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.
K.N. Joshy Vs. K.M. Abdul Shebi and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
1. The complainant is in appeal. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused therein was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that the statutory notice sent by the complainant was not served on him. The notice was returned with an endorsement “door locked”. 2. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though the findings on other points were entered by the learned Magistrate in favour of the complainant, based on a wrong finding regarding the notice sent the accused was acquitted. This appeal is filed challenging the verdict of acquittal. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel that even the evidence given by DW.2, the post man would show that Ext.P4 notice was taken to the house of the accused in the address shown therein. There was no case for the accused that he was not residing in the address shown in Ext.P4 notice. Even if it is accepted that the accused had left the...
The Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Alappuzha Branch, Retna Bui ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 31.3.11 of CDRF Alappuzha in CC No. 102/10 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this commission. As per the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to pay to the complainant the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had presented a cheque before the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and that even after a reasonable period, it appeared that the cheque amount was not credited in his account and on enquiry, the opposite parties directed him to obtain another cheque from the drawer of the old cheque and he was informed that the cheque was missing. Alleging deficiency in service the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay him the cheque ...
S. Shibu Vs. Bibi K. Venu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
1. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. The marriage was solemnised at Kottayam. The appellant filed original petition praying for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(a) before the family court, Kottarakkara. By the impugned order, the Family Court has found that the petition has been filed on the premise that the parties have resided together lastly within the jurisdiction of that Court, in spite of the fact that the wife is presently residing at Kottayam and the marriage was also at Kottayam. It is also stated that D.V.(M.C.) No. 10 of 2010 is pending at Kottayam Court and hence the O.P. ought to have filed at the place where the wife presently resides. Hence the original petition was rejected for want of jurisdiction. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the reasoning of the Family Court is unsustainable having regard to the provisions of the Hindu Marri...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode Vs. M.N. Saidalavi, Meduvil ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
K. Vinod Chandran, J 1. The order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s appeal is challenged by the Revenue in the above appeal. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the appeal is stated hereunder. 2. The block assessment for assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000 was completed against the assessee consequent to a search under Section 132 of the Income tax Act. The assessment was completed determining undisclosed income of Rs.1.07,96,410/-. In the cash flow statement for the year ended 31.3.1997 a receipt of Rs.5 lakhs was shown as profit on sale of debris to explain the source for investment. The same was brought to tax for the assessment year 1997-98 as short term capital gain. The explanation of the assessee was that the assessee, along with two others purchased a property with building thereon but, however, without any value attributed to the building, which was in a dilapidated condition. Subsequent to the acquisition of the property the dilapidated building was demolis...
RibIn K.A., Physical Education Teacher Vs. the District Educational Of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
This Writ Petition was initially filed by the petitioner by challenging Exhibit P2 and P6 orders and thereafter the petitioner has sought to amend the Writ Petition by filing I.A.No.384/2012 by which Exhibit P9 order is also under challenge. 2. The matter in issue is only whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service in the light of the fact that the District Educational Officer did not pass an order within 15 days as contemplated under Rule 67(8)of Chapter XIV-A KER, granting permission for continued suspension. 3. The petitioner was functioning as a Physical Education Teacher under the 2nd respondent-Manager. The order of suspension is dated 29.11.2011, produced as Exhibit P2 herein, which was objected to by him as per Exhibit P3, submitted before the Manager and Exhibit P4 before the District Educational Officer. According to the petitioner, he was served with a notice Exhibit P6 by the Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer proposing to conduct a p...
Bernad Mani @ Roy and Others Vs. James and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
RAMKUMAR, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) C.P.C, the appellants, who are the four plaintiffs in O.S.No.8/2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Thodupuzha challenge the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing I.A.No.100/2011 which was an application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction in the above suit. 2. The aforementioned suit is one for a permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE 3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is as follows:- The plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint A and E schedule properties which are rubber plantations situated in Karimkunnam village and lying on either side of the Manjakadmbu-Ponnamthanam Panchayath road which runs east-west. The plaint A schedule property admeasuring about 3 acres is lying to the north of the aforesaid Panchayath road. The plaint E schedule property having an extent of about 2 acres li...
Saraswathy Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. The son of the petitioner stands detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’). Ext.P1 is the order of detention dated 20.7.2011. Ext.P2 is the approval dated 9.8.2011. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would address the following arguments before us: In the first place, he would submit that petitioner’s son was detained earlier under the Act on the basis that he was a known goonda, but now he is again detained on the basis that he is a known rowdy. Secondly, he would contend that there is delay in the matter of passing the order. Further, Ext.P4 shows that he was acquitted in one of the cases. Next, he would submit that he had actually made a representation to the Advisory Board, but that has not been considered. He would further contend that the representation, even t...
Proprietor Professional Couriers Vs. Krishnadas and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER This petition is filed by the opposite party before the CDRF, Malappuram in CC.153/10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Forum below directing him to pay costs of Rs.1000/- for permitting the petitioner to examine his witness before the forum. 2. The petitioner who was the opposite party before the Forum had filed an application to examine a witness on his side. The Forum below fastened the liability of payment of cost of Rs.1000/- on the presumption that it was to drag a simple matter and holding the said cost was ordered. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. It is argued by him that it is his right to examine a witness on his side to establish his case before the Forum. We find that the said argument of the learned counsel has force and the Forum below ought to have permitted the opposite party to examine his witness without any costs. 4. The order directing to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- is set aside and the Forum is further directed t...
Dr. Pournamy Mohan and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2012
V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The issue boils down to the sharing of seats between the management of various self financing medical colleges and the Government for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, 2011. All these writ petitions are connected and I shall refer to the exhibits and parties in W.P.(C) No.16421 of 2011 filed by Kerala Christian Professional College Managements' Federation and another for the sake of convenience. 2. Ext.R1(c) is the No Objection Certificate issued by the government to start Post Graduate Courses as a pre-requisite for the grant of Essentiality Certificate and it inter alia reads as follows:- "It is stated that Government have No Objection in starting Post Graduate courses by the Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, subject to the conditions that the institution shall fulfill all the requirements as fixed by the Medical Council of India and to share 50% of the seats to Government Merit Quota ...... (emphasis supplied) Ext.R1(i) is the ...
Dr. Pournamy Mohan, Thrissur and Others Vs. State of Kerala Represente ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2012
1. The issue boils down to the sharing of seats between the management of various self financing medical colleges and the Government for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, 2011. All these writ petitions are connected and I shall refer to the exhibits and parties in W.P.(C) No.16421 of 2011 filed by Kerala Christian Professional College Managements' Federation and another for the sake of convenience. 2. Ext.R1(c) is the No Objection Certificate issued by the government to start Post Graduate Courses as a pre- requisite for the grant of Essentiality Certificate and it inter alia reads as follows:- "It is stated that Government have No Objection in starting Post Graduate courses by the Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, subject to the conditions that the institution shall fulfill all the requirements as fixed by the Medical Council of India and to share 50% of the seats to Government Merit Quota ...... (emphasis supplied) Ext.R1(i) is the prospectus later is...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »