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.
Kerala Travels L.M.S.Building. Vs. A.V.Govindankutty, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 336 of 2002 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvanthapuram against the judgment of acquittal of the accused dated 23.4.2004. 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 complainant is briefly as follows. The accused owed an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant towards the value of air tickets purchased by him from the complainant and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 31.3.2003 drawn on the Hyderabad branch of the I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd. for the said amount. The said cheque when presented for collection through the Corporation Bank, Thiruvananthapuram the same was returned due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Thereupon the complainant issued a registered notice to the accused through his counsel on 4.7.2002. Though...
Shameer. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. Petitioner was the second accused in S.C.No. 204/2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram. As he was absconding, case against him was split up and refiled. The remaining five accused were tried. By Annexure-II judgment, those accused were acquitted. The case against the petitioner is now pending as L.P.No.5/2004. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the order of acquittal against the co-accused and settlement of the entire disputes with respondents 2 and 3, the defacto complainant and the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore, they have no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel app...
Sulthanbathery Mahaganapathy Kshethram. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The question urged for a decision in this petition at the instance of petitioner is whether, when a Subordinate Judge's Court is established in any District at a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed and appeals from decrees or orders of the Munsiff's Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court may be preferred in such Subordinate Judge's Court, an appeal could be preferred in the District Court from an order passed by the court of Munsiff situated within the jurisdiction of such Subordinate Judge's Court? The issue arose in the matter of C.M.A.No.10 of 2010 arising from an order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff, Sulthan Bathery in O.S.No.162 of 2010 and filed by the respondents in the court of learned District Judge, Wayanad at Kalpetta. Petitioner is a temple committee and alleged that respondents are making unauthorised attempts to take over the temple and seeking relief against that, instituted the sui...
Balakrishna Pillai. Vs. Krishnankutty, 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 filed a complaint against the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter-alia contending that accused availed of a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner on 22.11.2005 and for the discharge of the said liability, he issued a cheque dated 18.1.2006 drawn on Federal Bank. When cheque was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A lawyer notice was issued, but accused did not respond to the same. The amount was not returned and hence, the complaint was filed. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 toP6 were marked. The accused examined DW1 on his side. According to him, he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from one Vijayakumar, who is the son of the complainant and he was also paying interest for the said amount to him. When he went to settle the transaction, a dispute arose regardin...
Smt.Mary. Vs. Diyon.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court against the revision petitioner on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under sub section (3) of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The respondent landlord invoked the ground of sub letting also. But, the learned rent control court declined that ground and that order has become final. We in this revision, therefore, need be concerned only with the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlord was a minor at the time of commencement of the rent control petition and he has now attained majority. The need projected by him was that he wants to occupy the petition building as his father passed away and as he is bound to look after his mother and two unmarried sisters and as he has no source of income with which he can support the family. He claimed that the building is required for the purpose of ...
K.Gopalakrishnan. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is, whether the property taken over by the Government as 'bought in land' under Section 50 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, pursuant to the default made by the petitioner, is liable to be re-conveyed to him, admittedly when the liability to the revenue has been satisfied. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner, who was running a small scale industry, engaged in manufacturing and sale of wire cut bricks and hollow bricks, had availed a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation, on the strength of the property concerned given as security. The petitioner, because of some unforeseen circumstances turned to be a defaulter, whereupon the KFC sought to attach the properties resorting to the remedy under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the attachment was effected on 22.12.2000. Later, observing that, there were some sales tax arrears to be cleared by the petitioner, the property was sought to ...
A.R.Retheesh Chandran. Vs. Sarojini AmmA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The landlord is in revision before us challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. The short facts of the case are the following. 2. The revision petitioner/landlord filed RCP 17/2005 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The petition was resisted by the tenant disputing the title of the landlord. The tenant also contended in the alternative that the title, if any of the landlord, had been lost by adverse possession and limitation. In view of the fact that the title of the landlord itself was denied by the tenant, the Rent Control Court proceeded to consider whether the denial of title was bonafide. The Rent Control Court found that the denial of title was bonafide and therefore relegated the landlord to the remedy of filing a civil sui...
G.Raghavan Nair. Vs. Jalajambika, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
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. 871 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. IX, Thiruvananthapuram 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 ` 3,05,000/-. 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 th...
Smt.TreasA. Vs. the Executive Engineer, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of late Sebastian, who was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. On the death of Sebastian, family pension was paid to the 2nd respondent, who, according to the petitioner, is not the legally wedded wife of late Sebastian. The petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife, on the basis of Ext.P1 certificate of marriage issued by a church. The claim in this regard was considered by the 1st respondent and rejected by Ext.P3, which reads thus; "The petitioner, Smt.Treasa alleged to be the legally wedded wife of Late T.J.Sebastian (PPO No.23801) who was working in the KSE Board, filed W.P.C No.21289 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The cause of action arose with the death of Sri.T.J.Sebastian, family pension was sanctioned to Smt.Mary, second wife of Late T.J.Sebastian. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the W.P.(C). directing the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Ernakulam to decide on Ext.P2 with n...
Dr.Rajan Jacob, and anr. Vs. State Bank of Travancore, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. By virtue of Exts.P1 and P3 notices coercive steps under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the petitioners, consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by them from the respondent Bank. Immovable property which is the secured asset with respect to the loan transaction was proceeded against. It is submitted that the property in question was taken over possession by virtue of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, in a proceedings initiated under Section 14 (1) of the Act. Limited prayer of the petitioner under the above circumstances, is to restrain respondents from proceeding with further actions for sale of the property and to permit them to make payment of amount outstanding, in a phased manner within a reasonable time. It is stated that by virtue of Ext.P3, the Bank had proclaimed the property for sale. Hence the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »