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.
Lissy Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
1. The appellant, a lady, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.529 of 2010 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC-II), Ernakulam is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on her under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.D.P.S.Act’) in the above sessions case, vide judgment dated 4.10.2011. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had kept in her possession 234 ampules of Buprenorphine (Lupigesic), 29 ampules of Diazepam and 27 ampules of Phenergan for the purpose of sale, without any licence at about 6.p.m. on 24.7.2010 in a public road, situated on the northern side of Kaloor International Stadium compound, Ernakulam and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the N.D.P.S.Act. Consequently, Crime No.1326/2010 of Palarivattom Police Station was registered for the above offence and on completing the investigation, a report was filed before the trial court bas...
Anoopkumar, Karimpurath House, Erumpayam (Po) Vs. the State of Kerala, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
P. Bhavadasan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the interim order dated 14.7.2011 in C.M.P. 1300 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam as confirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. The application was one under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent before the trial court is stated to have taken place on 15.9.1996 and they were residing as husband and wife thereafter. Various other allegations regarding the receipt of the gold ornaments and cash are also made in the petition, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. Petitioner complains of cruelty at the hands of the inmates of the house of the first respondent and also alleged that she was being harassed asking her to get money from her house. It is alleged that the first respondent abandoned her at the bus stop on the way to her sister's...
Mariyamma Shibu Mathew Vs. M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-21-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.39/11 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the exparte order while CC was pending before the Forum was set aside on application filed by the opposite party. It is alleged that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation vide Regulation clause 14 (1) (iv) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 and that too without a speaking order. 2. In the circumstances the order is set aside. The Forum is directed to examine the contentions of the revision petitioner and dispose of the matter on merits and after ordering costs to be paid to the complainant. 3. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 29.2.12. 4. In the result the revision petition is allowed in this regard. The office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum....
Sreeprakash and Another Vs. M/S. Apple a Day Properties Pvt.Ltd., Koch ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-21-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The case of the complainant is that they have paid for a flat advertised by the opposite parties proposed to be built. Altogether Rs.6,49,500/- has been paid. According to the complainants no construction have been made. 2. The opposite parties remained ex-parte. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.P1 to P13. 4. The documents produced and evidence of PW1 do establish the allegation ie a sum of Rs.6,49,500/- has been paid to the opposite party in the year 2009. In the circumstances the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.6,49,500/- with interest at 12% from the respective dates of payment. The opposite parties will also be liable to be pay cost of Rs.10000/-. In the result the complaint is allowed as above....
Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-21-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Secretary Thrissur Corporation in CC 417/08.in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands allowed. 2. The appellants/opposite parties were ex-parte before the Forum. 3. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the order is not a considered one the same is set aside on condition that the opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the case and dispose of the case on merits. 4. The case stands posted before the Forum on 29.2.2012. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum....
Manager, Venture Estate Vs. General Secretary and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The petitioner is the management in an Industrial Dispute, in which the Labour Court, Kollam found the disciplinary enquiry conducted at the instance of the management to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the Labour Court gave a fresh opportunity to the management for adducing evidence before the Court. The preliminary order by which the enquiry was set aside is challenged before this Court invoking the discretionary and supervisory jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Union which espoused the cause of the workman before the Labour Court having not entered appearance, the workman himself got impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the management as also the 3rd respondent were heard on the issues raised. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the delinquent worker by the management by a chargesheet dated 23.10.2002 alleging...
P.A. Ayub Khan Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This case came up before this Bench yesterday as an unnumbered W.P.(C) with a noting by the Registry that the case is not maintainable as a public interest litigation based on decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (4) K.L.T. Suppl.130. However, since we felt that maintainability itself needs to be considered by this Court on the judicial side, subject to decision on maintainability itself, we ordered numbering of the W.P.(C). Accordingly it is numbered and sent to the Bench today. 2. When the W.P.(C) was taken up for hearing, the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association also appeared and submitted that there is a general grievance for the Advocates that the Registry without any authority considers maintainability of various cases filed in the court and refuses to number the same. According to him, even after request by counsel, Registry even refuses to post the case before the ...
Afsath, Malappuram and Others Vs. Mattara Moideen, Nilambur Taluk and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is: (1) Whether the remedy by way of issuing a distress warrant is a pre-requisite to enforce an order for maintenance against a defaulter-husband so as to issue warrant in order to commit him to jail? and (2) Whether it is an invariable rule that if a small parcel of land or a building belonging to the defaulter husband is there, it should be attached and sold and only thereafter, for the amount that remains unpaid, he can be committed to jail? 2. The petitioners are the wife and two children in favour of whom an order for maintenance was passed by the Family Court Manjeri, at the rate of Rs.350/- per month to the wife and Rs.300/- each per month to the two children. Thus, the total amount payable by the 1st respondent-husband to the petitioners herein comes to Rs.950/- per month. An application was filed by the petitioners under Section 125(3)/128 Cr.P.C. to execute the order. It is pointed out by the learned counse...
Ayub Khan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. This case came up before this Bench yesterday as an unnumbered W.P. with a noting by the Registry that the case is not maintainable as a public interest litigation based on decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava versus State of M.P. reported in 2010(4) KLT Suppl. 130 (SC). However, since we felt that maintainability itself needs to be considered by this court on the judicial side, subject to decision on maintainability itself, we ordered numbering of the W.P. . Accordingly it is numbered and sent to the Bench today. 2. When the W.P. was taken up for hearing, the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association also appeared and submitted that there is a general grievance for the Advocates that the Registry without any authority considers maintainability of various cases filed in the court and refuses to number the same. According to him, even after request by counsel, Registry even refuses to post the case before the Bench. Government Pleader ...
Devu, Calicut and Others Vs. Pretha, Kozhikode
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
Ramkumar, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.232/1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judges' Court of Kozhikode are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit was one for partition and separate allotment of 6/12 shares of the plaintiffs over two items of immovable properties situated in Kozhikode. Item 1 is admeasuring 24 cents and item 2 has an extent of 83 cents. Both the properties are within the limits of Calicut Corporation. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants contenting, inter alia, that the suit was barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. 3. The court below framed six issues for trial. Out of those issues, issue No.1 was whether the suit was barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of an earlier suit O.S.No.164/1979. The 2nd issue was whether the plaintiffs have any right to obtain partition as prayed for. Issue Nos.1 and 2 were decided as preliminary issues against the plaintiffs. In view of the findings recorded on those issues on 10.11.1998, the court be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »