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.
A.Ramachandran Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bail Application No. 6528 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATED: 26th 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. 370 of 2010 of Rajapuram Police Station for an offence punishable under Sec. 55(a) of the Abkari Act for having been found in possession of 5 litres of arrack, seeks his enlargement on bail. 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 offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner 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.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the ...
Dr.N.G.Menon Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Bail Application No. 5538 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 26-10-2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 2970 of 2010 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam for an offence punishable under Sec. 498 - A 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 11-11-2010 or 12-11- 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 been...
Manjesh Babu and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ................................... B.A. No. 6654 of 2010 ............................................... Dated: 26th day of October, 2010 ORDER 1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.1161/2010 of Chathannoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 354 and 294(b) IPC, 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. After interrogation, petitioners shall be produced before the Magis...
Ravi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V.RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.6652 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 ORDER 1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos.2, 5 & 6 in Crime No.526 of 2010 of Kollam West Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 454, 461, 380 & 411 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek their enlargement on bail. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the duration of judicial custody of the petitioners, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties (each of whom shall furnis...
Udayan,aged 51 Years,narayana Sadanam and ors. Vs. the Sub Inspector o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No.6686 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 26.10.2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.327/2010 of Pulinkunnu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(i) read with 34 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. After interrogation, petitioners shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned who on being convinced ...
M.Rajesh, S/O. Mohanan K Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V.RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.6719 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 ORDER In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.38 of 2010 of Vamanapuram Excise Range for offences punishable under Sections 55(a), (i) and 58 of the Abkari Act for having been found in possession of 4.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, 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 offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner 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 04/11/2010 on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees th...
Jilliarian D'Cruz vs. Miranda Serene.M.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. NO. 80 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.1251/95.The suit is for a direction to the defendant to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and for an injunction. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiffs' and on her death it had devolved upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are permanent residents of Singapore. They have executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant on 24.11.88 for management of the property and the building therein. The defendant did not look after the property well and started misappropriating the income and did not send any account regarding the income and expenditure. Therefore the plaintiffs' revoked the power of attorney given to the defendant by revocatio...
Khalid and ors. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No.6711 of 2010 .......................................... Dated: 26.10.2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.136/2010 of Vidhya Nagar Police Station, Kasaragod for an offence punishable under Section 498 read with 34 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. After interrogation, petitioners shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned who on being convinc...
Sunil Kumars,s/O.Babu,mottavila Veedu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32174 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been advised for recruitment as Police Constable by the Public Service Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not being deputed for training on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. According to the petitioner, such stand is against the decisions of this Court in Christopher Jose v. State of Kerala [(1999) (3) KLT 285] and other similar cases. The petitioner also submits that relying on those judgments, similar cases have been disposed of. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: "i) issue a writ of Mandamus, commanding and compelling the respondent to allow petitioner to join training as per ExtP1. ii) declare that pendency of Ext P2 to P4 is not a ground to deny appointment invoking Rule 10 (b) (iii) o...
M.Shanavas Khan, Joint Block Vs. Thahira Beevi, Ayshwarya,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2010
O R D E R R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** O.P(F.C) No.439 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 1.The petitioner has come to this Court to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 to assail Ext.P5 order. 2. The Family Court had earlier directed payment of monthly maintenance to the two minor children of the petitioner herein. The payment was not made duly and this obliged the claimants/minor children to approach the Court through their maternal grandmother to claim execution of the order and recovery of the amounts due. Salary of the petitioner was attached. Amounts were being recovered every month. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed earlier before this Court. Some interim orders were passed in that petition. That petition subsequently happened to be dismissed for non prosecution, it is submitted. An application for restoration of that petition is also pendin...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »