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.
Athikulla Shariff Atheeq. Vs. M/S/Shaan Finance Ltd, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. Whether Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Ernakulam can take cognizance of an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on Annexure 1 complaint filed by the first respondent on the allegation that the cheque issued by the petitioner in an account maintained in Bangalore was presented for encashment in a bank at Cochin, where first respondent has an account and on its dishonour issued a notice from Ernakulam demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque? 2. First respondent filed Annexure I complaint alleging an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam. The complaint itself discloses that first respondent is a public limited Company with its registered office at Bangalore. Petitioner the accused is also a resident of Baneerghatta, Bangalore. The allegation in the complaint is that petitioner hired a vehicle from first respondent under a hire purchase agreement. Though he is bound to pay h...
M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Vs. Abdul Hassan, 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. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court against first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the allegation that the accused/first respondent was a subscriber in two chitties with the stake of Rs.3,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant, which is a company dealing in chitty transactions. After receiving the prize money, accused defaulted payment. Towards discharge of the defaulted payment, he issued a cheque for Rs.4,36,000/- drawn on 24.12.2007 from the account maintained by him in State Bank of Travancore. The complainant presented the cheque for collection, but it was returned for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, a lawyer notice was issued demanding payment. But, the notice was returned with the remarks "addressee unclaimed" and the amount was not paid. Hence, the complaint. 3. To prove the prosecution...
Gati Cargo Management Services, Gati Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Carriers who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- it was the value of electronic locks with future interest at 14.5% and to pay Rs.50,000/-( sic.Rs.5000/-) as compensation and Rs.1000/-, as cost in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.662/00. 2. The case of the complainants/hotels is that they had dispatched 6 number of imported electronic locks to be delivered at Mumbai for pre installation servicing on 23/9/2000. The above locks were required for affixing in the new block of the complainants hotel which was to be inaugurated. There was considerable delay in delivering the article. The complainant sent a legal notice on 18/10/2010 as by the time the consignment was not delivered. It took about 40 days for the delivery of the locks at Mumbai. The above delay has resulted in delay the completion of the Star Hotel Project and the loss on the above amount worked out to Rs.50,000/-. The locks deli...
C.K.Johny Vs. New India Assurance Company
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant/decree holder in A.238/10, OP.214/02. The grievance of the appellant is that opposite party/respondent has made a short payment of Rs.6114/-. It is his grievance that the Forum has closed the EP without considering these objections. The complainant has also produced the statement of accounts filed by the respondent before the Forum. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant we find that in Item No.8 therein the interest on Rs.43,224/- from 13/7/2006 to 12/2/2008 is mentioned as Rs.2291/-. Actually the interest at the rate of 9% for the above period would work out to Rs.6146.45 and the difference would be Rs.3855/-. The above amount, the opposite parties are bound to pay. It is also pointed out that with respect to item No.9, deposit was actually made on 28/7/2008 as initially a cheque was issued in the name of the President of the Forum and it was returned and thereafter DD was produced. It was sent for realisat...
Sureshkumar, S/O. Pangi. Vs. A.K.Vijayan, S/O. Kunhunni; State of Kera ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
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.C. No. 613 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad 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 `1,00,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `1,00,000/-. 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 faile...
A.K.Nazeer. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
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. 198 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam, 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 `2,50,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `2,50,000/-. 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 ...
T.Daskutty. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
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. 466 of 200 of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananathapuram, 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 ` 2,50,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 2,50,000/-. 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 ...
B.Sreekumar. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12894 of 2010, namely, B.Sreekumar, is working as Assistant Professor of Health Education, Department of Community Medicine, Medical College, Kottayam. The case of the petitioner is that with effect from 1.1.1996, the designation of the petitioner should have been changed as Senior Lecturer on the basis of Ext.P2 Government Order, G.O. (P) No.145/2000/H&FWD; dated 16.6.2000. The petitioner contends that as per Ext.P2 Government Order, he should have been promoted as Assistant Professor with effect from 1.5.1996. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Professor only on 2.7.2007, though Ext.P2 Government Order came into force with effect from 1.1.1996. Pointing out the grievance, the petitioner submitted representation to the Government. However, reply to the representation was given by the Director of Medical Education, as per Ext.P4 dated 4.8.2008. Ext.P4 reads as follows: "Inviting attention to the reference cited. I am to inform you that Government a...
A.K.Nazeer. Vs. State of Kerala; Raveendran, S/O. K.G.K.Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
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. 198 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam, 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 `2,50,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `2,50,000/-. 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 t...
The Agricultural Income Tax, and ors. Vs. Thresiamma George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This Review Petition has been filed at the instance of the Revenue stating that there occurred an error apparent on the face of record, when W.P. (C) No.22814 of 2010 was disposed of on 18.08.2010, directing to release the amount covered by Ext.P1 by way of interest as ordered by the concerned respondent. 2. Review Petitioners contend that reference made to Section 68(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act which provides for granting of interest at the rate of 15% per annum is not applicable to the case in hand. The learned Special Government Pleader(Taxes) appearing for the review petitioners submits that there is no provision in the Old Act which governs the field in question and as such, the verdict passed by this Court, directing payment of interest, is liable to be reviewed. 3. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that, the impugned judgment was passed not placing reliance on Section 68(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act or as to the rate of inte...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »