Kerala Court July 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.
Sri. Rajappan Vs. State of Kerala and
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
M.L. Joseph Francis, J.1. This appeal is filed by the first accused in S.C. No. 803 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court - 1, Pathanamthitta. That was a case charge sheeted by the C.I. of police, Pathanamthitta against accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the husband and wife under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.2. Prosecution case in brief is that, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are running a teashop at Ambalathupadu. They were not on good terms with Rathesh (deceased) since accused firmly believed that, deceased was responsible for the fire occurrence in which their shop was gutted down one month ago. On 6.1.02 at 7.30 p.m. when 1st accused came to close down the reading room, deceased Rathesh told him that, he need close the reading room only at 8 p.m. There was some exchange of words between accused and the deceased. 2nd accused asked him, was he not the person who set fire to their tea shop and 2nd accused threw ash on the face of Rathesh and 1st accused stabbed h...
Manoj Mathew S/O. Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
Joseph Francis, J.1. Crl.A. 1958 of 2006 is filed by the first accused, Manoj Mathew, and Crl.A. No. 1965 of 2006 is filed by the second accused, Joby Mathew, in S.C. No. 160 of 005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam. That was a case charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ramapuram against accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C.2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers and they are the cousins of deceased Baby Cyriac. On 22.11.2003 at about 6.45 a.m., accused trespassed into the Kuzhimanthikandam rubber plantation in ellilappally Village, Edacherrry kara. The first accused caught hold on the shirt of the deceased, Baby Cyriac, from behind and stabbed below the right side of the back chest with a rubber tapping knife. When the injured tried to run away, the second accused caught Baby Cyriac from behind at his neck and at that time the first accused stabbed him twice on the...
V.M. Thankachan Vs. Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The main relief sought for in W.P.(C) No. 9919/2010 is for a direction to the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to take prompt and effective steps to ensure that 4th respondent or any others do not in any way contaminate or pollute the well of the petitioner or other drinking water sources in the area. The 4th respondent in the said writ petition was conducting a bakery and restaurant in the name and style 'JM Bakes and Restaurant'. The said building is situated on the immediate eastern side of the residential building of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family are drawing water from the well situated in their compound for drinking purpose.2. This Court passed an interim order dated 24.03.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 9919/2010 directing the 3rd respondent to conduct a local inspection and submit a report before this Court with regard to the allegation of contamination of petitioner's well due to the waste coming out of the restaurant owned by the 4th respondent. A ...
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb Meenangadi and Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30.1.09 in CC.107/09 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the inference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.A2 bill and to give a fresh bill for the period from 11/01 to 5/02. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had a connection from the opposite parties vide Consumer No.21226 under VII B tariff and that he had stopped his business in November 2001. He has also submitted that the 1st opposite party had disconnected the service as per the request of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he has been served a bill for Rs.19,938/- after a period of 8 years and that if he was prepared to remit the amount as one time settlement, he would be given a deduction of Rs.6,205/-. It was also informed that if ...
The Malanadu Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in CC.143/08. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in collecting excess amount of Rs.73,400/- for effecting repurchase of the property which was pledged for an earlier agricultural loan availed on 20.3.1994. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the agricultural loan transaction was closed by auction sale of the mortgaged property and the same was taken place on 30.6.1999. Thereafter on 25.4.07 the complainant approached the opposite party bank for repurchasing the property which was sold in auction sale. Thereby the complainant paid a total of Rs.2,07,400/- for repurchasing the property. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP.143/08. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 t...
Mrs. Sonia Rajeevan W/O. Rajeevan Vs. Bishop Dr. Abraham Mar Julios
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P6, order dated 22.06.2010 on I.A. No. 4077 of 2010 in O.S. No. 60 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Ernakulam. That is a suit for arrears of rent filed by respondent-plaintiff. Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff filed O.S. No. 311 of 2005 in the court of Additional Sub Judge,-I, Ernakulam in respect of the same subject matter, it is not disputed before me and against petitioner herein for recovery of possession of the suit building, rent arrears and for damages for use and occupation from the date of suit. In O.S. No. 60 of 2009 trial has commenced in the sense that respondent has filed proof affidavit and marked his documents. In O.S. No. 311 of 2005 pre-trial steps are not completed in that applications filed for impleadment of respondent and for consequential amendment of the plaint are pending. While so petitioner filed Ext.P5, application in O.S. No. 60 of 2009 seeking stay of that suit until dis...
Thrissur Municipality Vs. Thressiamma George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. Order dated 07.03.2006 in E.P. No. 1 of 2005 in L.A.R. No. 76 of 1988 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur is under challenge at the instance of judgment debtor No. 2. Vide the impunged order, petitioner was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 2,73,232.13. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium awarded by reference court in so far as the decree does not provide for that and since the executing court cannot go behind the decree. It is also contended that executing court has calculated interest on rest of the enhanced compensation awarded without being provided for in the decree. I have heard learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also.2. Contention that in the absence of a provision in decree respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not claim interest on solatium cannot stand in the light of the decisions in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India : (2006) 8 ...
George Vs. the CochIn Devasom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Standing Counsel for respondent takes notice.2. Prayer in this Writ Petition filed by the defendant in the suit - O.S. No. 625 of 2007 of the court of learned Second Additional Munsiff, Thrissur is to keep proceeding in E.P. No. 1736 of 2009 in that case in abeyance for such period as this Court deems fit and also for a direction to the learned Additional Munsiff-I, Thrissur to restore Exts.P3 to P5 applications and dispose of the same within a time limit to be prescribed by this Court.3. Respondent-plaintiff sued petitioner for eviction from the suit building and for other reliefs. Case was brought up for trial in the list on 18.08.2008. As petitioner remained absent and there was no representation an ex parte decree was passed. Petitioner filed Ext.P3, application to set aside the ex parte decree accompanied by a petition to condone the delay of 508 days claiming that since he was laid up due to old age illness such as sodium deficiency, etc., and his counsel w...
P.H. Abdulkharim, Govt. Contractor Vs. the State of Kerala,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Heard learned Senior Advocate for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents.2. Petitioner, on the strength of judgments of this Court in W.A. Nos. 216 of 2001 arising from O.P. No. 23389 of 2000 and W.A. No. 2045 of 2000 sought execution of the said judgments in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur for realization of amounts stated therein. Vide Ext.P8, order learned Sub Judge dismissed execution petition for the reason that copy of relevant judgment of this Court is not produced. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.3. I called for report from the Additional Sub Judge as to whether copy of the relevant judgments were produced in the executing court. Learned Sub Judge as per letter dated 05.07.2010 has reported that only certified copy of judgment dated 25.02.2002 in W.A. No.216 of 2001 was produced in the executing court by the petitioner on 05.12.2005 but certified copy of judgment in W.A. No. 2045 of 2000 is not...
The Branch Manager, Palakkad Vs. Arun Raj
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.161/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.2,250/- being the part of the fees paid together with Rs.500/- as costs. If the amount is not paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order the amount will carry interest at 9% from the date of the order of the Forum. 2. The case of the complainant is that he joined in the opposite party institution for B.Com course on payment Rs.2,500/- on 9.6.09. Thereafter he got admission at Chittur Government College. When claimed refund he was told that Rs.1000/- will have to be forfeited and the balance amount will be refunded only when another student join in the seat of the complainant. 3. It is the case of the opposite party/appellants that the complainant has signed the declaration that fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the affidavits of the respective ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »