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.
Aju Vijayamohanan Pillai. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. This judgment must be read in continuation of the various orders passed by this Court in the matter resting with the last order passed by us on 1/11/10. 2. The petitioner is the son of the alleged detenue - one `Jayakumari', aged about 52 years at the time of her alleged disappearance on 12/12/06. Complaint was lodged; but the alleged detenue was not traced. The crime was registered under the caption `person missing'; but the investigation did not succeed in tracing of the missing woman. Jayakumari, the said missing person, could not be traced by the police and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court on 29/5/07 with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the police to produce her before this Court. This petition was admitted. Directions were issued from time to time. Specific directions were issued to the highest police officials in the State to monitor the investigation. The Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandr...
The New IndiA. Vs. M.K.Mohammadkunhi.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The defendant in O.S. 110 of 1991, who suffered a money decree at the hands of the Sub Court, Kasaragode is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was the owner of a motor vehicle, which met with an accident on 11.8.989 and it was covered by an insurance policy. On information to the defendant, they conducted a survey and thereafter repairs and maintenance were undertaken for the vehicle. According to the plaintiff, he spent a sum of Rs.1,33,289.77 for making the vehicle roadworthy. The claim preferred by the plaintiff was repudiated. According to the defendant, some of the bills submitted by the plaintiff were found to be suspicious in nature and therefore they refused to honour the policy. Even though notice was sent to the defendant, there was no response. Hence the suit was laid for a sum of Rs.1,55,953.25. 3. In the defence set up by the defendant Insurance Company...
Prameela George. Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Common issues based on common facts posed for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore, they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the documents produced and marked in W.P.(C)No.25745 of 2010 are being referred to hereinafter in this judgment in the manner they are set out therein unless otherwise specifically mentioned. The facts, in succinct, necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are as follows:- 2. In W.P. (C) No.25745 of 2010 respondents 3 and 4 submitted applications before the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottayam Central for shifting of an age-old existing 11 KV electric line from their respective properties. Its genuineness and feasibility were enquired into and later, it was proposed to shift the same through the nearby pathway. One Sri.N.M.Michael and one Smt.Prameela George had raised objections against the said proposal. Thereupon, to avert the resistance and obstructions a petition...
Dileep, and ors. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 389/2009 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 451 and 394 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a compromise petition with the petitioners stating that he has settled entire disputes amicably. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Argument of the learned counsel is that when entire disputes with the second respondent are settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as held by the Apex Court in M...
Treesamma Raju. Vs. the Reserve Bank of India, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Petitioner is a house wife who had availed a loan from the 3rd respondent Bank for starting a cattle farm, under the Central Government sponsors scheme of Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojna (PMRY). It is stated that due to adverse climatic conditions the cattle were affected with diseases and consequently the business failed putting the petitioner to heavy loss. Exts.P1 to P3 certificates produced by Veterinary Surgeon, Gramapanchayat, and Village Officer were produced in order to prove the above said facts. 2. According to the petitioner the loan in question was liable to be waived in full as per provisions of the 'Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008,' formulated by the Central Government. But complaint of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent Bank had permitted only waiver of 25%, as evidenced from Ext.P4 communication. The above said scheme is produced as Ext.R3(d) along with a statement filed by the 3rd respondent Bank. It is the specific contention of the petiti...
K.P. Rajeev Parameswaran Namboothiri. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, the workers of the temple, worshipers and property of the temple. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take all necessary steps so as to ensure that complaints submitted by the petitioner before the authorities is not flouted by respondents 5 to 9 or their men or agents. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. Petitioner is the main Poojari of the very ancient 'Pallippuram Sreekrishna Temple', Vellangalloor. The complaint is that the petitioner, workers of the temple and believers, who come to the temple for worshipping, are facing threat to their life and there is threat to the temple property also from respondents 5 to 9. There is ...
K.P.Rajan. Vs. the Canara Bank,kollengode Branch, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a working capital loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, for his business purposes of rice mill, the Bank took steps to proceed against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13 (4). 2. According to the petitioner he is a septuagenarian suffering from the disease of cancer and undergoing treatment. It is stated that he is willing to discharge the debt in easy instalments. But compliant of the petitioner is that, without considering such requests made the respondents are proceeding with hasty steps for dispossessing the petitioner from property and for sale of the same...
JagathambikA. Vs. Chandran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The following substantial questions of law are formulated in the appeal. a) What is the legal effect of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand? b) Whether the person can bequeath or settle the rights regarding the property against the statutory principles of law? c) What is the effect of a decree if it does not say anything regarding a prayer made in the plaint, while decreeing the suit? d) Whether a person can seek a relief against that portion of a decree which is against him without filing a cross appeal? 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.467 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.64 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode. The appellant as plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming one half share in the plaint schedule property. The trial court passed a preliminary decree in terms of the pl...
Mr.A.Freddy. Vs. Authorized Officer, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank during the year 1989 for the purpose of his business activities, by mortgaging various items of immovable properties. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondents have initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Section 13(1) and Ext.P4 is the notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules 2002 intimating the steps taken under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioner the loan availed was only for an amount of Rs.3,42,187/- and the arrears now claimed is a huge amount of Rs.42,01,717/-, as on 31.7.2010. It is stated that the petitioner had already approached the respondent Bank through Ext.P2 representation seeking for one time settlement by offering payment of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is the grievance of the petitione...
The Regional Director. Vs. Bharat Hotel.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. These two appeals are preferred by the Regional Director of the E.S.I.Corporation against the order in I.C.Nos.32 & 57/2002 of the E.I.Court, Alappuzha. Both the cases were disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The point involved in I.C.No.32/2002 is that the applicant/establishment therein is a partnership firm running a vegetarian hotel in Ernakulam city. It is also conducting a training course relating to hotel services. It is contended that in the training school, trainees are taught by qualified persons and at the end of the training period, they are given certificates and if any vacancy arises in the hotel, they are absorbed and paid stipend. Similarly, performance allowance is also given to the other employees. It is contended that the trainees' stipend cannot be tacked on for the purpose of contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act. So also performance allowance shall not be tacked on with the wages for the said purpose. 3. In I.C.No.57/2002 also the similar quest...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »