Kerala Court January 2012 Judgments
Josh Joseph Vs. S. Omankutty Amma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
1. The above original petition has been filed by the petitioner in E.A.Nos.365 of 2009 and 366 of 2009 in E.P.No.100 of 1999 in O.S.No.199 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. E.A.No.365 of 2009 was an application for condoning the delay for a period of four months and 27 days in restoring the execution petition, E.P.No.100 of 1999, and an application E.A.No.1662 of 2007 moved for delivery of decree schedule property, both of which had been dismissed for default on 28.11.2008. E.A.No.366 of 2009 was for restoring E.P.No.100 of 1999 to the file of the court. The application for condonation of delay, E.A.No.365 of 2009, was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, vide Ext.P5 order holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to execution proceedings. The application for condonation to restore the execution petition dismissed for default beyond the period of 30 days after its dismissal, as prescribed under Rule 106 of Order XXI of the Code of C...
Tag this Judgment!Suvarna Vijayan Vs. Omanamma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the first accused in C.C. 337 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 465 and 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The plea is that going by the averments in the final report no offence is made out against the petitioner and that the case arose out of a loan transaction whereby the defacto complaint availed a loan of Rupees two lakhs and there was no fraud, forgery or deception. 2. I have heard Sri. Unni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Madhusoodanan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and her son, the second accused. Perused the final report and connected records. 3. Going by the averments in the final report, I find that there are sufficient averments to send the petitioner for trial. In other way, averments in the final report make out the offences alleged...
Tag this Judgment!T.N.V. Nair Vs. the Zonal Manager(West) and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether findings of the Courts below that civil court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case is legally sustainable? (ii) Whether findings of the Courts below that the dispute is an Industrial Dispute falling under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore civil courts jurisdiction is barred under the provisions of I.D.Act is legally correct? Respondents appear through standing counsel. 2. Since dismissal of the suit is on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction before evidence is recorded and as agreed by counsel on both sides, records are not called for. Instead, I have gone through a copy of the plaint given to me by the learned counsel for appellant. 3. Appellant, as she pleads was working as Assistant Manager (General), in the office of second respondent at Ahammedabad, Gujarat and retired as such on 30.06.1997. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. George, Chennai and Others Vs. Abraham Augustine and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No:178/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Sultanbathery, to quash the proceedings in that case. The 1st petitioner is the President and Managing Director of a Finance Company of which petitioners 2 and 5 are the employees. An agreement was entered into between the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent) and the Petitioner Company. `.4,80,000/- was advanced to the respondent for the purchase of a mini lorry, on 6.11.2000. The amount so advanced was to be repaid in 36 instalments of `.18,000/-. The mini lorry was taken delivery by the respondent. A few instalments were stated to have been paid by the respondent. As the respondent committed default in paying the instalments the mini lorry was repossessed by the petitioner Company on 6.5.2002. A complaint was filed by him before the learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the police for investigation. The police, after conducting investigation referred the case as false...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Org ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The second opposite party in CC.60/08 before the CDRF, Idukki is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 25.11.10 directing the second opposite party to issue monthly pension to the complainant within one month on production of the required documents by the first opposite party as required by the second opposite party. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was a supervisor in the first opposite party estate and that he was a subscriber to Employees Provident Fund and that after the introduction of the employees pension scheme in 1995 he opted for the same and was regularly paying the pension contribution. It is stated by him that recovery was effected from his salary towards pension from May 1996 till his retirement on 22.8.02 and that consequent to his retirement, though the provident fund amounts were settled the pensionary benefit was not passed by the second opposite party on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Suja Punnen Vs. Ford India(P) Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC.480/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed for default. 2. It is submitted that the complainant could not be present as there was no transport facilities due to Harthal. 3. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set a aside. The Forum is directed to issue notice to the opposite parties and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum on 29.2.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Aneesh Kumar and Others Vs. the District Collector and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order issued by the District Collector in exercise of powers conferred under Section 54 of the Abkari Act. In Ext.P4 the District Collector had issued direction to close down toddy shops situated within 2 Kms from St.Andrews Basilica, Arthunkal, on the dates on 19.01.2012, 20.01.2012, 26.01.2012 and 27.01.2012, in connection with a festival conducted in the Basilica. It reveals that such an order is issued in view of ensuring smooth conduct of the festival and for preservation of public peace. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the proceedings was issued on the basis of an application submitted by the authorities of the Basilica and on taking into consideration of the reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Alappuzha and the District Police Chief, Alappuzha. 2. Petitioners are challenging Ext.P4 mainly on the ground that the same was issued in an arbitrary manner. According to the petitioners, for issuing the impugned proce...
Tag this Judgment!Brijitha and Others Vs. Kuttiyamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. 1. The scope of enquiry by the appellate court in an appeal arising from ajudgment and decree passed exparte is raised for a decision in this SecondAppeal. 2.Respondent sued the appellants, her mother and brother forpartition and separate possession ofthe share claimed by herin the suitproperty which originally belonged to the late Joseph, her father. Appellantsresisted the suit and raised a counter claim contending that respondent wassent in marriage giving her share in the family property andthereafter,appellants effected partition of the suit property as per document No.2669 of2006. The prayer in the counter claim is for a declaration that the said partitiondeed is valid and for other reliefs. The case came up for trial on 23.10.2009.That day, appellants and counsel remained absent. Appellants were set exparte.Respondent produced Exts.A1 to A3 and on the strength of those documentsand the affidavit filed by her, a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Rep. by Its Assistant Manager Regional ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. 1. This appeal is by way of reference before us by order dated 24.08.2009. It reads as under: "Respondents 1 and 2 filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. They claim to be the legal representatives of their son, who died in a motor accident. 2. The deceased was riding the motor cycle. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the motor cycle was not covered by the policy. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this court which is reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V. Radhika (2009 (2) KLT 488). The same position has arisen for consideration in this appeal. The conditions of Policy providing for liability to third party were as follows, in the said decision: "In terms of and subject to the limitations of the indemnify which is granted by this Section to the Insured the company will indemnify any Driver who is driving the Motor Cycle on the insured's...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
1. Petitioner’s father was a dealer under the KGST Act. Exts.P1 and P2 are the assessment orders pertaining to the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Similarly assessments were also completed in respect of the years 1992-93, 1995-96 and 1996-97. It appears that for recovery of the tax due, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and according to the Government, property having an extent of 6.2 Acres situated in R.S.No.286/14 in Block No.23 of Kottarakkara Village was attached by the respondents in 2000 and the property was brought to sale on 14.3.2005. There were no bidders and the property was treated as bought in land. The sale was also confirmed by Ext.P5 order dated 2.2.2006. 2. In the meanwhile, on 11.3.2005, the petitioner filed appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to the years 1992-93, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Although it is contended that the appellate authority had granted stay of recovery, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Be that as it may, by Ex...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »