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.
Salim Rajkumar Vs. M.T.Johny
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No: 616 of 2003Dated this the 18th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 1821 of 1997 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.3,00,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 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...
Babu T.C. Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
O R D E RK.T.SANKARAN, J.W.P.(C).No.33096 of 2010 JDated this the 18th day of November, 20101. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady issued Notification dated 8.2.2006 and a subsequent Notification dated 30.11.2009 calling for applications from candidates to the post of Assistants. Originally, the post was Assistant Grade-II and it was re-designated as Assistant which necessitated the notification dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification. A written test was held. The petitioner appeared for the written test. The written test was conducted by the Lal Bahadur Sasthri Centre for Science & Technology (third respondent), as entrusted by the first respondent University. After the written test, the third respondent furnished the results of the first respondent. A short list was published. 2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following : "(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the...
Harikumar Vs. K.K.Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No: 973 of 2003Dated this the 18th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 631 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Changanacherry challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. 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 concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitio...
N.Jacob Paul Vs. C.Gopalan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.Appeal No: 1897 of 2004Dated this the 18th day of November 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 342 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I Neyyattinkara. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging the commission of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The 1st respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.31,000/- from the complainant on 18.12.1999. To discharge the said debt the accused issued two cheques both dated 18.2.2000 for Rs.16,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively drawn on Vellanadu Service Co-operative Bank. When the cheques were presented for encashment through his bank namely, the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., it was returned due to insufficiently of funds, of which information from the bank was obtained by the appellant on 20.3.2000. Therefore the complainant had demand...
Regi Isac Vs. Philomina Pious
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.A.S. No. 370 of 1996Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010.1. Plaintiff in O.S. 702 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant on 12.11.1990 borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on the basis of a demand promissory note executed on the said date marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the cash receipt for having received the said amount. It is alleged that subsequently a mortgage was also created by the defendant by deposit of title deed. It is claimed that in January, 1991 the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to make arrangements to have the mortgage property sold and a power of attorney was given in his favour. On the basis of the said power of attorney, the plaintiff is said to have entered into an agreement for sale on 4.4.1991 and received an amount by way of advance. With oblique motive the defendant cancelled the power of attorney and laid a suit before the Sub Court,...
C.H.Mahamood Vs. B.H.Siddique
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No: 1549 of 2003Dated this the 18th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.281 of 1996 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.69,840/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. 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...
Reji Sebastian,s/O.E.J.Sebastian Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.W.P.(C). No.5556/2010-TDated this the 18th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. In this case, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P18 order by which the application submitted by the petitioner for reclassification of his properties has been rejected, based on a report of the Principal Agricultural Officer. 2. The total extent owned by the petitioner is 3.33 acres of land in various survey numbers in Aluva Village and true copies of the sale deeds have been produced as Exts.P1 to P2. It is the case of the petitioner that the above land was purchased for residential and other constructional purposes. All the nearby lands and his properties are dry lands which are remaining barren for a long period. But, in the revenue records, the description is made as 'nilam' itself. This prompted the petitioner to file an application as per Ext.P3 before the District Collector to change the description of the property in the revenue records and the District Collector forward...
A.Selvaraj Vs. T.P.Devasia and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No: 416 of 2003Dated this the 18th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 408 of 1999 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.50,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 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 concurrently held that the cheque in question ...
Rosy, W/O.Kunjamara Anthony and ors. Vs. Gijo, S/O.Muttichookkaran Geo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.RCR. No. 291 of 2010Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010O R D E R1. Under challenge in this revision under section 20 is the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 65 of 2005 filed by the revision petitioner tenant and also the memorandum of cross objections filed by the respondent landlord. The landlord sought to evict the tenants who are legal heirs of a deceased tenant by name Anthony on the ground of arrears of rent (Section 11(2)(b), the ground of user of the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently (section 11(4)(2) and also the ground of reconstruction under section 11(4)(iv). The ground of arrears of rent which was claimed at the contract rate of Rs.7.50 per mensem no longer survives for consideration as the arrears was discharged even before the RCP went for trial. The existence of grounds under section 11(4)(2) and 11(4)(iv) were strongly dis...
Sunil Kumar, S/O.Sundaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No.7266 of 2010Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010.ORDER1. Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 222 of 2010 of Thirunelly Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(X) of the Schedule Cast/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 27.11.2010 or on 29.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. After interrogation, petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned who on being convinced that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »