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.
Jayakumar V.K. S/O. Kuttappan. Vs. SasikalA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 9 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Ernakulam. 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 as follows. The accused issued a cheque for Rs.70,000/- dt.25.11.1997 drawn on the Amballoor Janatha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanjiramattom branch to the complainant towards the discharge of the loan availed by the accused. When it was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient' vide memo dt.11.12.1997. Notice dt. 16.12.1997 was issued to the accused informing her about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the payment. The accused received the notice on 17.12.1997. Even after receipt of the Notice, she failed to pay the amount. Hence the complaint was filed. 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the...
E.P.Joseph, S/O. Poulose. Vs. Jose George C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T.No. 5201 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Thrissur. The first respondent herein is the complainant in that case, which was filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs.20,400/- 2. In the trial court the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 357 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-II), Thrissur were dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Against that judgment the accused filed this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.20,400/- from him on 1.11.1997 and the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for that amount. When it was presented for encashment, i...
E.P.Joseph. Vs. Jose George C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T.No. 5201 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Thrissur. The first respondent herein is the complainant in that case, which was filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs.20,400/- 2. In the trial court the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 357 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-II), Thrissur were dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Against that judgment the accused filed this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.20,400/- from him on 1.11.1997 and the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for that amount. When it was presented for encashment, i...
K.A.Abbas. Vs. U.A.AbdullA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. The respondents/tenants in RCP No.2/2008 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kasaragod are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein, to whom the petition schedule building belongs, in his petition contended that his son Abdul Rahman, who was examined as PW2, has no avocation and the petition schedule building is bona fide needed for the occupation of PW2 to start a provision store and that PW2 is a dependent. It was further contended that the petition schedule building was let out as per Ext.A1 lease deed for a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and that the rent of the building was kept in arrears from 16/10/2006 and despite Ext.A3 notice, the arrears of rent was not discharged and that the 1st revision petitioner sub let the petition schedule building to the 2nd revision petitioner without the consent of the respondent. With these pleadings, the respondent sought for an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease & Rent Control ) Act...
Abdul Karim. Vs. Sebastian.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 by the 1st respondent in the Rent Control Petition is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, ordering eviction against the revision petitioner under Section 11 (4)(i) of Act 2/65, reversing the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the eviction petition in which eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation and several other eviction grounds. 2. The parties shall be referred as the 'landlord', 'tenant' and the 'alleged sub-tenant'. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3), sub-letting under Section 11(4)(i) and also on the ground of misuser of the building under Section 11(4)(ii). It is conceded by both sides that the only eviction ground which survives is the ground of sub-letting and we do not have to be concerned ...
Vishnu. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. In this Petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.68 of 2009 of Varkala Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 06.09.2010. 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 w.e.f 02.12.2010 on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions: (1). The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesday...
M.Thamban Nair. Vs. M.Krishnan Nair.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. Plaintiff in a suit for money is the appellant. Both the courts below have negatived the claim of the plaintiff, and feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 2. Suit was instituted as against a sole defendant. But later, additional 2nd defendant was also impleaded. The sole defendant (1st defendant) as against whom the suit was laid initially, is the direct brother of the plaintiff. 2nd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. When a settlement deed was executed by the father in favour of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, both of them were given equal right over a jack tree situated outside the property settled in their favour, but, later, when disputes arose between them, on the intervention of mediators and well-wishers, they entered into Ext.A1 agreement, by which, both of them recognised their equal right over the jack R.S.A.NO.394/2010 2 tree situated in plaint 'B' schedule, is the case of the plaintiff. Ignoring the terms of the agreement, without infor...
M/S.Patel Saw Mill. Vs. Johnson Kanadan, Advocate.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 in a suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession, are the appellants. Plaintiffs sued on the allegation that the first defendant - a partnership firm was permitted to use the plaint schedule property consisting of a building and 56 cents of land for the purpose of conducting timber business and that the said transaction is only a licence which was being renewed from time to time. 2. On the premise that the building and 16.5 cents on which it stands, was governed by the provisions of the Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the plaintiffs filed Ext.A7 rent control petition seeking eviction. Ext.A8 was the objection filed by the first defendant firm. The Rent Control Court dismissed that eviction petition by holding that the transaction was not a building lease as contended in those proceedings and the lease was for the entire extent of 56 cents with building standing thereon and therefore, it is not a building lease ...
Rancy, D/O.T.J.Peter. Vs. the Superintendent of Police.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her father, an aged person (about 78 years). He was missing from 06.05.2010. The alleged detenu was residing along with the said brother of the petitioner. Her mother was also residing with the brother and the alleged detenu. About the disappearance/missing of the alleged detenu, a complaint was lodged by the brother of the petitioner and a crime No.637 of 2010 was registered on 01.07.2010. The alleged detenu was not traced by the police and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 28.09.2010. The brother of the petitioner was not specifically arrayed as a party, but the sum and substance of the allegation/apprehension in the petition was that the alleged detenu was being detained somewhere by or at the instance of the brother of the petitioner. 2. This petition was filed on 28.09.2010. It was admitted on 29...
Remabai Pillai. Vs. Smt.Shobhanamani S.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. The basic issue involved in this writ appeal pertains to a civil dispute pending between the appellants who were the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition and the respondents 1 and 2 herein who were the writ petitioners. 2. The root cause relates to Ext.P1 partition deed, which is sought to be set aside at the instance of the first appellant (4th respondent in the writ petition) by filing a civil suit (O.S.No.120 of 2010) and this is pending consideration before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally. During the pendency of the above suit the writ petitioners also filed a civil suit as O.S.No.192 of 2010 before the very same court to restrain the appellants herein from trespassing into their property and committing any waste. The Civil Court passed an interim order of injunction which is stated as still in force. While so, the writ petitioners invoking the provisions under Rules 43 and 44 of the Survey and Boundaries Rules, filed Exts.P5 and P6 applications before the Tahsildar who ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »