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.
Jose C.A, and anr. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The 2nd petitioner is the sister of the 1st petitioner, who availed a business term loan from the respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.9.5 lakhs by mortgaging properties belonging to the 2nd petitioner and also by creating hypothication of the stock in trade of the business. Consequent to default committed in effecting regular repayments, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the property in question was proceeded against. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules intimating steps initiated as contemplated under Section 13(4). It is stated that, subsequent to the steps taken under Section 13(4), Ext.P4 notice was issued intimating the petitioners that the property in question will be sold in public auction, if the amount is not remitted within 30 days. 2. According to the petitioners Ext.P3 representation...
K.J. Eliyamma (Late), and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. These Land Acquisition Appeals arise from three Land Acquisition References which were jointly tried and disposed of by the court below. 2. LAA.716/06 is a claimant's appeal arising from LAR.168/02. That acquisition was on the basis of a notification issued on 25.10.2000 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. LAA.690/06 is a claimant's appeal arising from LAR.174/02, which is related to an acquisition on the basis of a notification under Section 4(1) issued on 11.11.1999. 4. LAA.314/07 is by the claimant and LAA.906/07 is by the State, both arising from LAR.169/02 which related to an acquisition based on a Section 4(1) notification dated 11.11.1999. 5. In all the aforesaid cases, possession was taken on 12.10.2001. The lands also lie contiguous, near the forest area. The purpose of acquisition was to provide Elephant Corridor between Manandavady and Tellichery. 6. The only issue that arises for decision is as to whether the trial court was justified in relying on Ext.A2,...
M/S.Jyothi Chemical Industries. Vs. the Regional Director.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.57/2006. The appellant before me is the applicant before the court below, who had moved an application for declaration to the effect that the applicant establishment is not liable to be covered under the E.S.I.Act. 2. According to the applicant, M/s. Jhothi Chemical Industries is a small scale industrial unit and it was never employed more than 8 persons and therefore, provisions of the Employees' Insurance Act cannot be extended to it. 3. On the contra, the E.S.I Corporation would contend that when inspections were effected by the authorised officers, they were able to find 13 persons on 5.5.2005 and 16 persons on 6.5.2005. Therefore they contend for the position that establishment is liable to be covered. 4. Both sides adduced evidence and the trial court on analysis found in favour of the Corporation and ordered the establishment to be covered under the E.S.I. Act. It is against t...
Abdul Gafoor. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.678/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur, filed C.M.P.No.5916/2010 under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance contending that he is permanently employed in Muscat and he has to rejoin duty before 17.10.2010 and he would undertake that his counsel will be present at the time of examination and evidence could be recorded in his absence and instead of the petitioner, questions under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure would be answered by the counsel and he is prepared to appear before the court as and when required and in such circumstances, exemption is to be granted. 2. By Annexure-A1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that petitioner had originally appeared and thereafter absconded and then again appeared warranting a denova trial and he was released on bail and the denova trial had started and the reason for the delay in trial i...
P.K.Kurien. Vs. M.J.Vincent, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This petition is filed for granting special leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. Petitioner is the complainant. He filed a complaint against first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to him, for the payment of Rs.25,000/- due to the complainant from the accused (first respondent), the latter issued a cheque (Ext.P1) dated 14.7.2006 drawn on the account maintained with the bank. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. A lawyer notice was issued, demanding payment, but the amount is not paid, though the notice was accepted by the accused. 3. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused did not adduce any evidence, but denied the execution and the liability. The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove execution and existence of a legally enforceable debt. It was also found that sinc...
Narayanan Gangadas. Vs. Narayanan Gangadas, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 74 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur against the judgment of acquittal dt.4.11.2003. 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 the N.I. Act. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant is briefly as follows. On 20.1.1998, the first respondent/accused borrowed Rs. 1.5 lakhs from the appellant and for repayment of the said amount the accused issued Ext.P2 cheque dt. 21.2.1998 drawn on the Urukunnu Service Co-operative Bank. The appellant/ complainant presented the cheque for collection through his bank, but it was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused. Ext.P7 lawyer notice was issued calling upon the accused to repay the amount. But no amount was paid. Hence the complaint was lodged. 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complainant, PW1 was ex...
Levy Sathyan. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 871 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 324 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the above said offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 19-09-2003 at 6.30 p.m. the accused trespassed into the veranda of the house of his own uncle P.W.1 with a piece of a palm-tree and beat P.W.1 on the left side of his forehead causing a bleeding injury and also fisted him on his dorsum causing pain. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence,...
K.R.Ramachandran, and anr. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.436/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 27(1)(b) of Kerala Forest Act on Annexure-A1 final report submitted by Assistant Wild Life Warden, Thattekkad Birds Sanctuary. Prosecution case is that petitioners, who were watchmen of Thattekkad Birds Sanctuary, set fire to the shed constructed for their residence on the night of 9.1.2002 and thereby caused a loss of Rs.2,500/- and thereby committed the offence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the alleged incident was on 9.1.2002 and Annexure-A2 forest offence seizure report (preliminary), as provided under Section 36 of Kerala Forest Act, was submitted before the court on 10.1.2002 and final report was submitted only on 31.7.2010 and petitioners were not in any way connected with the destruction of the shed by setting fire and the case was...
Abdul Gafoor. Vs. M.Sivadasan, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He challenges the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of the rent control court declining eviction on the grounds under sub section(3) of Section 11 and clause (iii) of sub section (4) of Section 11. He also challenges the judgment declining eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and sub lessee. As regards the challenge on the order declining eviction on the ground of sub letting and arrears of rent, we will notice immediately that, having gone through the judgment of the appellate authority and having heard the submissions, we are not at all impressed by such challenge. Hence, we straight away confirm the order of the statutory authorities declining eviction on the ground of arrears of rent as well as sub letting. In fact, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also in his submissions gave more thrust to the challenge against the order declining eviction on the ground of bona fide need for own oc...
Puthukkudi Chandroth Aboobacker Haji, and anr. Vs. Chovvakkaran Keloth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The tenants as well as the landlady are in revision. RCR.253/05 is filed by the tenant and RCR.127/06 is filed by the landlady. The landlady sought to evict the tenants who are two in number [Respondents 1 and 2 in the Rent Control Petition (father and son)] on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), acquisition of other buildings under Section 11(4)(3), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and also on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v) of Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965). Order of eviction was passed in favour of the landlady by the Rent Control Court only on the ground of arrears of rent. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has not only confirmed the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2) (b) but also allowed the landlady's appeal to the extent of ordering eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) also. 2. It was submitted at the very outset by Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »