Kerala Court May 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.
Viju P.V. Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Justice M.C. Hari Rani) was a party. The judgment was pronounced on 18.6.2008. The relevant portion in the said judgment appears in paragraph 8, which we extract below.Para.8. The Director General of Police is directed to look into the commissions and omissions of the 11th respondent in occupying the building covered by Ext.P1 and the induction of two tenants, respondents 12 and 13. If it appears to the DGP that those matters disclose materials for taking disciplinary action against the 11th respondent, he shall bring it to the notice of the disciplinary authority to take appropriate action against 11th respondent in accordance with law. The DGP shall also enquire into the complicity of the police officers stationed in Cochin City in the occupation of the building in question by the 11th respondent. If they have acted contrary to law, appropriate action shall be...
Muhammed Shraf Vs. Thankachan,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Twinkle, an adult major woman (born on 31.10.1989). According to the petitioner, he is in love with the said Twinkle. She is the daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They had taken photographs together. They had exchanged letters. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who did not approve of the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue, are illegally detaining the alleged detenue. In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed that the detenue may be brought to Court and released from the detention/confinement of her parents.2. The petition was admitted and notice was ordered on 13.05.2010. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his Counsel are present. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their Counsel are present. The alleged detenue has come to Court along with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, her parents. The alleged detenue stated before us in Court ...
Sreejith S/O. Ramu Pariyarathodi Vs. Vinodkumar S/O. Ramu Pariyarathod ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1726 of 2010 is one Sreejith who is the son of K. Sarojini, the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1727 of 2010. Besides Sreejith, Sarojini has a son by name Vinod Kumar who is the common Ist respondent in these Crl.M.Cs.2. Sreejith lodged a complaint before the Meppadi Police alleging that Vinod Kumar fraudulently transferred the registration of an Enfield Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KL-12/6501 and a Jeep bearing Reg. No. KL-11/8086 which were originally standing in the name of Sreejith and his mother Sarojini respectively and Vinod Kumar had committed an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.3. During crime stage Sreejith filed C.M.P. 323 of 2010, Sarojini filed C.M.P. 324 of 2010 and Vinod Kumar filed C.M.P. No. 1009/2010 and 1010 of 2010 for interim custody of the motor cycle and jeep in question. Except the Registration Certificate which showed that the registration of the Jeep as well as the motor cycle of which the re...
The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Pattasseril Pvt. Ltd., Boy's High ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Third respondent appears. Notice to respondents 1 and 2 returned as unclaimed. It is declared that notice to those respondents have been duly served.2. Plaintiff appeals against a common order dismissing an application to restore a suit for money dismissed for default and an application to condone 191 days in filing that application for restoration. It sued the respondents for a decree for recovery of Rs. 72,23,043.96 with future interest. That happened to be dismissed for default. The application for restoration was filed on ground that on the date when the suit stood posted in the special list, the plaintiff's Counsel had applied seeking that it be adjourned since the authorised agent of the plaintiff company could not be available in Kochi to tender evidence. The fact that such an application was filed is not in dispute. The dismissal of the suit was essentially on account of non-appearance of the witness to tender evidence on behalf of the plaintif...
P.S. Lakshmi (Unmarried), Vs. Sivaprasad S/O. Kunjukuttan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The rival contestants are before this Court and both of them claimed to be aggrieved by the impugned order under which the claim of three children, aged 20, 17 and 8 years respectively was allowed in part and their father, one of the contestants was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 750/- and Rs. 750/- per mensem respectively to the three claimants, his children.2. Appeal No. 814/2009 has been filed by the claimants- children, aggrieved by the quantum of amount fixed. Appeal No. 271/2009 is filed by the father contending that he is not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. Paternity is admitted. That the mother of the claimants, i.e. the wife of the respondent expired on 31/7/2007 and that he got remarried immediately thereafter is not disputed. Without dispute, the respondent-father has properties in his name. He has a workshop. He has an autorikshaw. The respondent-father admittedly has landed properties also in his name.3. Claimants/chi...
Niyas Vs. the S.i. of Police,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. This petition is directed against Annexure A9 order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner/2nd accused in crime No. 78 of 2007 of Cumbummettu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act.2. The allegation against the accused persons was that on 11.6.2007 they were found transporting spirit in 16 jerry cans each having a capacity of 35 litres in a Maruthi car bearing registration No. KL 5 W 5232 at Cumbummettu. On 14.8.2007 the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner and the 1st accused. It was a default bail, since no charge sheet was filed within the time permitted under Section 167 Cr.P.C. One of the conditions of the bail order was that they should report before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the filing of the final report. Both the accused persons were actually r...
Jose S/O. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-2010
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. L.A.R. No. 22 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge's Court, North Paravur was disposed of by that court on 30.8.2008 on the premise that no claim statement was filed and there is no representation by the claimant. It was recorded that the claimant was absent. Though that judgment states that the materials have been perused by the learned Sub Judge and that there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, obviously, the court proceeded on the basis that the claimant had no pleadings on record in the form of a claim statement. But the materials produced as Annexure A1 to A3 categorically shows that there was a claim statement on record and the court had received it. Obviously, therefore, we have necessarily to treat the judgment dated 30.8.2008 as an ex parte one.2. The claimant filed I.A. No. 5128 of 2008 invoking Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order restoring the land acquisiti...
Gopikan Vs. State of Kerala and Inland Waterways Authority of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The Requisitioning Authority is the appellant in LAA.799/07 and the claimant is the appellant in LAA.432/06. Both of them are aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court in LAR.67/01 which was in respect of acquisition of land in Thrikkunnappuzha village for the purposes of the Requisitioning Authority. Our attention is drawn by Mr. V. Santharam, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority to the judgment of this Court in LAA.619/06. It is seen from that judgment which was in respect of acquisition of identical land in Thrikkunnappuzha village for the same purpose, this Court has re-fixed the value of land at Rs. 13,795/- per Are. Learned Counsel requested that the appeal preferred by the Requisitioning Authority be allowed to the extent of re-fixing the land value at Rs. 13,795/-.2. Opposing the above submission, the learned Counsel for the claimant (appellant in LAA.432/06) would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in LAA No...
Shanalalu Wife of Laalu and P. Nassir Son of Hamid Vs. the Station Hou ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 9 and 10 in Crime No. 62 of 2008 of Rajapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 326, 307, 316 and 120(b) read with 149 IPC.2. The de facto complainant is none other than the 1st petitioner's father and the 2nd petitioner is the nephew of the de facto complainant.3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons hired certain persons to cause the death of the de facto complainant and his 2nd wife and with that intention they splashed acid on the body of the de facto complainant and his 2nd wife.4. Originally the Circle Inspector of Police Vellarikkundu filed Ext.P4 final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. charge sheeting all the accused persons including the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod a further investigation was conducted with the permission of the J.F.C.M-I, Hosdurg. Further investigation was condu...
P.K. Rajan Vs. Cicilykutty and RishIn Raj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The husband is the petitioner. There is acrimony between the spouses. A preliminary decree for partition has been passed directing partition of an item of property with a house situated therein owned jointly in the name of the spouses. Final decree petition was filed. A Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner submitted her report and plan marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). Objections were raised by the respondent/wife against the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. The court adduced evidence and thereupon passed the impugned order. By the impugned order, which evidently is an interim order, the Family Court sent the matter back to the Commissioner with directions to file an additional report.2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He prays that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to interfere with the impugned order, which is not a revisable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »