Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

K.V. George. Vs. Vasudevan Pillai.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.84/2000 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for recovery of money. The suit is pending. The defendant in the suit filed Transfer O.P.Nos.196 & 197/2001 for transfer of O.S.Nos.716 & 812/1999 pending before the I Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam where O.S.No.84/2000 is pending. According to the applicant in the Transfer O.P. two suits pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and O.S.No.84/2000 are connected suits, that for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioners in all the three suits, it is said that it is highly necessary in the interest of justice that all the the suits are disposed of by the same court. In the circumstances, the defendant in O.S.No.84/2000 prayed for a direction to transfer O.S.Nos.716 & 812/1999 pending before the I Additional Munsiff's Court to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. 2...

Gopi. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. Petitioners state that making allegations of pollution against the fifth respondent, they have filed a complaint before respondents 2 and 3. It is alleging that the complaint is not acted upon, this writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, complaints have been received by respondents 2 and 3, necessarily it is for them to take action on the complaints. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, if any complaint has been received from the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 shall enquire into the same with notice to the fifth respondent and take appropriate action in the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the allegations raised. Writ petition is disposed of as above....

Sebastian Vs. the Manager, Punjab National Bank

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation from either side. Appellant is called absent. Hence appeal dismissed for non prosecution....

Lissy Antony. Vs. K.A.George.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Defendant in O.S. No.444 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur is the petitioner before me challenging correctness of Ext.P3, order dated 23.01.2009. Respondent sued petitioner for specific performance of an agreement for sale. There was a compromise decree passed in favour of respondent on 08.04.2005. Petitioner filed I.A. No.4822 of 2007 to recall the compromise decree on the ground of fraud and coercion. That application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.01.2009. That order was challenged in F.A.O. No.119 of 2010. That appeal also was dismissed as not maintainable vide judgment dated 24.09.2010. Thereafter petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on 07.12.2010. It is contended by learned counsel that court below has taken an erroneous view that I.A. No.4822 of 2007 was not maintainable under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and that the finding entered by ...

Remya George. Vs. the Organising Committee.

Court: Kerala

1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 09.12.2010; the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 36821 of 2010 has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant is a XIIth Standard student studying in St. Sebastian's Higher Secondary School, Palluruthy. The grievance of the appellant is that, in a competition of Bharathanatyam and Folk dance in the Mattancherry Sub - District School Kalolsavam for the year 2010 - '11, the appellant could not perform well, though the appellant is otherwise accomplished in both the abovementioned items, in view of certain inadequate arrangements made by the respondents authorities. Aggrieved by the decision of the judges in deciding the competency of the contestant candidates, the appellant preferred the appeals. It may be mentioned herein that the appeals were heard by the Appeal Committee of the Sub-District School Kalolsavam. The said appeals of the appellant herein were rejected by the said committee; hence the appellant herein approached this Court, by way of Writ ...

K.V.Gopinathan. Vs. the Kerala State Head Load Workers.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P1 and P7 and also to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 appeal within a time limit. 2. The appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board. The same is filed against the order granting registration to 4th respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. The provision for filing the appeal is clause 6E of the Scheme whereby the proper authority to consider the appeal is District Committee. The petitioner has filed the appeal before the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. Therefore the Chief Executive officer will return the appeal to the petitioner if not already returned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment for filing it before the appropriate authority. Appeal if filed before ...

Gopikrishnan K.N. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. In this Petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 403 of 2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. seeks anticipatory bail. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above case on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the said officer and subject to the...

Sajeev. Vs. M.Ravindran Nair, and anr.

Court: Kerala

1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 1136 of 1999 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court-II, Ernakulam challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of 30 days under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was allowed in part confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence. The accused was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for three months. He was directed to surrender before the court to undergo the sentence of imprisonment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor....

George Joseph. Vs. the Superintendent of Police.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The petitioners have approached this court seeking the following reliefs. "i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order to the respondents 1 and 2, to give adequate protection to the life of the petitioners from the threat from the 3rd and 4th respondents. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order to the 2nd respondent to take effective action on Ext.P2 complaint". 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. They are merchants and conducting business of Paint, Cement, Electrical goods, Tiles and hardware in the shops belonging to respondents 3 and 4. The Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not applicable to the area. It is stated that petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 had entered into an agreement and the period expires on 30.11.2010. Respondents demanded to vacate the building. Petitioner sought time to find suitable rooms. There is allegation that they were threatened. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents ...

Ginu Rachel George. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to register a crime against sixth respondent, alleging that in spite of Ext.P1 petition filed before Inspector General of Police or Ext.P3 petition submitted before the Director General of Police, which was received under Ext.P3/4, no crime was registered and no investigation was undertaken. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that crime No.737/2010 of Koipuram Police Station was registered on 17/11/2010 under Section 366, 501 and 508 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of Information Technology Act and the case is being investigated with the assistance of Assistant Commandant, High Tech Crime Enquiry Cell, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. In view of the submission, it is not necessary to issue any writ of mandamus or order as sought for. Investigation is to be completed expeditiously....