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.
Ansar. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.950 of 2010 of Quilandy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 342 & 332 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17/12/20...
Thangal Kunju Musaliar College. Vs. University of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The main prayers sought in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P23 and P24 and to direct the respondent university to issue order extending the affiliation to M.Tech (Mechanical) Computer Integraded Manufacturing and M.Tech (Electrical and Electronics) Industrial Instrumentation and Control, for the academic year 2010-2012, for which Ext.P18 application was submitted by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is an aided college, affiliated to the respondent University, with B.Tech and M.Tech courses, with the approval of the AICTE. It is stated that in 2006-07, AICTE granted approval to start two unaided M.Tech Degree courses in the aforesaid disciplines, with an intake of 18 students for each of the courses. 3. However, by Ext.P2 order, affiliation sought was declined by the University, relying on a resolution of the Senate, passed in its meeting held on 30.11.2002, on the ground that, grant of unaided courses in aided colleges will create crisis in the field of higher education. According...
Noushad.K. Vs. District Collector, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by confiscation of vehicle, of which he is the registered owner, under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 2. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the District Collector. Mainly it is contended that the seizure was illegal. The vehicle was not carrying any sand at the relevant time. It is further pointed out that the copy of the seizure mahazar and the copy of FIR have not been served to the driver of the vehicle or to the petitioner and no independent witnesses have signed the mahazar also. It is also his case that he has taken photographs and video and there are witnesses to prove his case. Earlier, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.11696/2010 and this Court by Ext.P3 Judgment dated 05/04/2010 directed the District Collector to pass final orders and, accordingly, Ext.P4 order has been passed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in Moosakoya v. State o...
Nandanan.P.K. Vs. the Secretary, Kolazhy Grama Panchayath, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioner owns a parcel of land, 8.945 cents in extent, situated in R.Sy.No.51/2 of Kolazhy Village in Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District, which he purchased as per sale deed dated 15.9.2004 registered as Document No.6180/2001 of Sub Registry, Thrissur. The petitioner is running a cement based industry for manufacturing Ferro Cement products in another parcel of land. With a view to start a similar business in the land described above, he submitted an application to the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat for a building permit. Ext.P4 building permit was thereupon issued on 8.12.2009. The petitioner commenced construction of the building thereafter. While so, the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P6 provisional order under section 235 W (1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act whereby the petitioner was directed to stop the construction and to show cause why the construction already effected should not be demolished. He was also asked to sho...
Joy.V.Joseph. Vs.Commercial Tax Officer, Kothamangalam.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Ext.P3 order of assessment completed with respect to the year 2008-2009, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Normally an order of assessment issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could not be interfered with in a proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the effective alternate remedy of appeal provided under the statute. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the assessment was finalised in total violation of the mandatory procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions and also in total violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that before finalisation of the assessment the proposal notice was issued to the petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P2. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner had approached the respondent seeking to file objections. But the respondent was busy in connection with other duties, since he was the Returning Officer for the elections con...
Saheer. Vs. Asmabi.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. This petition is to condone the delay of 540 days in filing a Matrimonial appeal. The matrimonial appeal in turn is directed against the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order. The ex parte order directs partition of an item of property which stands in the joint name of the appellant/husband and respondent/wife. The delay is huge and enormous - 540 days. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant. We are satisfied that there is no sufficient reason urged by the petitioner/appellant to justify/support the prayer for condonation of the enormous delay of 540 days. The appellant/petitioner who admittedly had knowledge of the pendency of the O.P., the ex parte order therein and the pendency of the petition for condonation of delay has not shown any reason to justify his inaction for a long period of 500 days. We are thus not at all satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. 3. In our anxiety to ...
Smt.ZorA. Vs. the Kerala Financial Corporation, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of 13 cents of property comprised in R.Sy. No.498/F and 498/4D in Vorkady Panchayath. It is stated that, after purchase of the property the petitioner had constructed a residential building therein and she is residing with her family in the said building. Subsequently it is brought to the notice of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent had availed two vehicle loans from the 1st respondent Corporation and for securing the said loan the property in question was mortgaged with the 1st respondent Corporation. It is further learnt that the 3rd respondent only sold the property to one Sri.B.K. Hassan Kunhi, from whom the petitioner had purchased the property in question. Consequent to default committed in repayment of loans availed by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent had initiated coercive steps of recovery by invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. Even though the petitioner had approached respond...
Muhammed Ali. Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Petitioner is the accused and third respondent, the defacto complainant in Crime No.209/2005 of Vellamunda Police Station, registered under Annexure-A FIR for the offences under Sections 376 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that ingredients of the offences are not attracted and as sexual intercourse was with the consent of the victim, no offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is attracted and though the incident was on 8.3.2005, complaint was filed only on 17.10.2005. Annexure-B affidavit, sworn to by the defacto complainant, was also filed contending that it shows that she has no complaint against the petitioner and in such circumstances, she is not expected to give evidence implicating the petitioner and in such circumstances, to secure justice, the case is to be quashed. 2. Third respondent was subsequently impleaded and learned counsel appearing for the third respon...
Vayaliakath Abdul Nazer. Vs. Kanhirangatt Seethi, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The tenant is the revision petitioner in RCR No.374/2010 and the alleged sub tenant is the revision petitioner in RCR No.389/2010. Under challenge in both these revisions is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court on the ground under section 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. The impugned judgment is passed by the rent control appellate authority pursuant to an order of remand passed by this court in RCR No.347/2007. Under that order, this court had concluded that the tenant, the first respondent in the RCP, is employed abroad since 11 years and that it is the alleged sub tenant who is in actual physical possession of the building and is actually carrying on business. The order of remand was passed for the purpose of enabling the revision petitioners to adduce evidence and prove their contention that their jural relationship is that of employer and employee and not that of tenant and sub tenant or tenant or unaut...
The Employee State Insurance. Vs. M/S. Jos Brothers.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the E.I.Court, Idukki in I.C.No.12/2001. The establishment moved an application for setting aside the order of the Corporation which was allowed by the court below and held that the establishment is not liable to be covered under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act. 2. Now the crux of the matter depends upon the clubbing of 5 units viz M/s. Jos Brothers, M/s. Cut Piece Centre, M/s. Jos Fabrics, M/s.Jos Garments and M/s.Jos Saree Mandir. The case of the establishment is that they are all independent units having separate existence and entity and therefore the question of clubbing does not arise. The result of the clubbing or non clubbing would directly affect the interest of the workers employed therein. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.v. E.S.I Corporation (2009 (3) KLT 946 SC) held that "in all cases under labour statutes, the workmen or at least some of them in a represe...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »