Kerala Court March 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.
Honey Thankachan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Pu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. Challenge in the revision is against the order dated 14-10-2011 in C.M.P. No. 3020/2010 in C.C. No.61/2006 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate - III. Thiruvanthapuram. Petitioners are accused numbers 2 to 4 in the above case, in which they are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 (b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Section 292 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code {for short ‘the IPC’} on a report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Thampanoor Police Station. Petitioners moved an application, the above numbered C.M.P. seeking their discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), and, the learned magistrate dismissed that application vide the impugned order. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is assailed in this revision. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 09-03-2005, getting information that three pe...
K.R. Joseph and Others Vs. Archdiocese of Verapoly, Represented by Its ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was one for declaration of plaintiffs’ right of easement by prescription to use plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, forming part of ‘A’ schedule, and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their enjoyment over ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Suit claims were resisted by the defendants, the 1st defendant separately, and the rest, defendants 2 to 4 jointly, filing written statements, with the latter among them setting forth a counter claim for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs over portions of plaint ‘A’ schedule property scheduling them separately as ‘D’ schedule 1 and 2 and ‘E’ schedule. The trial court partly decreed the plaint claim declaring the right of the plaintiffs to use ‘C’ schedule pathway and also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing ...
J. Alphonsa and Others Vs. the State of Kerala, Secretariat and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners who are teachers of a Vocational Higher secondary School (Victory V.H.S.S., Olathanni, Neyyattinkara P.O.) W.P.(c) Nos. 31102 / 2010 and 21571/2011 are filed by Smt. J. Alphonsa and Smt. O.N. Judy and W.P. (C) No. 32508/2011 is filed by the first petitioner in these two writ petitions, viz Smt. J. Alphonsa. W.P. (C) No. 37103 /2010 is filed by Smt. R. Ajitha Kumari who is a common respondent in all the other writ petitions and W.P. (C) No.236/2112 is filed by Smt. C. Swarnamma and Smt. S. Sheeba. 2. The dispute between these parties and other contesting respondents in the writ petitions is one of seniority. Essentially, the question is whether, on reduction of the post consequent on staff fixation, who among them are entitled to be retained in terms of the seniority. 3. The six teachers who have been appointed as U.P.S.A., are having approved continuous service from 1.6.1998. Going by the seniority assigned, they are array...
M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Akbar Shihab and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. On 29.3.1998 while the first respondent was riding a two wheeler he met with an accident in his attempt to overtake a bus proceeding ahead. He preferred a claim for Rs.1,70,000/-, against which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation. 3. The appellant Insurance Company, while admitting the policy contended that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the first respondent. To substantiate that, they relied on Ext.B1 which is the final report submitted by the Police before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned requesting the court to refer the case as ‘mistake of fact’. The claim was preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). After trial, the Tribunal found that the accident was the direct result of negligence of the first respondent. However, the learned Tribunal awarded compens...
Shaji V. John Vs. P.T. Varkey
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.191/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The order sought to be revised is the one issued in I.A.202/11 filed by the revision petitioner for allowing to cross-examine the complainant. The Forum relying on the decisions in Mani Square Ltd. Vs. Vinitha Agrawal (1) 2010 CPJ 150 (NC) and the decision in Dr.J.J.Merchant and Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) held that there is no inevitable circumstances in the case for the opposite party to cross-examine the complainant and directed that the opposite party may file counter affidavit. 2. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that rejection of his request for cross examination will cause irreparable loss and injury. 3. We find that the matter in dispute before the Forum is with respect to the construction of a building entrusted width the revision petitioner. It is not stated in what way the revision petitioner will be prejudi...
The District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers-welfare ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.60/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to take necessary steps to allow the complainant to continue the membership of the Welfare Fund without break and counting the past service on getting a formal application from the complainant. It is also directed that the opposite parties will complete the process within one month from the date of receiving the application and due amount necessary to be paid by the complainant. 2. The matter is with respect to the claim of the complainant who is the owner cum driver of an autorikshaw who was a member of Kerala Autorikshaw Thozhilali Kshemanidhi with effect from 28.10.1991. On completion of 50 years in May 2005 which was the permissible age to continue membership he applied for the retirement benefits and the same was allowed as per order dated:30.10.2005 and an amount of Rs.7528/- was paid. Subsequently the age limit was enhanced to ...
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance-company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.190/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The order sought to be revised is the one issued in I.A.20/12 filed by the revision petitioner for allowing to cross-examine the complainant. The Forum relying on the decisions in Mani Square Ltd. Vs. Vinitha Agrawal (1) 2010 CPJ 150 (NC) and the decision in Dr.J.J.Merchant and Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) held that there is no inevitable circumstances in the case for the opposite party to cross-examine the complainant and disposed of the I.A permitting the opposite party also to file counter affidavit. 2. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that in case his application is rejected the same will cause him irreparable loss and injury. 3. We find that the matter in dispute before the Forum with respect to the insurance claim of the car involved in an accident. It is alleged that the vehicle was being used as rent a car busin...
A.J. George Vs. State Bank of Travancore, Represented by Its Manager
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The judgment debtor in O.S.NO.551 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order dated 7.4.2006 in E.A.No.163 of 2002 in E.P.No.249 of 1990, by which the prayer to refund a sum of Rs.78,431/- as alleged excess payment, was dismissed by the court below. 2. The suit was decreed on 17.8.1989 for realization of a sum of Rs.78,738.90 with interest at 16.5%. E.P.No.249 of 1990 was filed by the decree holder bank for realization of a sum of Rs.1,24,813.07. On 29.11.1999, the decree holder filed a statement showing the balance amount as Rs.78,431/-. On that basis, the judgment debtor paid that amount on 7.12.1999. On 14.12.1999, the Execution Petition was closed after recording full satisfaction of the decree. The case of the judgment debtor is that even after payment of Rs.78,431/-, the original title deeds were not returned by the decree holder bank. 3. On 20.1.2000, the decree holder file...
Mercy Joseph @ Mary Joseph Vs. M.A. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Heard. Admitted on the following substantial questions of law: i. when it is declared by the Apex Court through the decision reported in Sathidevi v. Prasanna and another (2010 (2) KLT 642) that in a suit for cancellation of a document falling under Sec.40 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act") value shown in the document is the value to be taken for the purpose of computing court fee, jurisdiction and suit valuation, is the trial court and lower appellate court justified in accepting the summary valuation of Rs.15,000/- estimated by the respondent/plaintiff through the market value principle of valuation as against the document value of Rs.4,55,000/- rendering the findings on valuation illegal and incorrect? ii. What will be the effect of a finding rendered by a court of law which had apparently no pecuniary jurisdiction and which court notwithstanding challenge to jurisdiction and valuation proceeded with the suit and pas...
Jayasree Vs. Vivekanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
K.M.Joseph, J. 1. Appellant is the respondent in O.P.46/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The petition was filed before the Family Court by the respondent who is the husband of the appellant seeking custody of two children. The case of the respondent/husband in the OP is as follows inter alia. Respondent and appellant are husband and wife. Their marriage was on 26.1.1997. Within three months from the date of marriage the respondent left India to Gulf countries for continuing his job. The first child was born to them on 23.6.1999. From his hard earned money he purchased a plot for constructing a house in the year 2000. On 31.8.2002 the second son was born. During 2000-2003 the respondent constructed a house in the plot purchased spending about Rs. 9 lakhs. Since the respondent was working abroad, minors were under the custody and care of the appellant. There was a tumour in the leg of the elder son and treatment was made. The entire expenses claimed by the appellant for tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »