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.
Ramakrishna Menon, and ors. Vs.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Cr. No.524/2010 of Ponnani Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 406 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 13.12.2010 or on 14.12.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. After interrogation, petitioners shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned who on being convinced that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police, shall release the petitioners on bail on each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen...
S.Sahadevan. Vs. Tomy Mathew, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 1759 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Kochi against the judgment of acquittal of the accused dated 7.1.2004. 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 appellant/complainant is that the first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs from the appellant and in due discharge of the said liability, the first respondent issued a cheque dt.1.6.2000 drawn at Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kalathukadavu Branch. When the cheque was presented by the appellant through his bank, it was returned for the reason ' not arranged for' as per memo dt. 6.10.2000. Inspite of the issuance of the notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the amount was not paid and hence the complainant filed the complaint. 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complai...
Valli Ammal. Vs. Annamma, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. The following substantial questions of law are formulated in the second appeal. i) Whether the courts below were justified in law in not decreeing the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction when the evidence reveals that the plaintiff has possessory title over 4 cents and proprietory title over 3 cents apart from the undisputed possession over the whole 7 cents of the plaint schedule property? ii) Have not the courts below erred in not relying on the agreement for sale executed on stamp paper in respect of 4 cents of property when the same can be admitted as evidence of collateral facts or purposes like character of possession as has been held in Mohammed Kunju Isha Beevi's case (1993 (2) KLT 631)? iii) Whether the courts below were correct in law in not granting a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction when the dispute relates only to the southern boundary of the property covered by Ext.A3 sale deed and the title to the property on the north is inconsequential for the purpo...
K.Subbanna Rai. Vs. Deranna Rai.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Plaintiff in a suit for injunction who had been worsted in the two courts below is the appellant. Subject matter involved in the suit is 20 cents of land described as Kattapuni, in the local dialect, which means a ridge, wherein ten yielding coconut trees are situate. Plaintiff claiming title and possession over the suit property described as 'A' schedule, though there was no other schedule as such in the suit, sought for the discretionary relief of injunction alleging threat of trespass and interference from the defendants. Claim over the suit property was made by the plaintiff alleging that it formed part of his registered holding having an extent of one acre and eight cents obtained under two sale deeds, Ext.A15 and Ext.A17. Two third right over the above extent of one acre and eight cents, according to the plaintiff, was obtained by him under a sale deed executed by the first defendant and two others under Ext.A15, and the rest, 1/3 right, from the assignor in Ext.A17 deed, one ...
Jabeer.M.P. Vs. Nilufer.P.P, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Interpretation of Clause 19 of Ext.P1 'Rules' for selecting candidates for nominations against seats reserved by the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep for Higher Studies including Degree Courses (excluding MBBS) is the issue involved. 2. The 5th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant, whose selection to the course of Bachelor in Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc & A.H.) in respect of one of the two seats alloted by the Kerala Agricultural University to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep has been set aside and the rank list has been ordered to be reset, reckoning the claim of the writ petitioner as well. The point to be considered is, whether the reservation for candidates from the Union Territory of Lakshadweep to the said course is to be confined solely to those who passed the 'plus two' course in the academic year 2009-'10 or whether there is any prohibition in considering the candidates who have passed the said course earlier. 3. Both th...
Kurian. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal by the accused is to the judgment of the III Addl. Sessions Judge (ADHOC) (Fast Track Court No.I), Thrissur in S.C. No.361 of 2002 dated May 26, 2003 convicting him under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as testified by PW1, the then Preventive Officer of the Pazhayannur Excise Range, and PW2, the then Excise Guard of the same Excise Range, before the lower court is that on November 12, 1998 at about 6.15 p.m. on the panchayat road in front of the house of one Thankachan at Pangarappall desom the accused was found to be in possession of 5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (6 bottles of 750 ml. and 1 bottle of 500 ml.) and that thereby committed the offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. PW1 arrested the accused from the spot and pr...
Kaveripet and Polyforms Pvt.Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner Tax Foficer, and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) Declare section 6 (7) (d) of the Finance Act 2005 by which "machineries" are included as item No. 62 to the schedule to the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act 1994, as confiscatory and beyond the powers of the state legislature and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction. (ii) Quash Ext. P2 notice issued by the second respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction directing the detaining authorities to release the consignment detained demanding entry tax by accepting bonds without sureties as passed in Exts. P3 and P4 orders pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition. (vi) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the second respondent to release the consignment det...
K.Prabhakaran, and ors. Vs. G.Nalinakshan, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Much has been said about the power of court to allow parties before it to amend their pleadings now of course to the restriction imposed by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") brought in by amendment Act 22 of 2002. But the question urged for a decision in this petition is under what circumstance such amendment is permissible? 2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are: Deceased original plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was granted a lease over 2.49 acres as per a registered lease deed dated 17.12.1120 M.E. stipulating the period of lease as one year. Deceased original plaintiff claimed that on the expiry of the said period of one year, the lease was extended further and he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. The present suit concerned 69 cents out of the said 2.49 acres. Deceased original plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his possession over the said property and...
Ashok Kumar K. Vs. Muraleedas K.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
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.513 of 2002 of the J.F.C.M. I, Kottarakkara, 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 ` 3,00,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 3,00,000/-. 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 to make the payment within 15 ...
Manoj. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
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.1356 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Kollam, 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 `3,00,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `3,20,000/-. 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...