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.
Manoj Kumar. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.779/2010 of Aranmula Police Station registered on Annexure-A FIR for the offences under Sections 363 and 188 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, based on the first information statement furnished by the third respondent, father of the second respondent. Petitioner and second respondent are advocates practicing in Pathanamthitta courts. Allegation in Annexure-A FIR is that petitioner abducted second respondent and thereby committed the offences. Third respondent had filed W.P. (Crl).No.337/2010 before this court alleging that second respondent is in unlawful confinement of the petitioner. By Annexure-B judgment, writ petition was dismissed finding that second respondent is a major aged 25 years and an advocate by profession. This Court has accepted her assertion that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A FIR contending that when sec...
Kumaran,s/O.M.Maniyappa Moothan. Vs. Kumaran,s/O.Lakshmana Moothan, an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. These appeals arise from a common order dismissing two claim petitions filed invoking Order XX1 Rule 58 of CPC. They were filed in relation to execution proceedings in two different suits. The judgment debtor in both the suits is one Mr.Balakrishnan. In OS No.297/03, a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, he suffered a decree for return of advance. In OS No.205/01, he suffered a decree for recovery of money based on a commercial transaction. The decrees were put in execution and the judgment debtor's property involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, OS No.297/03, was brought to sale. The appellant filed claim petitions in both the proceedings on the footing that Balakrishnan had executed a contract for sale in his favour, had obtained Rs.2,50,000/- as part of sale consideration and had put the appellant in possession of the property in part performance of that, on 14.09.1998. According to him, on 19.08.2001, a further amount was also r...
Udayabhanu. Vs. T.M.Philip.
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 C.C.No.30/2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M -II, Adoor, 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 `1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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 of the...
R.George Pereira. vs. St.Joseph'S International Academy.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. The respondent and the applicant entered into Annexure A3 agreement for the construction of a school building. Disputes arose between the parties. According to the applicant, a balance amount of Rs.22,12,087/- was due from the respondent. 2. Clause 17 of Annexure A3 agreement reads as follows: "(17) If there is any dispute relating to any matter regarding the construction of the building or any matter related to this contract, the Manager, St.Joseph's International Academy, Kollam will be the sole arbitrator for this purpose and his decisions shall be final, and the second party will have no right to challenge this decision in the court of law." 3. The applicant sent a letter providing a panel of three persons and requesting the respondent to select one among them as arbitrator. The respondent sent a reply without selecting any of the nominee arbitrators. The respondent suggested appointment of two Civil Engineers, one by each party. The parties appointed their respective nominee En...
Swaminathan. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in O.R. No.27/2009 of Alathur Forest Range, Palakkad. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 27(1)(e)(iv)& (v) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 3/12/2009, accused Nos. 1 and 2 trespassed into the forest area, adjoining the property of the 3rd accused and removed soil by using JCB. It is alleged that the soil was removed from an area having 10 metres length, 4 metres width and 2 meters depth. The petitioner is having property near the forest area. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that he runs a quarry near the forest area. It is alleged that the soil was removed with the connivance and knowledge of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the President of a Panchayath and that he belongs to a particular political party. According to the...
Chaliyaparambil Kumaran. Vs. the Appellate Authority, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.1175/1973 on the file of the Land Tribunal No.III, Mannarghat. The Land Tribunal by order dated 17/11/1975 issued purchase certificate to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent herein is the intermediary. In the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the 2nd respondent was represented by Smt. K.R. Kuhimalu Ammal, who is the paternal Aunt of the intermediary. The Land Tribunal, Mannarghat declared that the petitioner is a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Land Tribunal in O.A.No.1175/73. Ext.P1 (3) is the certificate of purchase issued to the applicant. Ext.P2 is the order dated 10/4/1975 in O.P.No.43/1974 passed by the District Court, Palghat appointing K.R. Kunhimalu Ammal as the guardian of the person and properties of the 2nd respondent, who was minor aged 17 at that time. 2. The 2nd respondent/intermediary filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, Thrissur challenging the order of assignmen...
Chellath Franklin, and ors. Vs. the Special Tahsildar, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is in challenge of Exts.P1 and P2, orders dated April 11,2008 on E.A.Nos.504 of 2004 and 505 of 2004 in E.P.Nos.120 of 2001 and 121 of 2001 in L.A.R.Nos.274 of 1990 and 275 of 1990 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi. Property which originally stood in the name of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was acquired by the Government for the purpose of respondent No.2, the Greater Cochin Development Authority. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the land owner. Petitioners sought a reference of the matter to the civil court which enhanced the compensation. There was an appeal to this Court and the Supreme Court. Supreme Court did not interfere in the matter. Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced by court was received by petitioners. While so, petitioners filed O.P.No.2895 of 1994 challenging acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no notice to them under Section 5 ...
Stephen Kaniampuram and Another Vs. P.V. Chacko and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in A.248/10 is the complainant and the appellant in A.356/10 is the opposite party in CC.377/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. Opposite party/appellant in A.356/10 is under orders to pay to the complainant double the respective amounts deposited vide receipts 93939 (Ext.A1) and receipt 102031 (A2) with interest at 6% per annum from one year from the date of deposit till realization and also to pay cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The complainant filed the complaint and conducted the case in person before the Forum as well as before this Commission. 3. The case of the complainant is that he had taken 2 family pack memberships in the scheme of the opposite parties ie for Rs.62,500/- dated:5/10/2005 and for Rs.70,000/- dated:18/10/2005. The family pack consisted of a combination of more than one unit of Rs.625/-. The assurance was that the opposite party will buy weekly lottery tickets worth Rs.10/- per unit for 35 weeks. The price money up to...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., R/by Its Divisional Manager Vs. Sudhe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.400/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- to the complainant with interest at 6% from the date of complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Scorpio car owned by him and having finance from M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company was lost on account of the malicious and dishonest act of one Xavier @ Baiju to whom the vehicle was entrusted on 18/7/2007 for monthly rent. As the agreed amount was not paid. On 15/09/2007, he made enquiries and found that the above said Xavier was in police custody. After release, Xavier informed him that he had handed over the car to one Vichu Raju and the above person did not return the car to him. Hence the complainant had filed a complaint before the Hill Palace Police Station and crime was registered against Xavier. The claim submitted to the opposite party was repudiated vide lette...
St. Maryâs Oil Mills Vs. Shree JaIn Roadways
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Sec.12 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is a proprietorship concern doing the business in Copra, coconut oil and allied products at Aroor. The complainant is represented by its sole proprietor, P.V.Alaxander. The opposite party is a road carrier operator approved by the Indian Bank Association having its Head Office at Jaipur and Branch Office at Ernakulam. Complainant dispatched one consignment of coconut oil from Aroor to M/s Span Projects Private Ltd, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore as per lorry receipt No.10899. The consignment was dispatched on 6/10/99 having the invoice value of Rs.6.15.764/- having 96 quintals of coconut oil. The invoice and demand draft along with consignee copy of the lorry receipt were sent to the State Bank of India, main branch, Bangalore through the State Bank of India branch at Alappuzha. The State Bank of India di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »