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.
V.Rajendra Prasad. Vs. Sajan Thomas Abraham.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The challenge in this petition is to Ext.P5, order dated November 23, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -II, Thiruvananthapuram on I.A.No.4120 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2010, an action against passing off. Respondent/plaintiff had cited certain witnesses on his side when the case was included in the list on 13.09.2010. Respondent and a witness were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 was marked. It was represented that evidence of respondent was closed. On 18.09.2010 petitioner/defendant was examined and Exts.B1 to B14 was marked. Later his witnesses also were examined. Then came I.A.No.4120 of 2010, an application from respondent to re-open the case as he wanted to examine certain witnesses who were cited in the original witness schedule but given up. That application was opposed by the petitioner contending that attempt is to fill up lacuna in the evidence of respondent/plaintiff and the witnesses. Learned Additional District Judge, according to the counsel, by a non-speaki...
Dr.Gopakumar.M.K. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th October, 2010 in W.P. (C) No.30962 of 2010, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred this writ appeal. 2. The appellant is a Physician in the service of the State of Kerala now working at the Taluk Hadquarters Hospital, Kodungalloor in Thrissur District. He applied for admission to Post Graduate Super Speciality Course in the year 2010. 3. The writ petition was filed with the prayers as follows: "i) to call for the records leading to the admission of the 4th respondent pursuant to the order of 2nd respondent bearing No.D2/20300/2010/DME. dt. 20.09.10, examine its legality, propriety and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner to the vacant seat arose due to the non-joining of the allotted candidate as service candidates admission is purely on the basis of seniority. iii) Pass any other and such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass in...
P.K.Lal. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 08.06.2010 in W.P. (C)No. 13291 of 2009, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instant appeal. The petitioner is an Additional Director of Information and Public Relations in the service of the State of Kerala. The conditions of the said service are regulated by Special Rules made by the State of Kerala, in exercise of the powers under Section 2 of sub-section (1) of the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968. The prevailing rules are made in the year 2002. Rule 2 describes the service consisting of 10 categories . In the first category there is only one post called the Director of Public Relations. Rule 3 deals with the method of appointment to the various categories of posts and in so far as the post of Director of Public Relations is concerned, the method of appointment is stipulated as follows: " 3. Appointment:-(a) Appointment to the several categories shall be made as follows Category Method of appointment Director of Public (i) By promotion fr...
Sreeni. 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.743 of 2010 of Kanjar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act for having been found in possession of 2.25 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 23/11/2010. 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 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 `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thodupuzha and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The peti...
T.S.Sunil Kumar. Vs. the Secretary to Government, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste community. He is a native of Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Laboratory Assistant in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram on 7.2.2005. While working in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner was transferred to the Dental College, Kottayam, as per Ext.P1 order dated 29.3.2010. Jayakumar, the third respondent, who was working in the Medical College, Kottayam, was transferred to the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, as per Ext.P1 order of transfer. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer and also Ext.P16 order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the Government rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner objecting to the transfer. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, he can be replaced only by another Scheduled Caste candidate. The third respondent does not belong to a Scheduled Caste. It is therefore contended that Ext.P...
K.Jawahar Sadiq. Vs. Jinchu Fathima, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Petitioner, the husband is the accused and first respondent, the wife is the de facto complainant in C.C.139/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-B final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Petitioner along with the first respondent also filed Crl.M.A.7711/2010, petition under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the offence stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled and for peaceful and better future life, ...
Sajad, and anr. Vs. the Sub Registrar, Sub-registry Office, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The 2nd petitioner, extended credit facility to late Suresh and his wife K.Padmakumari Amma for the purchase of 4.60 Ares of property in RS.No.133/24 in Block No.4 (old Sy.No.226/10) of Pallichal Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk. The mortgage was created during July 2007. Default was committed. As a result, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT). Property was taken over and was finally sold in auction, in which the 1st petitioner who had offered Rs.12,40,000/- was the highest bidder. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed in his favour and sale certificate was issued and possession was also handed over to him. 2. However, when the sale certificate was presented for registration to the 1st respondent along with an application for getting the property mutated, that was refused to be accepted for the reason that respondents 5 and 6 had obtained attachment over the ...
Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. Assessment with respect to the years 2004-05 to 2008-09 was completed against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was also imposed with penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act with respect to the above assessment years as evidenced from Ext.P3 to P7. In the first appeals filed by the petitioner against the above said orders, the assessments were confirmed by virtue of Ext.P11 to P15 and the penalty orders were confirmed by virtue of Ext.P16 to P20 orders. The petitioner had now approached the 4th respondent by filing further appeals as evidenced from Ext.P22 to P31. Ext.P32 is the common interlocutory application filed seeking stay of collection of the tax amount as well as penalty, pending disposal of the appeal. 2. It is submitted that the appeals and the stay petition are pending consideration and disposal before the 4th respondent Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, coercive steps o...
K.E.Moidu. Vs. P.Aboobacker Haji, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. The petitioner owns a parcel of land, 63 cents in extent, situated in R.S.No.16/2 of Kottooli amsom, Parayancheri desom, Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District. A building bearing Door No.27/2303 of Kozhikode Corporation is situate therein. The said parcel of land was part of a common holding, the southern portion of which, having an area of 98 cents, belongs to the first respondent who is the Director of an educational institution known as Hilltop Public School. The access to the land belonging to the petitioner and the land in the possession of the first respondent is through a pathway having a total area of 27 cents. The owners of the northern and southern portions have equal rights over the said pathway. 2. With a view to put a building in the land possessed by the school, the first respondent submitted Ext.R1 (a) application dated 18.10.2006 to the Secretary of Kozhikode Corporation. In that application, in column 4, the extent of the land was mentioned as 1.25 acres in R.Sy.No.16...
Antony K.P. Vs. Sasikumar, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
1. This appeal arises from an order of acquittal. 2. The appellant filed a complaint against first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the allegation that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,38,000/- from complainant on 10.1.2002 for business purpose and thereafter, he issued four cheques to complainant, when demands were made for payment. The cheques, on presentation were dishonoured. A lawyer notice was issued to accused, demanding payment, but no reply was sent and hence the complaint was filed. 3. On analysis of evidence adduced in this case, court below found that complainant's case is wholly false and acquitted the accused. According to learned Magistrate, admission of complainant about defence case suggested to him in cross-examination disproves his case. The admissions made by him are recorded as such, in paragraph 9 of the order. 4. Learned counsel for appellant argued that there is ample evidence in this case. The appella...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »