Kerala Court January 2012 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.
Krishna Pillai @ Krishnan Nair Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. Nomads wander from place to place in search of greener pastures and the boundaries of States present no barriers to them [See Lakshman v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1983 (3) SCC 275)]. The victim in the instant case is a 31/2 year old girl by name Nallaka who belonged to a nomadic family from Tamilnadu and strayed to Kerala. She went to sleep with her siblings and parents in the central room of the comfort station in a Private Bus Stand at Adoor on the night of 2.12.2005. Her further woke up at 1.00 A.M. past mid night to find his daughter missing from the place of sleep. A person sleeping in the same room of the comfort station who was heavily drunk blurted out that he saw the girl walking away. The search for the missing girl ended when she was found dead in a property few meters away from the bus stand on the morning of 7.12.2005. The suspicion centered around the person who was also sleeping in the room as he was seen loitering around the bus stand in the recent ...
George Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
The accused 1 and 3 in C.C.No.370/2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Muvattupuzha has filed this petition seeking an order to quash Annexure A2 final report in exercise of the powers vested on this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Going by Annexure A2 and Annexure A1, the complaint on the basis of which the case was registered and the final report filed after investigation, I find that the only allegation is that the accused persons who executed an agreement for sale in favour of the de facto complainant and obtained advance sale consideration failed to execute the sale deed and thereby committed offence under S.420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. Failure to execute the sale deed in compliance to an agreement for sale would not constitute offence under S.420. Therefore, I find merit in this petition. There is no statement in the final report to send the petitioners or other accused for trial for offence under S.420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Asking them to fa...
In Re Dr. Gopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
K.M. JOSEPH,J. 1. An interesting question has been raised by the petitioners, arising from the seemingly inflexible mandate contained in sub section (2) of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), requiring a waiting period of six months after the filing of the joint petition seeking dissolution of marriage by consent. 2. The petitioners, husband and wife filed O.P.No.1611/11 before the Family Court, Thrissur on 19.8.2011 under Section 13B of the Act. They also filed Ext.P2 petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), praying that the court may dispense with the six months’ time to dispose of the joint petition. The Family Court, Thrissur found that there is no provision to waive the statutory period of six months and dismissed the petition. Hence, this O.P.(F.C.) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the prayer is to direct the Family Court, Thrissur to pass appropria...
Minimol Vs. Director of Municipalities
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
1. These two Writ Petitions are posted before me for the reason that the Registry has declined to number them. According to the Registry, these Writ petitions are to be filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and not before this Court. In view of Notification No.A1 1649/2011 dated 21.12.2011, constituting the Kerala Administrative Tribunal w.e.f. 22.12.2011, the Registry has notified that cases falling within the jurisdiction of said Tribunal would not be entertained by this Court. Therefore, the Registry, disputed the stand that this Court lacked jurisdiction and requested that the matters be posted before the bench. Accordingly, these cases are posted before me and have been heard by me today. 2. According to Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar, counsel for the petitioner in ZWPC No: 2/2012, the petitioner in the said Writ Petition is working as a Health Inspector Grade II in the Palakkad Municipality and is an employee of the Municipality. His salary is paid by the Municipality. His appoi...
M/S. the National Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by Its Manager, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
ThottathilB.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act is by the insurer. Valid insurance cover is not in dispute. 2. The only plea of the appealing insurer is that the death of the victim was not on account of any activity which can be called as one that arose in the course of employment. No elaboration is required to state that this is essentially a question of fact, unless, of course, it is established that an error of law has been committed in the appreciation of evidence. Also, when Evidence Act does not apply, principles of fairness and fair play, reasonableness, exclusion of perversity in adjudication, availability of evidence, etc. would govern the issue as to whether this Court would interfere, holding that a substantial question of law arises for decision in such an appeal. 3. The first claimant, the mother of the deceased deposed as AW1. AW2 spoke as an independent witness regarding the incident. 4. The insurer did not adduce any e...
M/S Srilankan Airline Vs. Smt.Santha Narayanan and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.10 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.171/08, the first opposite party has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. As per the impugned order, the appellant/opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant the compensation fixed by the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague 1955 and by Protocol No.4 of Montreal 1975 to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the appellant is under direction to pay interest also at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The complainants who are the wife and children of late Mr. Narayanan had approached the Forum stating that Mr. Narayanan travelled from Abudhabi to Kochi by the first opposite party flight and that the flight was scheduled from Abuddhabi to Kochi via Colombo and that the late Narayanan was denied...
P.K. Salim Babu Vs. the Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Li ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for BSNL. 2. The petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He aspires to be recommended as eligible for movement from Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) to senior SDE in the open category. Going by Ext.R6 OM dated 18.1.2007 of the BSNL, the grading criteria for that is “no adverse, not more than two Averages” for previous 5 (five) years in terms of ACRs. Therefore, if a remark of being ‘Average’ is recorded for more than two times, that becomes detrimental to the employee when he is being considered for assessment of fitness and eligibility for the purpose of such rating on the basis of ACRs. The petitioner contends that for the relevant time, he cannot be mulcted with any entry rating him as Average without that having been communicated to him. Formidable support is drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner from the ...
K.V. Nithya Vs. CochIn University of Science and Technology, Rep.by It ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Our Constitution has seen 62 years of its implementation by the three pillars of democracy viz. the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Article 226 of the Constitution of India, falls within the domain of the Judiciary. At the beginning of the working of the Constitution, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was a comparative rarity and High Courts used to exercise jurisdiction under the said Article very sparingly. But over the last five decades the number of writ petitions under Article 226 has increased by geometrical proportions. High Courts have expanded the jurisdictional vistas of Article 226 beyond recognition and common man has become so aware of the remedy available to him to redress his grievances through this constitutional remedy, that for anything and everything people have started approaching the High Court with writ petitions under Article 226. While that fact reaffirms the faith of the common man in the judiciary, as a by-product, th...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam Vs. Jose Kuruvinakunnel, Kott ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. These are connected appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, two appeals filed by the Revenue and three appeals filed by Assessee relating to the assessment of escaped income of the assessee completed under section 147 for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001. While the original assessment for the year 1996-97 was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), for all the remaining years 1997-98 to 2000-01 intimations were sent under section 143(1)(a) of the Act accepting the returns filed by the assessee. For the assessment years 1996-1997 also, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was completed on the returned income of Rs.87,280/-. However, later, the Assessing Officer received anonymous information about unaccounted income received by the assessee and massive investments made in the construction of 6000 sq.ft. house and purchase of 165 acres of land in Tamil Nadu. Based on the information received, the Assessing Officer recorded the state...
Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
K.T. SANKARAN, J 1. The petitioner in these Bail Applications is Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni. He is an accused in hundreds of cases of similar nature. 2. Bail Applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by a detailed order dated 31st October, 2011 (reported in 2011(4) KLT 637). For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case as narrated in 2011 (4) KLT 636 are extracted below: “6. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioner started a Company, namely, Nano Excel Enterprises Private Limited and it was registered at Hyderabad on 12-7-2007. In January 2010, the petitioner started another company under the name and style Nano Excel Power Corporation Limited. On 26-2-2010, the name of the company was changed as Nano Excel Corporation Limited. The accused collected crores of rupees from the general public under the guise of marketing products and also under the guise of providing shares in an alleged 100 MV Power plant at Arunachal Pradesh. Wide publicity was given t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »