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.
Bhaskaran S/O. Sankaran Vs. Preman Parameswaran, S/O. Pappu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the counter petitioner in S.T. No.781 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I,Thrissur challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him forthe offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.20,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-. In the appeal the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learnedcounsel 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 concur...
P.Reghuvaran, S/O.Ponnu. vs. C.Padmakshy, W/O.P.Raghuvaran; Pankajaksh ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The appellant/husband has come to this Court with this appeal to assail the order passed by the Family Court appointing his wife, the 1st respondent herein, as the guardian of a child born to the 2nd respondent. 2. Marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent stands admitted by all concerned. Admittedly the spouses are residing separately. The appellant herein had filed an application for divorce and the same stands dismissed. Of course, an appeal is pending. Suffice it to say that it is admitted at all hands that the spouses are leading a separate life though the marital tie has not been dissolved. 3. In this context, the wife/1st respondent wanted her to be appointed as the guardian of the minor female child by name, Ariya Devi, who is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. That minor was born on 15.11.1991 and it is not disputed that the minor has now attained majority. 4. The 1st respondent claimed before the Family Court that she had adopted the minor child. She wanted he...
Syam Mohan. Vs. the Principal, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The petitioner was a 12th std. student in the Sree Narayana Central School, Kayamkulam. 2. By Ext.P1 order of the Principal, on the allegation that the petitioner was caught by the police while involving in a fight with others near KPAC Junction and was brought to the school by the Sub Inspector of police, who reported the incident to the Principal, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, he was issued Ext.P2 memo of charges and statements of allegations. In the statements of allegations there are four allegations which read as follows: - 1. Sri.Syam Mohan right from the beginning of the academic year 2010-2011 is showing indifference attitude in complaining the directions of the teachers and head of the institution Principal warned him for not repeating the regularity. 2. You remain abstain from the school on 19th and 20th August with out giving any information either by you or by the parent. 3. It is reported by the Sub Inspector of Police that you were involved ...
Ayshomma, W/O.Ayamu, and ors. Vs. Edapparambath Nabeesu, W/O.Usmanhaji ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, Thalassery ordering eviction against the revision petitioners under sub section (3) of Section 11 reversing the order of the rent control court dismissing the rent control petition. 2. The rent control petition was instituted by the respondents 1 to 5, who were joint owners and landlords of the petition schedule building, under sub section (3) of section 11. The need that was projected in the rent control petition was that the 3rd respondent herein, one Yousuf, has no residential house of his own and hence the petition schedule building, which is an independent residential building, is needed for the occupation by Yousuf. Disputing the bona fides of the need, it was contended inter alia by the tenants that the 3rd petitioner Yousuf has got his own house and that the first petitioner Nabeesu is having several houses of her own in her possession. The evidence before the rent cont...
Sasankan, S/O. Balakrishnan, Puliyathu. Vs. State of Krala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Petitioner, the father of deceased Aneesh Kumar, who was found dead in the early morning of 10/3/2002 at the work place in a suspicious manner, filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing investigation of crime No.47/2010 of Valiyamala Police Station, registered under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by a Special Investigation Team, excluding respondents 3 and 4 and to complete the investigation within a time frame. 2. Deceased Aneesh Kumar was working as Work Supervisor in Sree Dhanya Constructions. At the time of his death, he was engaged in the work site at Chullimanoor near Nedumangadu. Petitioner would contend that police is now making watchman Murugan, the sole accused suppressing the true facts. It is contended that though prosecution alleges that Aneesh Kumar had consumed liquor on the previous night, he is not in the habit of drinking and postmortem certificate shows that he had not consumed liquor. Accused Murug...
M; Santhosh; Aswathi, Muttappalam, and ors.. Vs. Ratnakaran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The respondent is a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. His said empowerment is in terms of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Co-operative Society which was the first respondent, in WP(C) 33868 of 2008 made certain appointments in its service. Those appointments were found to be illegal. The competent authority directed the committee of the society to remove those persons from service and also to recover amounts paid to them. That decision was challenged before this court by the appointed persons. They were relegated to the competent authority. The Government considered the appeal of the society and rejected the application for stay of enforcement of the decision impugned in that appeal. Nevertheless, the appointees continued to officiate. Petitioners, who are the members of that society, moved this court. It was noted that the government having rejected the stay petition, there was no reason for the continued disobedience of the directions contained ...
R.Dharmaperumal. Vs. R.Kanakavel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kochi in O.S.48/94. The suit is one for partition. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property originally belonged to his father Ramaswamy by virtue of a partition in his family and thereafter on the death of Ramaswamy it had devolved equally upon the children and wife and one of the sons, namely Somasundaram, died in 1993 and the mother died in 1970. So the remaining heirs are the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Therefore the plaintiff is seeking partition of the property into 5 equal shares and to allot one out of five shares to him. 2. The first defendant is the contesting defendant. He would contend that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 had lost their right by ouster. According to him he had made improvements in the property even in 1963 and after 1972 he had been holding the property exclusively and the building tax etc. are paid by them and that the plaintiff is residing at Agal...
Vinod Vijayachandran Nair; Nandanam. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land, 8.09 ares in extent, situated in Re-survey No.8/2-5 of Pandalam Village in Pathanamthitta District. The said land lies close to the Pandalam Valiyakoikkal Temple. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Government on 5.9.2009 according sanction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to acquire his land and the other lands situated in the locality and Ext.P15 notification dated 9.6.2010 issued by the third respondent under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that in view of the stand taken by the Government themselves in Ext.P14 letter sent in reply to his representation, wherein the Government have unequivocally declared that the petitioner's land cannot be exempted from the acquisition, no purpose will be served by holding an enquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit just...
Madya Videshamadya Vyavasaya Thozhilali, and ors. Vs. State of Kerala, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred by a Trade Union and some workers who are stated as engaged on 'daily wages' under the 2nd respondent, being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference in the matter. 2. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers: "i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit.P10 and quash the same;ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction declaring that the abkari workers on daily wages are entitled to get the same scale of pay as in the case of the other abkari workers working in the 2nd respondent corporation; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, direction directing the respondents to sanction and pay the similar scale of pay to abkari workers on daily wages as in the case of the other abkari workers working in the 2nd respondent Corporation forthwith." 3. The learned Single Judge observed that, the petitioner workers, who were admitted...
Kerala State Electricity Board. Vs. Meenakshi, Puthen Nikarthil House, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Petitioner is challenging order dated November 24, 2007 passed by Learned Additional District Judge in O.P (Ele.) No.123 of 2004 awarding enhanced compensation on a petition filed by the respondents under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claiming additional compensation for value of improvements cut and removed and compensation for diminution in land value. 2. It is not disputed that certain valuable improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondents for drawal of 110 KV line. Petitioner awarded `.6,123/- as compensation. Respondents claimed additional compensation. Petition was opposed by petitioner contending that no additional compensation is payable for value of improvements and the claim for compensation for diminution in land value cannot be allowed. In the court below respondents proved Exts.A1 to A3. Petitioner did not produce any evidence. Neither side produced oral evidence also. Based on Exts...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »