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.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. V.S.Bijumon, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)3427/03. The insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the refusal to reduce the amount which the claimant has obtained under the medi-claim policy. The cross objection is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. It is seen that the 2nd respondent in the claim petition is dead. But since I am going to deal with the substantial question of law and as none of his legal representatives has chosen to come on record or challenge the award, his name is deleted from the party array. It is so done because the insurance coverage is admitted. 2. The short question that falls for determination when the amount under the Medical Insurance policy is received whether the claimant is again entitled to claim that amount from the tortfeasor. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend it amounts to double payment and there will be unjust enrichment and the...
Mohanan P.P. Vs. themanager, Sriram Transport Finance, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the threat of the first respondent and their hired Goondas, agents and servants from re-possessing the vehicle of the petitioner by using illegal methods and by using force. B. Direct the second respondent to take proper and adequate preventive action against first respondent and their agents, servants, and hired Goondas from causing any untoward incident against the petitioner, his family and his vehicle. 2. Also there is a direction sought to dispose of Ext.P2 representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing. 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 4. The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent for purchasing a vehicle. According to the peti...
Jessaian. Vs. R.Viswan, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Petitioner, the complainant in C.C.1071/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-VI, Neyyattinkara filed C.M.P.2695/2009, which was dismissed by Annexure-C order. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-C order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner was aware of the mistake in the Branch where first respondent has maintained an account and drawn the dishonoured cheque and it was brought to the notice of the petitioner only when Manager of the Bank was examined as PW2 and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application to amend the complaint. Reliance was placed in the decision of this Court in Madhavi v. Thupran (1987 (1) KLT 488) and the unreported decision in Crl.M.C.4461/2005. 4. Prayer in Annexure-B copy of C.M.P.2695/2009 is to grant permission to amend the complaint, affidavit filed along with the complaint as w...
O.P.Mohammed Kasim, and ors. Vs. Abdul Shuckoor, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. A 22 year old young lady met with a tragic and gruesome accident while she was travelling on a two wheeler as a pillion rider along with her husband. It is on record that the young lady fell down from the two wheeler and sustained fatal injuries on her head. The parents and husband of the deceased young lady preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards compensation from the owner and insurer of the two wheeler. 2. The husband of the young lady was examined before the Tribunal as PW1. Exts.A1 to A8 were also marked on the side of the claimants. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation under Section 166 of the Act. However, the Tribunal passed an award under Section 140 of the Act and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on the principle of no fault liabil...
Ali. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent not to harass the petitioner and his 8 year old son. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner has married the 2nd respondent and two children are born in the wedlock. There is a crime registered against the petitioner. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and Ext.P1 is the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. After a month of taking bail from this Court, the 2nd respondent filed a false complaint stating that the petitioner is manhandling her. On the basis of that complaint, the petitioner was arrested by the 1st respondent and he was brutally manhandled. The petitioner was released on the next day at 7 p.m. At the time of release, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to handover the daughter to the wife and to...
P.V.Mohammed Hajee. Vs. Mundoli Muhammed Hajee.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The second respondent in R.C.P.19 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode -II is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent (late) preferred the above petition before the Rent Control Court seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(2) (b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 65 against the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent alleging that the petition schedule building was let out to the second respondent on 20.6.1965 as per Ext.A1 rent deed on a monthly rent of Rs. 37.50 and that it was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 250 and that the rent of the petition schedule building was kept in arrears from April, 1996 onwards and that despite the notice demanding discharge of arrears of rent, no rent arrears was cleared and that the second respondent, without the knowledge of the first respondent, sub-let the petition schedule building to the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner and the second respondent had removed the wall separating the two r...
P.K.Sadanandan, and anr. Vs. M.E.Kesavan Namboothiri, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. This revision petition is filed by accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 107 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Kottayam. The first respondent herein was the complainant in that case, which was filed against accused 1 and 2 alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.7,526/- 2. The case of the first respondent/complainant is briefly as follows. The first petitioner is the Secretary of a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act engaged in the business of Marketing and Processing of Agricultural items. The second petitioner is the Treasurer of the society. Towards cost of paddy purchased by the Society, petitioners issued a cheque dated 26.4.1997 for Rs.7,526/- drawn on the District Co-operative Bank, Kottayam in favour of the first respondent. The cheque was presented for collection by the first respondent, but the same was dishonoured for want of funds. The statutory notice was...
P.K.Jose. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
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.1898 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Vaikom 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 `2,00,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 2,00,000/-. 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...
N.K.Moideen. Vs. K.Khalid, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. This revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 49 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.50,000/- In the trial court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,500/- and in default to undergo S.I. for six months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.50,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the sentence was modified and the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for one month and if the fine amount is realised, it will be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 3. The revision petitioner is not c...
Manager, St.Dominic'S College, and Anr. vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The first petitioner is the Manager of St.Dominc's College, Kanjirappally, which is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, the first respondent. According to the first petitioner, the institution has minority status. The management appointed the second petitioner as the Principal of the college, as per Exhibit P1 order of appointment. Exhibit P1 was communicated to the University for approval. The second petitioner was appointed as Drawing & Disbursement Officer pending approval of his appointment by the University. It is stated that University approved the appointment of the second petitioner as Drawing and Disbursing Officer from time time. As per Exhibit P3 order issued by the University, the second petitioner is approved as the Drawing and Disbursment Officer from 15.9.2010 to 14.12.2010. 2. The University issued Exhibit P4 communication to the Manager directing the Manager to submit the relinquishment of the claim of the senior teachers, so as to consider the proposal for app...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »