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.
ManiyammA. Vs. the Union of India Represented.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. The petitioner is the widow of late Shri Mukundan who was an active participant in the Punnapra Vayalar Struggle. It is averred that he was an accused in C.C. No.8/1124 of First Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and kept in Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram. Finally he was released on 8.11.1124 on expiry of the sentence. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the application filed by the deceased and Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter of acknowledgment issued by the first respondent. The husband of the petitioner died on 13.11.1998. In the application for pension, the underground suffering was shown as one year from 7.3.1122 to 6.3.1122 in Case No.PE 7/1122. 2. When the petitioner obtained the primary evidence by way of a certificate from the jail authorities, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, that was produced before the authorities concerned and Ext.P4 is the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner. Based on Ext.P3 cert...
P.T.Santhosh Kumar. Vs. N.K.Raju; Njalimakal.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. Appellant allegedly sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on June 26, 2000. According to the appellant, he was knocked down from his two wheeler by a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 5 D/ 9695 owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.8,43,250/- towards compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle. 2. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company admitted policy coverage. However it was contended that appellant was also guilty of contributory negligence. 3. When the case was taken up for consideration, it was noticed by the Tribunal that the appellant had not produced any documents to substantiate his claim for the huge amount of compensation. In fact appellant had produced only Ext.A1 First Information Report and Ext.A1 (a) F.I. Statement. Ext.B1 wound certificate produced by the respondent indicated that the ap...
St.Mathews Convent. Vs. Varkey Mathai.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. A dispute regarding right of way was settled between the parties to the litigation by a compromise decree dated March 25, 1996 in O.S.No.102 of 1992 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha. Later, dispute arose between the parties as to the interpretation of that decree - whether respondent/defendant No.7 was given a right of way from the disputed road to his property situated on its western side. Respondent, alleging that access from the said road to his property on the western side was closed down by petitioners filed E.P.No. 53 of 2003 (in O.S.No.102 of 1992). Petitioners opposed the execution petition on various grounds including that respondent has no right to execute the decree since there is no decree in his favour, the compromise decree does not permit any relief as prayed for in the execution petition and further contending that it was after opening a hole on the existing wall on the western side of the disputed road that the execution petition was preferred. Both sides...
Sadanandan. Vs. Padmanabhan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1.This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alappuzha in O.S.No.247/1993. The suit is one for partition. There are five items of property in the plaint schedule of which item 1 was jointly allotted in a partition deed in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant. All other properties were jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants and thus it is stated that parties are entitled to equal right over the properties. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had also expended money and he had constructed buildings and it is reliably learnt that the first defendant had created false documents as if plaintiff had released right in favour of the defendants and in pursuance of the same, he had created two other documents in favour of the children and defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff had not executed any document in favour of the defendants and therefore the said document is not valid and binding and it is further prayed tha...
Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi, and anr. Vs. the Sub Inspector of Po ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. The writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. WP(C) Nos. 27743 and 27705 of 2010 are filed by Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi of Kandassamkadavu Market and Vadanappally areas. WP(C) No.28117 of 2010 is filed by two individual manufacturers of bakery items and flour in Karamukku village. They have approached this court complaining of obstruction by members of the party respondent union to carry out the loading and unloading works by the members of the petitioner samithi in WP(C) Nos.27705 and 27443 of 2010 and by the petitioners in WP(C) No.28117 of 2010. 2. According to them, there was an agreement between them and union as regards the rates. However, union demanded 27% increase and therefore they decided to do it all by themselves. They are obstructed. 3. A counter affidavit is filed in WP(C) No.27443 of 201. They dispute the case of the petitioner that they are demanding 27% increase in wages. According to them, actual increase represents contribution which parties mus...
Balakrishnan, S/O.Chamu Vs. Sunitha Radhakrishnan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 257 of2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II,Palakkad against the judgment of acquittal of the first respondentherein. The first respondent is the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The husband of the accused owed an amount of Rs.19,000/- to the complainant towards the paddy purchased by him. When the amount was demanded, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.19,000/- dt.21.9.2001 drawn on the Kazhani Service Co- operative Bank, towards discharge of the debt. The said chequewas presented on 25.1.2002, but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The intimation in this regard was received by the complainant on 11.2.2002.The complainant sent a lawyer notice on 14.2.2002 to the accused. But the notice was returned with an endorseme...
M/S.Auto Lease and Hire Purchase. Vs. the State of Kerala; Joy.M.M.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This appeal arises from an order of acquittal. 2. The appellant is the complainant. He filed a complaint against the second respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to complainant, accused owed a sum of Rs.88,000/- to the complainant firm and in discharge of the liability, he issued a cheque dated 11.2.2004 for Rs.88,000/-. The cheque was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds. A notice was issued demanding payment, but the accused wilfully evaded receipt of notice and it was returned unclaimed. Therefore, complaint was filed, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The accused took up a contention that he had given three blank signed cheque leaves, a blank signed stamp paper and R.C. book, towards security, when he availed a loan of "Rs.70,000/-" as hire purchase loan. He had remitted 13 instalments also. The cheque for "Rs.88,000/-" was not executed by him, it is submitted. 4. To prov...
K.M.Madhavan. Vs. Asharaff.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T. No. 6572 of1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, rinjalakuda against the judgment of acquittal of the first respondent herein. The first respondent is the accused in thatcase, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The accused approached the complainant and offered him to supply timber worth Rs.1,50,000/- and received Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant on 30.12.1997 and executed Ext.P1 cheque for that amount. When the complainant sent the cheque for collection through his bank, it was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding back the amount. That notice was returned unserved with an endorsement 'addressee left the place without instruction. So returned to the se...
M.S.Sukumaran. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm which established an industrial unit in the 'Industrial Development Area' at Kanjikode, Palakkad. The unit became defunct since 1999 onwards, but revived functioning during the year 2005. With respect to settlement of arrears of sales tax due from the firm, application was submitted before the 6th respondent, seeking benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, as provided under Section 23B of the KGST Act. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P3 letter assigning the reason that, the amount in arrears, "are in the stage of bought-in-land by the revenue authorities". 2. It is stated that with respect to amounts due for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90, revenue recovery steps were initiated against the petitioner, and the industrial land of the unit was attached and put to public auction. Invoking Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the Government had purchased the land for a sum of Rs.1/-, on 11.11.1999. Subsequently, the sale was c...
Tom Thomas.P. Vs. the State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. As per Exhibit P9 order dated 29.8.1979 issued by the Director of Public Instruction, the petitioner was granted permission for transfer of management with ownership of St. Thomas U.P.School, Parannur under Rule 5A of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules. Respondents 4 and 5 are the children of Joseph George.T., who was the owner of the school and property. According to respondents 4 and 5, the right and title of their father in respect of the property and school remained with him till his death and that after his death, respondents 4 and 5 and others became the owners of the property and the school. According to respondents 4 and 5, Joseph George was the owner and Manager of the school. He appointed Tom Thomas, the petitioner in the Writ Petition, as the Manager of the school to run the school. The manager ship of Tom Thomas was approved by the Department. 2. According to respondents 4 and 5, Tom Thomas manipulated records and even transferred a portion of the property belonging t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »