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.
Pareeth.K.A. Vs. Unniraja, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Petitioner filed Annexure I complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha alleging torture while in police custody. Learned Magistrate by Annexure II order dismissed the petition holding that as no sanction under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is produced, he is not inclined to proceed with the complaint. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure II order. 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha who is investigating the crime 704/2010 of Muvattupuzha police station in which petitioner was arrested filed a statement showing the basis of his arrest and denying the allegations. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Additional Director General of Prosecution were heard. 4. When a complaint is filed as provided under Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that Magistrate shall examine the complainant upon oath and the witnesses present, if any...
Rajeev R. Vs. the State Bank of Travancore, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repaying a vehicle loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. 2. Considering the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, it is evident that, the petitioner has got a remedy to file objections against Ext.P1 notice. There is a further remedy provided to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in case a coercive step under Section 13(4) is initiated. Considering the effective and alternative remedy available, it is not just and proper for this Court to interfere with the proceedings. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proc...
M.D.Baby. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Petitioner is a person of Indian origin, who has subsequently acquired citizenship of the United States of America. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Visa he has obtained, since 2002 he has been residing in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala State. Petitioner was issued an arms licence, which was also renewed subsequently. 2. However, in 2009, when the petitioner made an application for renewal of his arms licence, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order passed by the third respondent, stating mainly that the Arms Act and Rules do not have any provision for issuing licence to foreign citizens. It is also stated that a citizen of a foreign country can be permitted to import arms for the purpose of sports only. On that basis, the application for renewal was declined and the petitioner was ordered to surrender his gun. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was also rejected by Ext.P6 order. In Ext.P6 order, it is state...
Chevu Pillai.K.A, and anr. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to shift the Transformer, stay wires and supporting platform with 11 KV electric lines from the property of the first petitioner lying in Survey No.388/19 of Arakkappady Village to the property of the second petitioner lying in Survey No.389/10-2-1 of Arakkappady Village which is situated on the northern side of the property of the first petitioner. It is stated by the first petitioner that he has already submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations carrying such a request before respondents 2 and 3. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the alleged delay in the matter of disposal of the said representations. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 in this writ petition. Along with the statement respondents 1 and 3 have produced a location sketch showing the location of the Transformer in question and also the order of the second respon...
Shahul Hameed.T.A. Vs. Manager, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings was initiated against the immovable property which is the secured asset. On invoking provisions contained under Section 14(1), the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha and that Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the immovable property. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in this regard. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a chronic heart patient, who suffered a major attack in the year 2004 and is undergoing prolonged treatment. It is further stated that, recently the disease became more worse and he was advised to undergo Angioplasty or open heart surgery. Exts.P1 to P3 docume...
The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Leela a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.106/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,lakh towards the assured sum and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The case of the complainant who is the wife of the deceased is that her husband died during the policy coverage period with the opposite parties. It is her case that the claim was repudiated on untenable grounds. The opposite parties have contended that the assured had suppressed material facts as to the pre-existing diseases in the proposal form. It is alleged that the assured was having uncontrolled diabetes for over 6 years and hyper tension for over 7 years. He was a Homoeo doctor and was treating himself. It is pointed out that the death summary issued by the Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre mentions that the deceased was a diabetic for 6 years and hyper tensive for 7 years and he wa...
Secretary, Kseb, Thiruvananthapuram and Others Vs. Sajeev Kamath, S/O ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.50/09. The penal bill issued for a sum of Rs.32,608/- stands quashed. Allthe same the appellants have been permitted to issue fresh bill under tariff VII-A from 30/8/2008 after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that the business owned by him was charged under tariff VII-B. Subsequently he intimated the enhancement of the connected load after re-wiring the building. It is his case that the opposite party did not demand to deposit any additional CD. Later a penal bill of Rs.32,608/- was issued on 20/2/2009. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that on 29/8/2008 on the application of the complainant connected load was verified and it was directed to remit Rs.14,000/- was additional CD as he did not remit the amount in time and remitted the additional CD on 3/3/2009. Hence for the above period from 28/8/2009 the penal bill ha...
Haridasan. Vs. Suresh, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 132 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad against the order of acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. dt.6.4.2002. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- On 6.4.2002, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. due to the absence of the complainant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant was present before the court below on most of the previous posting dates and that the complainant could not be preset before the court below on 6.4.2002 only because he was suffering from high fever and he was advised to take bed rest by his doctor. The learned counsel further ...
B.Mohandas Pai. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioner was an employee under the Cochin Co- operative Society Ltd. No.100. Earlier he was issued with a show cause notice alleging unauthorised absence. He has submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry conducted against him culminated in his dismissal from service. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed a petition before the second respondent for conciliation. The second respondent conducted a conciliation conference but failed to bring about settlement. Thereupon, the second respondent has forwarded a failure report to the Government and, in turn, Government as per Ext.P2, referred the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ernakulam by invoking the power under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer:- "Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first respondent to rectify the mistake in Exhibit P-2 G...