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.
The Secretary, Coir Board, Heaq Office, and ors. Vs. Baby.K.A, and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The appellants are the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the writ petition, who are stated as aggrieved of the act of imposition of costs of `1,000/- 'personally' on the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition, for the delay caused in implementing the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The writ petition seeks for the following reliefs: "i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 & 2 not to make any appointments to the post of Senior Scientific Officer(Product Diversification) in violation of the Recruitment Rules; ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint and take a decision after hearing the petitioner; When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, an interim order was passed on 04.11.2010 as follows: "I had passed an order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass o...
Joemon, and ors. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.2862 of 2010 of Aluva Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 447, 427, 294(b) & 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek their enlargement on bail. The petitioners were arrested on 12/10/2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the first petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the first petitioner, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the first petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making him scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the first petitioner at this...
P.K.Sadanandan. Vs. A.V.Narayanan Nampoothiri.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. This revision petition is filed by accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 191 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.34,907/- 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 1 and 2 issued a cheque for Rs.34,907/- on 28.4.1997 drawn on the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kottayam branch in favour of the first respondent. The cheque was presented for collection by the first respondent, but the cheque was dishonoured for want of ...
T.Roy Xavier, and ors. Vs. the Kerala State Electricity Board, and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioners were employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They have retired from service subsequent to 1.7.2003. After their retirement, the scales of pay of the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board have been revised with retrospective effect from the date prior to their retirement. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that although their pay was revised accordingly, the petitioners were not paid revised DCRG and commutted value of pension in terms of the pay revision. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to extend the benefits of enhanced DCRG and enhanced rate of commutation of pension on the revised pension consequent on the revision of pay. (b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of clause 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 of Ext. P1 order and to quash the provisions discrimi...
Raveendran Nair. 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 C.C.No.677/2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Punalur 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 `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `50,000/- (Rupees fifty 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 Act. and that the Revision Petiti...
Global Industries, and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. These four appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 22nd November, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 33810 of 2010 and connected cases. All the appellants are proprietary concerns. They have imported 'Betel nuts' from Indonesia. Though the appellants have presented the Bill of Entries for home consumption, the goods are not yet cleared for home consumption as the assessment is not yet complete, since there is dispute regarding valuation of the goods imported. 2. The brief history and background of the case is as follows: By notification dated 4th June, 2008 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade purporting to be in exercise of the power under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation Act), 1992 read with paragraph 2.1 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, it was notified that 'Betel nuts' (whole) could be imported freely into India provided the cif value of the commodity is Rs.35/- per kilogram and above. In other words, if the value of the imported 'Betel nuts' is declared to be Rs.35 per ...
S.Hariharan. Vs. Shri.O.J.Shibu.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. These Contempt petitions arise out of judgment dated 06.08.09 in W.P. (C) No.22122 of 2009 and judgment dated 5.8.09 in W.P.(C) No.22203 of 2009 respectively. 2. The main grievance projected in the Contempt petition No.995 of 2009 is that the Returning Officer has paid only scant regards to the directions given by this Court that the election process was permitted to be videographed as requested by the petitioner. 3. On going through the judgment what we find is that, there was no direction permitting the petitioner to have the process videographed. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "13. In several cases of this nature, considering identical apprehensions, this Court has granted these reliefs. Therefore, in this writ petition also, the Returning Officer is directed to allow videography of the events at the polling stations, at the cost of the petitioner, and retain the original video/CD with him, and to give a copy thereof to the petitioner. This obviously shal...
Ameer Jan. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.723 of 2010 of Medical College Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 307 & 392 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 18/10/2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail with effect from 17/12/2010 on his executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and...
Jayakumar S. Vs. the Authorized Officer, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Petitioner is challenging coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to failure on the part of the petitioner in effecting regular repayments of a vehicle loan availed from the 3rd respondent Bank; the respondents are now proceeding with steps for attachment of the vehicle in question by approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, invoking Section 14 (1) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner the classification of the loan account as 'NPA' was done in an illegal and irregular manner. Further it is contended that the petitioner had remitted considerable amounts to regularize the account, but the respondents are still proceeding with coercive steps and hence the Writ Petition is filed. 3. According to standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank the loan was availed in the year 2008 to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- with a period of repaym...
K.S.Ramachandran. Vs. K.S.Anantharaman.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Refusal to frame additional issue as to the revocability of a licence pleaded by petitioner in his additional written statement (which the court below received) and to issue a commission to assess value of the building is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Challenge is to the order passed by learned Sub Judge, Palakkad on I.A.Nos.4094 of 2009 and 4146 of 2009 in O.S.No.613 of 1991. That is a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the building on the strength of title claimed by him and alleging that he permitted petitioner to stay in the building in the suit property. Respondent claimed to have revoked the permission and sought for recovery of possession. Petitioner filed written statement denying claim of respondent. Later he filed Ext.P2, additional written statement with application to receive the same contending that building in the suit property was constructed with his funds also, he has spent money for its improvement t...