Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

State of Kerala Vs. Domy S/O. Kuriakose and Kuriakose S/O. Ouseph

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against a verdict of not guilty and acquittal of respondents/accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C.2. The crux of the charge against respondents/accused 1 and 2 can be summarised as follows:3. PW1 is the brother of the 2nd accused. The 1st accused is the son of the 2nd accused. There were disputes between PW1 and the second accused regarding properties which they owned and possessed adjacent to the property of each other. There were civil litigations also and the parties were already before the civil courts. Some interim orders also have been passed by the civil court in such civil litigations. According to the prosecution, PW1 was not able to secure local workers to attend to his work in the property. He, therefore, requisitioned the services of his son's brother-in-law PW2 to get in some workers to work in his property. PW2 allegedly made available to PW1 the ser...

Suresh Babu S/O. Kuttan Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The issue raised in these writ petitions are common and therefore, the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners were contractors of toddy shops. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C).9001/2010 is concerned, he and another person were the accused in Crime No. 142/2003 registered under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The case was charge sheeted as S.C.280/2004 and after trial, by Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 14.11.2005, the accused were acquitted.3. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.(C).9002/2010 is concerned, he was one of the accused in Crime No. 34/2004, registered under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The case was charge sheeted and was numbered as S.C.21/2009 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, Ad hoc III (Fast Track). The Court by Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 7.12.2009, acquitted the petitioner.4. In these writ petitions the claim of the petitioners is that they having been exonerated in the Criminal cases, are e...

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation and ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner company own a five star hotel namely The Beach Orchid. There are three buildings, bearing Nos. 1259/863-A, 1260/863-B and 1261/863-C in Ward No. XIX of the first respondent. Municipality assessed property tax at Rs. 9,78,469/-, Rs. 1,723/- and Rs. 52,829/- in respect of the aforesaid buildings. It is stated that the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent and by order dated 17.3.2009 the assessment was completed.2. Appeal was filed to the Municipal Council and the Council by Ext.P1 order dated 22.12.2009 reduced the property tax to Rs. 8,80,622/-, Rs. 1,551/-, Rs. 47,525/- respectively. Against the appellate order, petitioner filed revision before the Tribunal, a copy of which is Ext.P2. The Tribunal by order passed on 22.2.2010 returned the revision, stating that Section 11 is not properly complied with. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed praying for quashing the order dated 22.2.2010 referred to above and to direct t...

Sarala Baby Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT66

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are married ladies. Their husbands are working abroad. They are desirous of joining their husbands. It appears, for obtaining necessary travel documents, they are required to produce certificates showing registration of their marriage. In all these cases, the marriages took place as per the customary rites. In some of these cases, the solemnization of the marriage took place before the introduction of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The marriages solemnized before or after the commencement of the Rules can be registered under the Rules. So, the petitioners moved the respective Local Registrars, appointed under Rule 5 of the Rules, by filing a memorandum in duplicate in Form No. I appended to the Rules. In these cases, except in W.P.(C) No. 25707/2009, the memoranda submitted in Form No. I were not accepted by the respective Local Registrars, for the rea...

Sahadevan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. Did the court below err in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of ocular witnesses PWs 1, 3 and 4?ii) Did the court below err in holding that the appellant is not entitled to absolution or mitigation under Sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code?2. These are the questions that are raised for consideration in this appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. Lean Jose. The appellant faces a sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. He is sentenced further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month.3. The prosecution alleged that at about 2 p.m. on 02.09.2005, when the deceased had come to the road near the shops of PWs 1 to 3, the appellant stopped the deceased on the road and did not allow his goods carriage autorickshaw loaded with tiles to move forward. He arrogantly told the deceased that he can proceed from there only after the road is repaired. The deceased got out from his autorickshaw....

Jomon Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT371

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiai, J.1. Petitioner, the second accused in Crime No. 409 of 2009 of Kidangoor Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 393 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, was granted bail, by Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam under Annexure-I order dated 20.02.2010 on conditions. The third condition was that petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs. 25,000/- to ensure his presence before the Investigating Officer. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to delete that condition contending that in spite of the order dated 20.2.2010, petitioner is still in jail, as he is not capable of depositing the amount.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.3. If, to enlarge an accused on bail, he has to make cash deposit of Rs. 25.000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only), only an affluent accused will be able to enjoy the bail. On the other hand, a person living below the poverty...

Dr. Jayakumar R., Civil Surgeon Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, feeling aggrieved by certain provisions in the Appendix to Ext.P1 Special Rules for the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers). The Special Rules, inter alia, deal with the placement in the speciality cadre. The norms for placement of Medical Officers, who are already in service, are contained in the Appendix to the Special Rules. The appellant's grievance is mainly concerning paragraphs 5-D and 5-E of the said Appendix. The Appendix provides for point system to identify the incumbents for placement. That is, points are awarded to the Medical Officers, having regard to the various parameters mentioned therein. For example, a Post Graduate Diploma holder in the opted specialty or super speciality will be awarded one point for each completed year of service, whereas a Post Graduate Degree holder in the opted specialty or super specialty will be awarded 2 points for each completed year ...

Shaji @ Illickal Shaji Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. i) Is it safe to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW1?ii) Can the evidence about dying declaration and recovery of MO.1 on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant be accepted and made use of to draw inspiration for the oral evidence of PW1?iii) Is the court below justified in entering a verdict of guilty conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?These are the three questions that are raised before us for consideration on the basis of the arguments advanced by Sri. K.V. Sabu, Advocate for the appellant.2. The appellant faces a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. He faces the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 324 I.P.C. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. is allowed.3. The prosecution alleged that there was a dispute between PW...

Sulaiman Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT49

Antony Dominic, J.1. Prayers sought in this Writ Petition are to quash Ext.P1 notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and require respondents 1 to 3 not to acquire or take possession of land in Sy. No. 1/8 of Thekkumbhagam Village, Kanayannur Taluk owned by the petitioners. Petitioners own 0.2307 hectors (56.98 cents) of land. By Ext.P1, notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of handing it over to the 6th respondent in exchange of the land acquired from them.2. Facts of the case are that, in order to widen the access road to a bridge that was proposed to be constructed across the Thattapillikattu river, part of the land belonging to the 6th respondent was proposed to be acquired and Ext.P2 notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 5.5.2004. The 6th respondent challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.(C). No. 21716/2005 before this Court. ...

M.N. Prakash. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is running a furniture and packing case unit exclusively using rubber wood jointly with one Abraham Joseph. The D.F.O. Kottayam as per Ext.P1 issued N.O.C. dated 18/7/1997. The second respondent Grama Panchayat had issued licence which is being renewed from time to time. Ext.P3 is the copy of the SSI registration. Ext.P4 is the copy of the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. 2. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court the petitioner submitted application as per Ext.P5 before the first respondent for grant of N.O.C. 3. The same is said to be pending. The petitioner has approached this Court in the light of the stop memo issued by the Panchayat as per Ext.P8. The Panchayat has taken the view that N.O.C. from the first respondent has to be obtained. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that application is pending and the action will be finalised after conducting mandat...