Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

Raju Mendez. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. In this Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.626 of 2010 of Cantonment Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. seeks anticipatory bail. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 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 inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above case on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the said officer and subject to the fo...

Jinu Jose. Vs. M.P.George.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

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. 284 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Aluva, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below. 2. Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter. Crl.M.A. 12422 of 2009 has been filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission to record the composition entered into between the revision petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been signed by the revision petitioner as well as the complainant and their respective counsels. In the light of this development, the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C. 3. The sum of Rs. 60,000/- deposited by the Revision Petitioner before the trial Court pursuant to Court orders shall be permitted to be w...

Lizy Antony. Vs. the Secretary, Board of Public.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The only prayer sought in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P7 where the petitioner has sought correction of her date of birth in her S.S.L.C Book. 2. Taking into account the case of the petitioner regarding the pendency of the aforesaid application, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, I direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 and communicate it to the petitioner. This shall be done, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. 3. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent, for compliance....

George Thomas. Vs. Aleyamma Thomas.

Court: Kerala

1. Appellant herein was the respondent in O.P.No.831 of 2007 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. That petition was filed by the respondent herein, his wife, claiming paternal share and value of ornaments. That petition was dismissed for default. The claimant wife/respondent herein filed a petition for restoration. That petition came up for hearing on 06.02.2010. The record of the court shows that on that day, the parties settled all their outstanding disputes. The terms of settlement are enumerated as items 1 to 6 in the records (order sheet) of the court. Those terms are accepted by both sides. Parties and counsel have signed such statement. Accepting the compromise, the court proceeded to decree the O.P in terms of the compromise. We do take note of the inadequacy in the proceedings that the compromise was noted on the application for restoration. Long later in October, 2010, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2811 of 2010 to review the order dated 06.02.2010. According to the petitioner, ...

Georgekutty V. Vs. the Chief General Manager Telecom.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. O.P. (CAT) is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing to interfere with the posting of the petitioner at Ernakulam as DGM (Finance). We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.C. Iype, standing counsel appearing for the BSNL. 2. Petitioner, while serving BSNL at Pune was given a posting at Trivandrum. Later he requested for a posting in Kerala circle, which was granted by BSNL and he is presently posted as DGM (Fin.) at Ernakulam. Petitioner's case is that vacancies were there in Pathanamthitta, Kollam and even in Thiruvalla, when he requested for a posting to any of these stations, which are near to his house. Petitioner has highlighted several of his family problems in support of his claim for a posting to a place near to his house. Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that all the postings are over as of now. However, one person holding the rank equivalent to that of the petitioner is retiring from Kollam on 31.5.20...

V.T. Jayalakshmi. Vs. Jayathilakan.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker344

1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 65 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.28,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay an amount of Rs.29,000/- as compensation to the complainant. In the appeal the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay compensation of Rs.29,000/- to the complainants in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant...

Joy.K.O. Vs. Shaji.P.K.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 1366 of 1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.90,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and also to pay an amount of Rs.91,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. In the appeal the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate cou...

Reji George. Vs. the Marriage Officer.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Petitioners seek relaxation of the notice period provided under the Special Marriage Act. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench in the judgment in Deepak Krishna v. District Registrar (2007(3) KLT 570), where it has been held that, notice period is mandatory. Therefore, the prayer is inadmissible....

George Mathew. Vs. Thomas.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Petitioners are the accused and first respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.168/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha. Crime No.1430/2008 of Thodupuzha Police Station was registered based on the complaint filed by the first respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing the investigation, Annexure-A final report was submitted based on which Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 465 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the son-in-law of the first respondent complainant. The marital relationship between the first petitioner and his wife, the daughter of first respondent got strained. The allegation in the private complaint and the case in Annexure-A final report is that first respondent had 11= cents of property near to the building where first petitioner is conducting a trade, having obta...

George. Vs. Devikulam Taluk Co-op.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The petitioner who has availed a loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the first respondent filed this writ petition, on receipt of Ext.P1 sale notice, with the prayer to quash the same. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps based on Ext.P1. Evidently, on account of the chronic default on the part of the petitioner in repaying the instalments towards the said loan account the first respondent has resorted to arbitration proceedings. It is only based on the outcome of the said proceedings that Ext.P1 sale notice has been issued. The petitioner did not have a case that he has successfully challenged the award passed in the arbitration case. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot disown the liability to discharge the aforesaid liability arising out of the said loan transaction. On 8.11.2010 this Court passed an interim order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first respondent. ...