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.
P.V.PrajeethA. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer whereby the application to register an extent of 11 cents in Re-survey No.123/13, under the Malabar Land Registration Act has been rejected. The reason stated therein is only that it is a natural pond which has to be maintained as such and, therefore, the application cannot be allowed. The legality of the same is, therefore, under attack. 2. The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner of 43 cents comprised in Re-survey No.123/13 (11 cents) and 123/14 (32 cents). The said property originally belonged to Vanneri Manakkal Narayanan Namboodiri. By Registered Kanam Assignment Deed No.766/1955 of SRO, Tirur, the property was leased to the grandmother of the petitioner, namely, Smt.Lakshmikutty Ammal as per Ext.P1. The grandmother of the petitioner applied for assignment of jenmom right before the Land Tribunal, Tirur by filing O.A.No.8702/1975 and the Land Tribunal afte...
Kunjumani. Vs. the Joint Regional Transport Officer, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing No.KL-01/W 3425. The vehicle in question was transferred into the name of the petitioner with effect from 30.12.2008, as evidenced from Ext.P1 copy of registration certificate. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not accepting contributions payable to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund and in turn the petitioner is prevented from remitting motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle, because the 1st respondent is not accepting tax for want of production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the welfare fund. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had purchased the vehicle from one Sri.Aswathi Kumar and that the said person had remitted contributions to the welfare fund due till the month of 12/2008, as evidenced from Ext.P2. According to the petitioner he is ready and willing to make payment of contributions due from 1.1.2009 onwards. But the 3rd respon...
M/S.Venugopal Company. Vs. M.P.Sreevally.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 225 of 2000(wrongly noted in the judgment as S.T.No.225 of 2000) on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad against the judgment of acquittal of the accused dated 13.5.2003. 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 N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant company on 10.5.1999 on the strength of demand Promissory Note, had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.38,500/-, which is inclusive of the principal amount and interest. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice intimating the dishonour, which was accepted by the accused. But she had not paid the amount within the stipulated period. 3. In the Chief Judicial Magistrat...
Asharef. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.793 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Kollam for offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C., challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 04.03.2009, at about 9 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 in prosecution of the common intention to cause hurt to PW1 went to his tea shop near Triveni Junction at Kollam. A1 beat PW1 with an iron rod on the left forehead causing lacerated injury. Seeing this when PW2, another customer of PW1 interfered, A2 hit him with his bare hand. The accused persons also destroyed the almirah, glasses, chairs etc. causing mischief to the tune of Rs.2000/-. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against the...
M/S.Vysakh International Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. This writ petition concerns a controversy regarding the renewal of FL.3 licence sought for by the petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company. This writ petition is filed by the Company represented by its Managing Director. 2. Heard Shri George Thomas Mevada learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Raju Joseph learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, Shri Devan Ramachandran learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri K.P.Satheesan appearing for the Company in the connected W.P.(C).No.29642/2009. 3. The hotel owned by the Company is situated at Payyannur having '3 Star' category certification by the Department of Tourism which was granted on 18/06/2001 and it was renewed from time to time. 4. FL.3 licence granted to the petitioner was renewed upto 31/03/2010 as evidenced by Ext.P1. There had been transfer of shares during 2007-08. According to the petitioner, the...
Nobbey, and anr. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.411/2010 of Karimkunnam Police Station registered under Annexure-C FIR for the offence under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act. The allegation in Annexure-C FIR is that on 23/10/2010 at about 2.15 p.m, on getting information by a telephonic message that petitioners are transporting huge quantity of liquor in an autorickshaw, Sub Inspector of Police, Karinmkunnam Police Station intercepted autorickshaw No.KL-38-7190 driven by the first petitioner, with second petitioner seated in the back side. On verification it was found that without any license or permit to transfer liquor in excess of the permissible quantity provided under Foreign Liquor Rules, 86 bottles in seven cartons of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were being transported. They were arrested and samples from each carton was taken and the crime was registered. The remaining 79 bottles seized were produced in court. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the p...
Balakrishna Pillai. Vs. K.M.Majeed.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining the eviction which was sought for on the ground under Sub section 3 of Section 11. The need projected in the RCP was that he needs the building occupied by the respondent, a senior member of the Haripad Bar, for the purpose of starting a DTP centre. The bonafides of the need was disputed contending that the RCP is instituted as a ruse for eviction as the tenant had refused to abide by the demand of the landlord for enhancement of the rent by Rs.200/- over the existing rate of Rs.500/-. Though the respondent is a lawyer by profession he also claimed the protection of the 2nd proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter. In the enquiry, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A4 and the oral evidence of PW1, the landlord and that of CPW1, the tenant lawyer. The Rent Control Court on evaluating...
Kk.P.Jacob, and anr. Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
Petitioners are husband and wife. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of loans availed by the petitioners, the respondent Bank had initiated steps against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Invoking Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P8 is an interim report filed by the Advocate Commissioner before that Court. 2. According to the petitioners the loans in question were availed in the year 2004-05 and repayment period is for 15 years. It is further stated that the petitioner had effected considerable payments in the loan accounts. It is the case of the petitioners that inspite of approach made seeking regularisation of the loan accounts...
Jijo. Vs. ShidhIn Sasidharan, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Petitioner was the first accused in C.C.180/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad. As accused 1, 5 and 7 were absconding; the case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.1237/2009. Remaining four accused was tried. By Annexure-II judgment they were acquitted. Prosecution case is that seven accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 30/11/2007 at about 12.15 p.m and in furtherance of their common object of causing hurt to the first respondent, caused hurt to first respondent by beating him with sticks and hands and thereby committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-II judgment shows that when first respondent was examined as PW1, he turned hostile and deposed that all the accused including accused 1, 5 and 7 were not present at the scene of occurrence. Other eye witnesses examined also turned hostile. Hence remaining witnesses were not examined. Accused 2,3,4 and 6...
D.Vijayan. Vs. Krishnan Nair, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of eviction concurrently passed on the ground under Section 11(4) (iv) and the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority for first time on the grounds of arrears of rent and Section 11(4) (iii). This litigation has had a chequered career and as the learned Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have correctly narrated the facts in their respective orders it is not necessary for us to narrate it again. 2. In this revision under Section 20 the revision petitioner tenant has raised various grounds assailing the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority. Sri. R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. All the arguments of Mr. Kalkura were very stiffly opposed by Mr.G.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions add...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »