Kerala Court April 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.
T.D. Jose S/O. Late Devassy Vs. V.S. Somasundaran S/O. Valath Sreedhar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant against whom an order of eviction was concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of own occupation is the petitioner in this revision petition under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord sought to evict him on the ground of arrears of rent also. But it appears that since the entire rent in arrears was discharged by the tenant by the time the proceedings reached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord did not press for an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). It is agreed that in this revision we need be concerned only with the correctness of the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3). The need projected by the landlord under Section 11(3) was that the building in question is needed bona fide for occupation by Girish Kumar brother of the landlord so that Sri Girish Kumar can conduct an Internet Cafe in the building. The case of the landlord as pleaded was that his brother Girish...
Prasad Jacob (Us Citizen) Vs. State of Kerala and
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 72 of 2010 of Perumpetty Police Station, challenge the order dated 29-3-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (J.F.C.M. for short), Thiruvalla.2. I heard Sr. Advocate Sri K. Ramakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Adv. Sri Rajeev, the learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and Sri V.G. Govindan Nair, the learned Director General of Prosecution. I also called for and perused the records.THE BACKGROUND FACTS3. The turn of events (according to the prosecution) culminating in the impugned order can be summarised as follows:A. One P.J. Samkutty (Sam Jacob) of Punnakkal family in Chungappara in Pathanamthitta Ditrict having the pen name 'Shamu Coimbatore' was the author of a book tit...
Sudarsanan Vs. S. Rajendran @ Francis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.3.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 9207 of 2010. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner therein, Sri. S. Rajendran prayed for a direction to the official respondents to allot him the toddy shops in Group No. 1 of Neyyattinkara Excise Range in Thiruvananthapuram division, without taking into account the pendency of C.C. No. 93/97 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court III, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from Crime No. 222/96 of Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the facts of the case, issued an interim order, as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved by the said interim order, the official respondents in the Writ Petition have preferred W.A. No. 603 of 2010, the additional 7th respondent has preferred W.A. No. 601 of 2010 and the additional 8th respondent has preferred W.A.602 of 2010. In all these Writ Appeals, the f...
Axis Bank Ltd, Mullakkal Alappuzha Branch, Reptd. by Its Branch Manage ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants/revision petitioners are the opposite parties in IA.203/08 in CC 132/08 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The Forum has issued an interim order directing the revision petitioner to return the amount of Rs.5,943/- wrongly taken from the S.B account of the complainant. It is also submitted that the Forum has issued show cause notice in the execution petition filed by the complainant. We find that the order is not supported by any reasons. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum in IA.203/08 is set aside. The Forum is directed to dispose of CC.132/08 within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
Ummer K. S/O. Ali and Fathima Samad W/O. Abdul Samad Vs. State Through ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Crime No. 132 of 2010 of Edakkad Police Station.2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner, who was shown as accused No. 4 in the crime, was deleted from the array of accused. The first petitioner is the sole accused in the case as of now.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner (sole accused).6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the first petitioner (accused), the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on hi...
Dr. M.i. Itty Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant in this Writ Appeal is the first petitioner in O.P. No. 666 of 1996 and the respondents are the respondents therein. By judgment delivered on 15-2-2006, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby the first petitioner therein has filed this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The appellant was the Managing Director of Southern Organics Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company had availed a loan of Rs. 8,30,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation, the first respondent herein. The loan was secured by a mortgage of the immovable assets of the company as per mortgage deed registered as document No. 2790 of 1978 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Edappally and by hypothecation of the plant and machinery. The company and its Directors, including the appellant, had executed Ext.R1(a) agreement dated 28.8.1978 undertaking to repay the loan in seventeen half yearl...
Ammini, D/O. Kochuraman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 12 of 2010 of Nooranad Excise Range for an offence punishable under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 1.5 litres of arrack seeks anticipatory Bail.2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involving such grave offence. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated under Section 41-A(b)(ii) of the Abkari Act are present in this case so as to justify the release of the petitioner on bail. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. Accordingly, If the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate concerned within two weeks from today and files an application for regular bail, the s...
State of Kerala Represented By, Vs. K.V. Indira, Lower Primary School ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. She was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant, in the second respondent's school. As a result of division fall, she became a surplus hand, with effect from 15.7.1997. Since she had nine years' service to her credit, she was entitled to get protection. But, there was some delay from the part of the officials to deploy her. Actually, the deployment never took place and finally, when another vacancy arose in the school on 1.6.1998, she was accommodated in it. The first respondent was entitled to get salary for the period from 15.7.1997 to 1.6.1998. But, her motion in this regard was rejected by the statutory authorities. The Government also rejected her claim, as per Exts.P4 and P7. Challenging those orders and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed.3. As per the relevant orders g...
Natarajan S/O M.N. Divakaran Vs. the Secretary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P3 order.2. According to the petitioner, he has been granted kuthakapattam lease in respect of 1.32 cents of land in survey No. 459/7 of Mezhuveli Village. It is stated that in the leased property, he has constructed a building and is conducting a textile shop. While so, he was issued Ext.P2 notice stating that the lease was originally granted in favour of his father, and that despite the expiry of his father, the petitioner did not surrender the property. On this basis, he was directed to demolish the building and surrender the land. According to the petitioner, he submitted his reply to Ext.P2. It is stated that after receiving the reply to Ext.P2, the Panchayat issued Ext.P3 order rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner and directing him to demolish the building and return possession of the land. It is on receipt of Ext.P3 order that this writ petition has been filed challenging the said order.3. As already notic...
V.P. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Special Tahasildar (La)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner submits that 41 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 411/3, 411/2, 411/5, 411/8 of Mattur Village was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act under the Fast Track method. According to him, the property is having road frontage, but however has been categorized and compensation paid, on the basis that the property does not have road frontage. As a result of this, petitioner suffered huge loss. Thereupon he submitted Ext.P5 representation to the District Collector. It is stated that as per the endorsement made by the District Collector on 10.11.2008, Ext.P5 representation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for report. It is stated that there has not been any progress in the matter. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis that the land acquired from him has road frontage and is to be categorized on that bas...