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.
Suresh James. Vs. the Kerala Financial Corporation.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Grievance voiced in this writ petition is that, the 3rd respondent is not issuing clearance certificate for closing of the loan account and for releasing of the title deeds with respect to the mortgaged properties, which were deposited by the petitioner with respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a Company, which availed loan from respondents 1 and 2, on the basis of mortgage created on immovable properties belonging to the petitioner, his family members, and the company itself. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan, recovery steps were initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. On the basis of settlement arrived with respondents 1 and 2, as evident from Ext.P5, the entire amounts due was settled payment and the respondents 1 and 2 had withdrawn the revenue recovery requisition, as evidenced from Ext.P6 letter. The 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P8 certificate to the effect that the company had closed the loan acc...
Ummer. Vs. Uneer Kalathugal.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He sought compensation from the respondents on the allegation that he sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident when he was knocked down by a two wheeler that was being driven by respondent No.1. 2. The case of the appellant was that he was walking along Areecode -Mukkam road at about 10 O' clock in the morning on October 13, 2006 when the offending vehicle which came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. The said vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to KMH Hospital at Manjeri from where he was referred to G.Kuppuswamy Naidu Memorial Hospital in Coimbatore. Appellant alleged that he sustained several injuries including fracture of lateral tibial condyle ( left). He claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation.3. The Tribunal, after considering the documentary evidence adduced by t...
K.M.Mariam, Nedumthakadi House. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The petitioner was the Principal of INE School of Medical Education, Kottayam, who retired from service on 31.3.2009. She challenges Exts.P9 and P12 orders by which she was informed that she will not be entitled for grant of pension. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following: The petitioner was initially working in Government service as Nursing Tutor when she joined as such on 20.12.1984. On 30.9.1989 she was promoted as Lecturer and later on 6.1.1994 she was further promoted as Assistant Professor. In November, 1995 she was promoted as Associate Professor under the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Kerala. 3. The first respondent Mahatma Gandhi University is having a School of Medical Education which is directly being run by it. According to the petitioner, the University repeatedly requested her to join the said School of Medical Education and the University had even promised her that she will be permitted to get her previous services tran...
Kesavan. Vs. Ayyappan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges court, Palakkad in O.S.No.993/1995. Originally, the suit was one for a permanent injunction and ultimately it has now become a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title with a prayer for damages. So the ultimate result of the suit will depend upon the success of the plaintiff in proving his title to the property on the date of the institution of the suit. The brief facts would reveal that the property was obtained by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff namely Arumughan and Velan by virtue of a document in Ext.A1 of the year 1908. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition between the two brothers and the plaint schedule was set apart to the share of Arumughan and by virtue of succession and inheritance it has ultimately come into the hands of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is having right over the property. The defendant who is a neighbour ...
Kesavan, Son of Late Andu. Vs. Ayyappan,s/O. theethi.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges court, Palakkad in O.S.No.993/1995. Originally, the suit was one for a permanent injunction and ultimately it has now become a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title with a prayer for damages. So the ultimate result of the suit will depend upon the success of the plaintiff in proving his title to the property on the date of the institution of the suit. The brief facts would reveal that the property was obtained by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff namely Arumughan and Velan by virtue of a document in Ext.A1 of the year 1908. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition between the two brothers and the plaint schedule was set apart to the share of Arumughan and by virtue of succession and inheritance it has ultimately come into the hands of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is having right over the property. The defendant who is a neighbour ...
K.Rukiya, W/O Late P.Hameed. Vs. K.M.Eramu, S/O Abdulrahiman.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The landlady is the revision petitioner. She filed the rent control petition invoking the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3). The ground of arrears of rent does not any longer survive as the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under that ground stands already set aside under section 11(2)(c). The need projected by the landlady under sub-section (3) of Section 11 was to start a tailoring-cum-garment business in the petition schedule building. According to the landlady she has knowledge and experience in tailoring. All her children are married and are living separately. The landlady has no other source of income of her own. Hence her need. It was averred that she has no other building of her own in her possession for accomplishing this need. It was also averred that she has the requisite funds for starting the business. The respondent tenant filed counter contending that the landlady's...
Basheer, S/O. Moideen. V. Muhammed Vs.K.V. Ramesh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P.No. 52 of 2003Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010O R D E R1. This revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 1069 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court -I, Muvattupuzha. That was a case filed by the complainant against the respondent herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs.96,700/- In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and out of that fine amount Rs.3,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. This revision petition is filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. The revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence on re...
Narendranath. Vs. Neethu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This O.P(F.C) is filed by the petitioner/husband against Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders passed by the Family Court. 2. Two petitions are being jointly tried by the court below. The first one filed by the wife is for return of ornaments, money etc. The other is filed by the wife claiming maintenance. There are no issues in the wedlock. The matter has reached the stage of trial. Evidence was adduced by the parties. A Commissioner was appointed to record evidence. After the Commissioner submitted the report, a request was made that summons may be issued to the witnesses shown in the additional witness list. It was prayed that the evidence may be re-opened. It was further contended that the wife may be sent to the Medical Board for examination of her mental capacity. The original petitions were filed as early as in 2008. An earlier application for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of mental unsoundness of the wife was admittedly dismissed for non prosecution. The court below, ...
P.K.Mony. Vs. Biju Mathew.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 569 of 1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Muvattupuzha challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.40,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In the appeal the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. If the fine amount is realised a sum of Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant 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. Lea...
K.K.Abubacker Vs. V.M.Saidumuhammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 394 of 1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Aluva challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.2,50,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. In the appeal the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation as awarded by the court below.2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant 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. The courts below have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »