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.
S. Sudhakaran Pillai. Vs. Radhakrishnan; Mannarathala Puthen.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 37 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Neyyattinkara challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.77,170/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(a) of Cr.P.C., in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was allowed in part and in supercession of the sentence passed the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one day till the rising of the court and he was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.78,000/- as provided by Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. I...
T.Chandrika Devi. Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated by the respondents Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent default committed in repayment of a housing loan as well as an agricultural loan availed by the petitioner, the respondent initiated coercive steps against the immovable property, invoking powers under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P9 is the petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. According to the petitioner, in spite of approaches made to settle the amounts due under the loan accounts, the Bank was not inclined to grant any waiver of the huge interest and penal interest charged. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. It is not just or proper to this Court to interfere with the proceedings on the basis of merits of any of th...
K.C.Haridas. Vs. Keltron.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 173 of 1998 on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, (EO) 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.25,766/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- In default of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for one month. If the fine amount is realised, Rs.28,000/- shall be paid to the complainant towards cost and compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was allowed in part, confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced the accused to undergo S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.28,000/- In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo S.I. for one month. If the fine amount is realised, the same shall be paid as com...
M.Ravindran. Vs. Mahendran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T.No. 3714 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Thrissur against the judgment of acquittal dt.14.1.2002. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The first respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the appellant/complainant in the first week of June, 1996 for his business purposes, assuring that the amount will be repaid within one year. However, after repeated demands he did not repay the amount. Thereafter the first respondent promised the appellant in May, 1997 that the amount will be paid within another year and issued a post dated cheque dt.3.6.1998 for Rs.30,000/- The appellant presented the cheque for collection, but the same was returned with a memo stating that payment was stopped by the drawer. The appellant sent a ...
P.V.Kurian. Vs. K.J.Joseph.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 110 of 2000 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam 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 convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The fine, if recovered, is ordered to be paid to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complaint 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. Th...
Ajmal. A. Vs. Sai Ravindran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 296 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - V, Trivandrum against the acquittal of the first respondent herein. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging the commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant briefly is as follows. The complainant is running the firm called 'Global Village Media Syndicate' and the accused is running a firm under the style 'M/s.ABI'S ADS'. The accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,52,725/- in favour of the complainant on 23.11.1998. The complainant forwarded the cheque for collection through the Bank of Baroda. The cheque was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused. The complainant issued a notice to the accused on 6.1.1999. The accused evaded the notice and it was returned to the counsel on 16.1.1999. 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of...
M.C.Jacob. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Baord, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). He has challenged Ext.P7 order by which the respondents rejected to grant retrospective effect to his promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). 2. The service particulars of the petitioner show the following: - He was originally appointed as Sub Engineer (Civil) on 01/06/1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 15/05/1996. But it appears that before the appointment of the petitioner as Sub Engineer (Civil), large numbers of promotions were made in excess of the quota earmarked for Sub Engineers for direct recruitment. This led to the petitioner approaching the authorities to take remedial measures in the matter. By proceedings dated 18/06/2003, the Secretary of the Board informed the second respondent that 147 promotions were made in excess of the quota earmarked for Sub Engineers (Civil) for direct recruitment and, therefore, the directly recruite...
V.C.Vijayakumar. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Petitioners, the accused in Crime Nos.456/2006, registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 201, 379, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 174/2007, registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, of Aryanad Police Station. They filed these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II order passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation, by returning the refer report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent, the defacto complainant were heard. 3. Annexure-I final reports dated 18.10.2008 were submitted before the Magistrate, as refer reports, by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Thiruvananthapuram Rural. As he is bound to, Magistrate issued notice to second respondent, the defacto complainant. ...
Kalesh.V.P. Vs. Ramesh Babu.K.P, State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the accused in S.T.C.No.119/2006 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was `30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only). 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138...
K.Swaminathan. Vs. R.Radhakrishna Prasad.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Judgment debtor in E.P.No.60 of 2008 in O.S.No.68 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Chengannur is the petitioner before me challenging auction sale of his property conducted by the executing court on 19-03-2009 vide a petition (E.A.No.54 of 2009) filed on 19-06-2009. That application was dismissed by order dated 30-10-2010 which is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel that sale conducted by the executing court is illegal and that dismissal of the application cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, there was no attachment of property sold as required under Rule 54 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Reliance is placed on the decision in M/s. Mahakal Automobiles and Anr. v. Kishan Swaroop Sharmal (2008(2)KHC 670). No notice was also served on petitioner under Rule 66(2) of Order XXI of the Code. 2. Since it was contended that there was no notice served on petitioner under Rule 66(2) of Order XXI of the Code and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »