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.
Muhammed Haneefa K. Vs. Icici Bank Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) No. 32294 of 2009 FDated this the 15th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner approached this Court complaining that as security for a personal loan availed from the respondents, signed cheques were furnished by him. It is stated that despite having closed the account and discharged the liability, the cheques given have not been returned so far. It is seeking a direction to the respondent to return the six signed blank cheques, this writ petition has been filed. 2. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the affidavit, it is conceded that the petitioner has fully discharged the liability that is due. It is also stated that as per the practice followed by the Bank, once the liability is discharged, the Bank will return the cheque, provided a request in that behalf is received by the Bank within thirty days of closure of the account. It is stated that in this case, the Bank did not receive any application from the petitioner a...
Ganesh and ors. Vs. Sub Inspector, Marayur Police Station
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
V. RAMKUMAR, J.B.A. No. 6821 of 2010Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010ORDER1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in Crime No. 287 of 2010 of Marayur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308 and 427 r/w Section 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 26.11.2010 or on 27.11.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and...
Siddhique, S/O.Saidali P. Vs. the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Rdo
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P (C) No.34404 of 2010Dated this the 15th November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. In this writ petition, the petitioner complains that his vehicle has been detained on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to the petitioner, he has made application for interim custody of the vehicle, but his application was not considered. With this grievance, this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. A Full Bench of this Court in Shan C.T. v. State of Kerala [2010(3)KHC 333] has laid down the manner in which such applications for interim custody should be dealt with. Therefore, all that is necessary in this Writ Petition is to direct that the statutory authority, before whom the application has been made, shall deal with the application in the light of the provisions of the Act referred above and in the manner as directed by...
MartIn Melookaran,melookaran House Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) No. 34259 of 2010 FDated this the 15th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner submits that he appeared for B.Tech 4th and 6th semester examinations and failed in three papers. He submitted application for revaluation and filed this writ petition seeking expeditious revaluation and declaration of results.2. I heard Standing Counsel appearing for the University also. 3. Having regard to the facts pointed out, it is directed that the University shall complete the revaluation sought for and declare the result of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, provided the application has been received and is otherwise in order.4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the University for compliance. 5. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ...
State of Kerala Vs. Madhavan Vamadevan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.L.A.A.No. 1100 of 2009Dated this the 15th day of November, 20101. The appellant in this appeal is the State of Kerala. An extent of 3.35 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.194/16/33 and 195-7-82 of Arattupuzha Village was acquired for the purpose of Valiyazheekal Fishing Harbour. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.7,000/- per Are. The Sub Court, Mavelikkara has enhanced the land value at Rs.12,250/- per Are. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal.2. We heard learned Government Pleader.3. The appeal is from a common judgment in five L.A.Rs. The learned Government Pleader would bring to our notice the fact that appeals filed from two L.A.Rs. as L.A.Nos. 700 and 2171 of 2008 were dismissed by this Court. We see no reason to take a different view. There is no merit in this appeal. We follow the judgment in L.A.A Nos. 700 and 2171 of 2008. 4. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. ...
John Britto @ Roshan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
V.RAMKUMAR, J.Bail Application No.7270 of 2010Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010ORDER1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is accused No.8 in Crime No.1008 of 2010 of Sakthikulangara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 417 & 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 19/10/2010. 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, 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 23/11/2010 on his executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and su...
Marcia CollIn Noronha Vs. the Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
K.T.SANKARAN, J.W.P.(C).No.32404 of 2010Dated this the 15th day of November, 20101. The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A. (English) in CCPLM Anglo Indian High School, Perumanoor, of which the third respondent is the Manager, in a leave vacancy for the period from 17.8.2006 to 31.7.2010. The educational authorities did not approve the appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy pointing out various grounds. One of the grounds was that the third respondent school being a newly opened school, without appointing a protected teacher, the petitioner should not have been appointed in the leave vacancy. Another reason stated was the following : The leave vacancy arose on granting leave without allowance for a period of five years from 1.8.2005 to Carol Subrena Beveria and in that vacancy Beena A. was appointed as H.S.A. (English). Later, Beena A. was permanently appointed as H.S.A. (English) against a regular vacancy which arose with effect from 17.8.2006. The appointment of Beena in t...
Chandran, S/O.Ayyappan Vs. Santha, W/O.Chandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.W.P(C).No.23742 of 2010Dated this 15th day of November, 20101. This petition is filed by the husband of judgment debtor in E.P.No.792 of 2007 in O.S.No.44 of 2003 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kodungallur. Respondent No.2 has obtained a decree for payment of money against respondent No.1 and filed E.P.No.792 of 2007 for realisation of the amount. Petitioner, husband of respondent No.1 contends that respondent No.1 was not having sound mental condition and was undergoing treatment under a Psychiatrist. Hence petitioner filed Ext.P3, application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain her health condition. That application was dismissed by Ext.P4, order. Then came Ext.P5, application to appoint petitioner as guardian of respondent No.1 which was dismissed vide Ext.P6, order. Thus, Exts.P4 and P6, orders are under challenge. Learned counsel contended that Exts.P4 and P6, orders are not correct. I have heard counsel for respondent No.1 as well. 2. In Ext.P3, ...
Shibu George,headmaster,asram.H.S.S Vs. the Deputy Director of Educati ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
1. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following : "(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibits P5 and P6 and quashing the same, to the extent it rejects the promotion of the petitioner as Headmaster and approves the promotion of the fourth respondent as Headmistress. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to approve the promotion of the petitioner as Headmaster in preference to the fourth respondent. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P7 appeal forthwith. (iv) and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs." 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent heard the parties in Ex...
V.J. Xavier Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2010
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.W.P.(C)No.14464 Of 2009DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010J U D G M E N T1. The petitioner is a practising Lawyer in Palai. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the Government rejecting his application for renewal of certificate of practice as a Notary under the Notaries Act.2. In Exhibit P8 order, mainly it is pointed out that the enquiry reports point out certain violations in the sense that the petitioner is not having an independent office and he has done several attestations after the expiry of the certificate of practice on 23.10.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these two reasons should not have been relied on by the Government as they are insufficient to reject the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Exhibit P11 series, which are the receipts showing payment of rent of the office room to support his case. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was not given a personal hearin...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »