Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

Joy. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. Petitioner, the fifth accused in C.P.234/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chengannur filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against him, contending that, entire disputes with the second respondent was settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, second respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and on the materials, an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted and if at all only an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code would be attracted and as all disputes with the second respondent were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has no grievance aginst the petitioner, as she has settled all the disputes and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, second respon...

M/S. Dbfs Securities Ltd. Vs.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.902/2010 of Thodupuzha Police Station registered under Annexure-II F.I.R, based on Annexure-III compliant filed by the first respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondents 2 and 3 are also persons who allegedly sustained monitory loss, as per Annexure-III complaint. 2. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R and further proceedings, contenting that entire disputes were subsequently settled amicably with respondents 1 to 3 and consequent to the settlement, respondents 1 to 3 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners and therefore, they have no objection for quashing ...

The Manager. Vs. the Mahatma Gandhi University.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. According to the petitioner, they have sought affiliation of the 1st respondent University for starting courses in B.Tech Civil Engineering for the academic year 2010-11. It is stated that the Expert Committee appointed by the University inspected the infrastructural and instrumental facilities provided by the petitioner and has submitted its report to the University. Petitioner complains that despite the above, the University has not passed orders on the application made by the petitioner for the reason that it has not entered into a seat sharing agreement with the Government agreeing to surrender 50% seats. 2. Standing counsel who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that the University has sought the views of the Government and that it is for non receipt of the views that University has not passed orders on the application. 3. As far as the issue regarding non execution of the agreement is concerned, it cannot be a matter of dispute that there is no law compelling the ...

P.N.Gopidas. Vs. the Kerala State Road Transport.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. Petitioners are retired employees of the KSRTC. They have filed this writ petition claiming the benefit of revised pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01/04/2009. The issue similar to the one claimed by the petitioners has already been decided by this court in Ext.P10 and other judgments and therefore the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall compute the revised pensionary benefits payable to the petitioners w.e.f. 01/04/2009 under the settlement concluded on 28/11/2008. This shall be disbursed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that in the event of non payment as above, petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from 1/6/2009....

M. Pareeth. Vs. the Kerala Small Industries.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. Petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation. Their grievance in this writ petition is that service benefits due to the petitioners, including surrender leave salary and retirement benefits, are not being paid to the petitioners even though they retired long back. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the benefits due to the petitioners would be paid within three months. 2. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to see that all service benefits due to the petitioners including leave surrender salary and retirement benefits are paid to them within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment....

Abdul Nazar K., S/O. Mohammed Vs. P.Hassan, S/O. Alavi, R/O. Sweet Sto ...

Court: Kerala

J U D G M E N T The complainant in S.T . No. 20/1998 on the file of J.F.C.M. Nilampur challenges the acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending this appeal the appellant has compounded the offence with the first respondent/accused and they have filed a joint petition in terms of section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The composition is recorded. Since the complainant has settled the matter with the accused, he does not have any subsisting grievance in the matter and accordingly this appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. ...

Valsala and Another Vs. Seetha and Others

Court: Kerala

O R D E R THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) NO.337 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, North Paravur. That is a suit for injunction to restrain respondents from alienating the suit property or inducting strangers into the said property. Petitioners claimed title and possession over the property along with respondents pursuant to an order of assignment in favour of their predecessor-in-interest. It is stated that the order of assignment was later cancelled by the Tahsildar, according to the petitioners illegally, for reason of transfer of a portion of the property before patta was issued to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners. Petitioners have challenged cancellation of assignment before the RDO, Fort Kochi vide Ext.P2 and according to the petitioners, the RDO has granted a stay of order of cancellati...

George.A.J. Vs. Ajeesh KureetharA.

Court: Kerala

1. Ext.P5, order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Cherthala in A.S.No.15 of 2006 refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as prayed for in I.A.No.977 of 2009 to identify the suit property is under challenge. 2. Petitioner sued respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction claiming that he is in possession of the property as per Ext.A1, sale deed marked in the trial court. Respondent contended that there was no such sale deed and that the document was executed merely as a security for a loan. It was also contended that the document is sham. Though learned Munsiff found against the contention that the document is sham, the suit was dismissed for other reasons. That dismissal is under challenge in A.S.No.15 of 2006. Pending appeal petitioner filed I.A.No.977 of 2009 as aforesaid. 3. It was appropriate, as held by this Court on various occasions that learned Sub Judge considered I.A.No.977 of 2009 at the time the appeal itself was heard and that application was disposed of along w...

Manager, St.John'S Syrian. vs. State of Kerala.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. Since common questions are involved in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P. (C) No.31634 of 2010 is filed by the Manager of St.John's Cyrian Higher Secondary School, Vadakara, challenging the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Government declining to grant stay in the Revision filed by the Manager against the order passed by the Deputy Director refusing to continue the suspension of the Headmaster beyond the period of fifteen days. W.P. (C) No.31321 of 2010 is filed by Bindumol P.Abraham, the Headmistress, who was suspended and who was directed to be reinstated as per the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Education. Bindumol P.Abraham prays for implementing the order dated 11.8.2010. W.P. (C) No.28565 of 2010 is filed by Shaju K.M., who was appointed as the teacher-in-charge when Bindumol P.Abraham was suspended. According to Shaju K.M., he is the senior-most teacher and therefore, he...

The Ehadmaster. Vs. Gracy George.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. When this appeal is taken up for consideration, it is brought to our notice that the Deputy Director of Education had already rejected the review petition (Ext.P8) filed by respondent No.1. We are further informed that respondent No.1 has moved a revision petition before the Government as provided under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 pursued the statutory remedy available to her. 2. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that a final decision on the revision petition will be taken by the Government without any further delay, if it has been already received. 3. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the government has to be directed to take a decision in the matter with expedition. Therefore, it is directed that the appropriate authority under the appellant shall take a decision on the revision petition preferred by respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible ...