Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

C.R.Thankappan Nair. Vs. the Kottayam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd, and ...

Court: Kerala

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. 1973 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Mobile), Kottayam 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 `37,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `37,000/-. 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 ...

Smitha Prasanth. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer.

Court: Kerala

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of assessment completed under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The assessment pertains to the year 2007-08. Normally this court may not be inclined to entertain any challenge against an order of assessment in view of availability of an effective alternate remedy under the statute. But learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the order of assessment was finalised in flagrant violation of the mandatory procedure contemplated under the relevant provision and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. It is contended that after filing objections to the proposal notice the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing. On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is evident that the assessing authority had considered the objections. But nothing is reflected in the order to the effect that an opportunity of hearing was not afforded, after filing of the objec...

M.Muneer. Vs. Love Fin, and anr.

Court: Kerala

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.4286 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Chavakkad, 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 `16,030/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand and thirty only). The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only). 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 tha...

V.A.Kareem. Vs. A.S.Bapputty, and anr.

Court: Kerala

1. This is an appeal arise from the order of acquittal. 2. The appellant filed a complaint against first respondent alleging offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant sold a lorry to one Meeran for and on behalf of the accused, as per his direction on 10.12.1998. He received the advance and a sale agreement was also executed as Ext.P4. The balance amount was paid on different dates. Three cheques were issued for the discharge of the said liability. The cheques on presentation, bounced for want of sufficient fund. Hence, a lawyer notice was issued. No reply was sent and no amount was paid and a complaint was filed alleging offence u/s.138 of the Act. 3. PW 1 and 2 were examined and Ext.P1 to P10 was marked. After closing evidence, the case was posted for questioning under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed by trial court under section 420 IPC. PW2, complainant was examined again and acc...

Vasudevan Namboori.K.R. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker588

1. The petitioner is working as Librarian Grade - I in  Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha, an aided college under the  corporate management of Diocese of Kothamangalam.           The  Principal of the college forwarded the proposal for U.G.C.  placement and promotion of the petitioner, before the  Directorate of Collegiate Education. The proposal was returned  by the Director of Collegiate Education. Challenging the order  passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, the Principal of  the   college submitted Exhibit P3 representation dated  27.4.2004 to the Secretary, Higher Education Department. 2. Since the proposal for placement in senior grade  under UGC scheme was not granted, the petitioner approached  this Court in W.P.(C) No.8751 of 2005, which was disposed of as per Exhibit P4 judgment, directing the Director of Collegiate  Education to consider and dispose of...