Kerala Court December 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.
K.V. Rajan, and ors. Vs. Eliyamma, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, Thrissur confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the respondents is that the first respondent, the landlady, requires the petition schedule building, so that she can use a portion of the building for doing embroidery work, cutting and stitching etc. and the other portion can be utilised as a shop room for the sale of Maxi, Churidar, etc. It was averred in the rent control petition itself that the respondents do not have any other building in their possession suitable for satisfying the need projected. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioners who also contended that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The rent control court conducted enquiry and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of the oral evidenc...
K.K.Chandran. Vs. Authorised Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Ext.P1 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in a proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a loan availed from the respondent, steps against the immovable property, which is the secured asset was initiated. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has not availed any of the statutory remedies at any stage prior to initiation of the proceedings under Section 14(1). As such the challenge raised against the proceedings could not be entertained in this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that a sum of about `2,50,000/- is due as on 27.1.2009, along with interest due thereafter, and the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts inspite of different n...
C.M.PhilominA. Vs. Kerala Automobiles Limited.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C) 8672 of 2006 is the appellant herein. By judgment dated 19th September, 2008, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence the appeal. 2. The appellant is the employee of the sole respondent, which is a Government owned company. The Writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs , directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Ext.P4, quash the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondent to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 09.01.1995 or in the alternative from 14.08.1997 and further promotion to the post of Junior Executive with effect from December, 2004. iii) Direct the respondent to grant the due promotion, implement and recognise the legitimate claim of the petitioner for getting the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and Junior Executive wit...
M/S.Toc-h Royal Builders, and ors. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Issues raised in these two writ petitions are similar and therefore these cases are disposed of by this common judgment. Facts referred to are as pleaded in WP(C) No. 36548/10. 2. The first petitioner is a builder and the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are owners of plots of land. It is stated that they have entered into a joint venture agreement and that petitioners 2,3 and 4 gave power of attorney to the first petitioner, based on which, the first petitioner has constructed a multistoried apartment in the land belonging to the petitioners 2,3 and 4. According to the petitioners, once construction is completed, the parties will share the total built up area and undivided share in the land, in the ratio mutually agreed to among them. 3. It is stated that the 5th petitioner is the owner of a neighboring property. The 5th petitioner agreed to purchase an apartment together with the undivided share in the land where the apartment complex is situated, in exchange of her land. 4. Accordingly, Ex...
Viju. Vs. the State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime 757/2010 of Alappuzha North Police Station registered for the offence under Rule 13 of Passport Rules 1980 read with section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act. The petitioner filed CMP 4429/2010 before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha for releasing the passport contending that he got employment in Dubai and unless the passport is released, he cannot go and work there. As the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not pass orders petitioner filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to dispose the petition expeditiously and also for a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the passport and the travel documents to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that subsequently recording the reason that this petition is pending, learned Magistrate dismissed CMP 4429/2010. Learned counsel submitted that unless th...
Sureshkumar. Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-02/P 387. Motor vehicle tax with respect to the above said vehicle is in arrears, and according to the petitioner there exist dues to the tune of Rs.1,47,312/-. The petitioner had approached the second respondent seeking to permit payment of the arrears in monthly instalments. It is stated that the second respondent, through Ext.P2, had permitted the petitioner to make payment of 30% of the amount due on or before 03.12.2010 and the balance in 15 monthly instalments. According to the petitioner the amount as stipulated in Ext.P2 could not be paid. 2. It is further stated that eventhough the petitioner had approached the second respondent seeking extension of time, such request was not considered. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking appropriate directions to the second respondent to extent the time granted. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner was already been permitted to pay the arrears i...
State of KeralA. Vs. James K.Joseph.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This appeal by the State is in relation to the question of eligibility of the State to recover the arrears of kist under the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974. The contractors had laid the suit for damages and also for declaration and injunction. 2. The trial court, relying on the decision of this court in Issac v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (1984 KLT 88), decreed the suit partly inasmuch as it granted a declaration that the contractors did not have any liability. As a consequence, perpetual injunction against revenue recovery proceedings was also granted. The contractors carried an appeal to this court. Pending that appeal, the State filed cross objections challenging the decree, insofar as it is against them. However, there was a delay of 1491 days in filing the cross objections. So, the State filed CMP No.14636/88 in the first appeal, seeking condonation of delay. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit accompanying that petition, it was stated as follows: "4). The...
K.Mohanan Pillai. Vs. George, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec.401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the accused in S.T.No.2438/2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Alathur, 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 `3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `3,55,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty 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 Ac...
C.Venugopalan, and anr. Vs. C.K.Sarojini, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime 438/2010 of Pattambi Police Station registered for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code under Annexure A1 F.I.R. The F.I.R was registered based on the complaint filed by the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pattambi and sent for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioners who are accused 2 and 3 contending that even if the allegations against them in Annexure A1 complaint is accepted, no offence as against them is attracted and therefore continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. First respondent instituted O.S.176/2008 and O.S.177/2008 before Munsiff's Court, Pattambi. Advocate Bhaskaran Nair was appe...
Vasu. Vs. Velayudhan.K.K, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
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. 259 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad 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 `10,00,000/-. 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 Act, and that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. B...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »