect from 08/11/2010 on his executing a bond for Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »