Kerala Court November 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.M.Chackochan Vs. Abbas.E., Fathima Manzil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.W.A.No. 926 OF 2010 AND W.P.(C) No. 11392 OF 2010Dated this the 19th day of November, 20101. This is an appeal arising out of W.P.(C) No. 11392 of 2010 by the respondents therein. 2. The writ petition was filed complaining that the appellant herein is carrying on quarrying operation in the various survey numbers at Elamadu Village in Kottarakkara Taluk. The prayer in the writ petition were as follows:"(a) issue a writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate action against the illegal quarrying activities and the functioning of the crusher unit of the 5th respondent at Elavinmoodu in Elamadu Village in Kottarakkara Taluk and take necessary penal action against the 5th respondent; (b) issue a writ or order or direction directing the 5th respondent not o conduct illegal and unauthorized quarrying activities in Block No.27in survey Nos.115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 126, 127, 264, 265 and 266 in Elamadu Village a...
M/S. Saphire Marketing Vs. P.D. Joy, Purakkadan House and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 3 of 2004Dated this the 22nd day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 212 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam. That was a case filed by the complainant against the first respondent/accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs.15,510/- On 11.7.2003, the accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant and his counsel were absent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent.3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the complainant's evidence and the evidence of the accused were over and the case was posted to 11.7.2003. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 11.7.2003 the accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. as the complainant and his counsel were absent. The learned c...
The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Sri.Baby Kumaran
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in OP.A.19/03 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd in repudiating the insurance claim by the repudiation letter dated:25/2/2002. Notice was served on the opposite party and opposite party entered appearance. He filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the complainant while submitting the proposal for the insurance policy suppressed material facts by concealing the earlier treatment undergone by the insured persons. Thus, the opposite party justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party RWs 1 to 4 were examined and B1 to B8 documents were also produced a...
Sajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No.6868 of 2010Dated: 18.11.2010ORDER1. Petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.375/2010 of Nedumkandam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489B and C IPC, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 3.9.2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending, inter alia, that A1 and A4 had gone to Huzoor in Karnataka State and had procured fake currency notes for `3 lakhs by paying `1 lakh in genuine currency and the petitioner had purchased fake notes for `50,000/- by paying `25,000/- to A3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was an innocent possessor of fake notes had, on coming to know that they are fake notes, destroyed the same and that none of the five remand reports mentions about the alleged purchase of fake notes by A5 from A3. 4. The case diary files which were perused by me shows that A3 had taken from one Suku fake notes for `50,000/- and had gi...
Mani @ Veeramani, S/O.Late Velayudhan Vs. John, S/O.Pulikkottil Kochu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No:708 of 2003Dated this the 18th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No. 3942 of 1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.24,315/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appeal was allowed in part confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence limiting imprisonment for 15 days and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel f...
P.Narayana Swami Vs. K.Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.A.S. No. 843 of 1996 & Memorandum of Cross AppealDated this the 18th day of November, 2010.1. Defendants 2 and 8 in O.S.12 of 1993 before the Sub Court, Quilandy, whose claim for exclusive right to item Nos. 1 and 5 of the plaint schedule property was declined by the court below, are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the court below. 2. The suit was one for partition of 5 items of properties, over which the plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd share. According to the plaintiffs,the plaint schedule properties belonged to Raman Nair, who bequeathed it to Krishnana Nair and defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.A1 will dated 24.6.1936. On the death of Krishnan Nair, according to the plaintiffs, the right devolved on them as per a Will executed by Krishnan Nair marked as Ext.A4 dated 20.1.1987. Various transactions with regard to the properties are made mention of in the plaint and ultimately it is cla...
Thomas,s/O.Poulose, Kulangara Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) NO. 17488 OF 2010Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner submits that he purchased 4 cents of property in Sy.No.1479/Part of Sholayoor Village of Mannarkkad Taluk in the year 2007 from one Peachiammal, W/o.Sundar Goundar, who in turn obtained the property by virtue of document No. 3542 of 1978 from one Sivan S/o.Maruthan. Ext.P1 is the title deed of the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the prior deed of the vendor. He approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 stop memo issued by the Village Officer calling upon the petitioner to stop further construction work in the land in question. 2. At the stage of admission, this Court passed order dated 17/6/2010 staying Ext.P9 without prejudice to the right of the respondents to proceed further under the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999. Petitioner submits that on the strength of the said interim order, the construction work which was going on...
Sri. Balakrishnan Nair Vs. Sri.Bhaskaran Nair,s/O.Parukutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No: 745 of 2003Dated this the 18th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No. 953 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.25,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.28,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The appeal against that conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the court below. 4. The courts below have conc...
K.P.Musthafa, S/O.Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.CRL.M.C.No.4374 OF 2010Dated this the 18th day of November,2010ORDER1. Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.70/2008, now pending as L.P.44/2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Court Adhoc I, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offence under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A2 final report contending that there is no material to connect petitioner with the offence and based on the fact that petitioner was the owner of the vehicle alone, he cannot be prosecuted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure A2 final report with Annexure A1, crime and occurrence report reveal that prosecution case is that on 29.5.2000 at about 8 p.m. Excise Inspector, Kumbala intercepted lorry KRZ 7936 at Manjeswaram excise check post and found that 195 cases, each case containing 12 bottles of 750 ml. of Indian made foreign liquor being transpor...
Sivarajan Vakkayil and ors. Vs. University of Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
O R D E RK.T.SANKARAN, J.W.P.(C).No.28756 OF 2010Dated this the 18th day of November, 20101. The petitioners are CLR Workers working in the Calicut University. In 2005, the Calicut University issued a Notification inviting applications from candidates for the selection to the post of Class-IV workers. At that juncture, the Association of CLR workers filed WP(C) No.24370 of 2005. It is stated that some other CLR workers filed WP(C) No.21813 of 2005 and the petitioners filed WP(C) No.33172 of 2005. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 20th December, 2005. The judgment reads as follows: "It is conceded by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Stating Counsel for the Calicut University that similar matters have been disposed of by this court vide judgment in WP(C) No.21813/2005. A copy of the judgment in that case is available before me. Accordingly, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of in the following terms:- The C...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »