Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments
Parathi Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor High ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc-II, Thalassery, for the offence punishable under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as fine. 2. The case was detected on 19.06.2001 at about 4.00 pm at a place called Muthathi, in front of Yasodha Rice and Flour Mills. PW2, the Assistant Excise Inspector and his party were on patrol duty at Paravathattu-Mukkoot road. The appellant was found carrying 4 litres of country made illicit arrack in a black plastic can of 5 litre capacity. He was intercepted and the plastic can was examined. It was found to contain 4 litres of illicit arrack. The sample of 250 ml was taken in a bottle of 375 ml. The plastic can containing the residue was also packed, sealed and labelled. The accused was arrested then and there, for which arrest memo was prepared. When the sample was analysed by the Chemical Examiner it was found to contain 33.65 percen...
Tag this Judgment!Sheeba and Another Vs. Sindhu Pradeep
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Complainants in C.C. 377/10 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants herein who are not satisfied by the order dated 15.6.2011 of the Forum below directing the opposite party to complete the borewell work till availability of sufficient water from the well or in the alternative to refund of Rs. 18,000/- with compensation and cost of Rs. 5,000/- 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that the opposite party had agreed to dig a bore well for the complainants and the opposite party with the help of a Geologist had located the place and started digging borewell and that after digging from 27.3.10 and 28.3.10, they abandoned the work stating that sufficient water was available. But according to the complainant no water was available in the borewell and the matter was informed to the opposite party immediately on 30.3.2010. It is alleged that the opposite party had falsely informed that there was sufficient water and according to the o...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Sobhana Vs. the District Collector and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. The connected Writ Appeals are filed by the suspended Headmistress of an Upper Primary School. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar appearing for the appellant, Government Pleader for the State and the Educational Officer and also Adv. Sri.Santheep Ankarath appearing for 4th respondent in W.A. No.1140/2012. 2. The school in this case is taken over by the Government and the District Collector is officiating as it’s Manager. A complaint was filed by the seniormost teacher of the school stating that the appellant as headmistress withdrew the salary and PF advance taken by her for construction of house and appellant without releasing the amount to the teacher concerned deposited the amount in her account and went on long leave. The Assistant Educational Officer conducted enquiry and found that disciplinary action is called for against the appellant. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 12A (2) of the Kerala Education Act he informed the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Rejual Karim and Others Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Parasala Police S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
ORDER In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners, who are accused 5 to 7 in Crime No. 1143 of 2011 of Parasala Police Station for offences under Section 489B and 489C r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code seek an order to quash Annexure A-10 order whereby the court below, after rejecting the plea of the petitioners that they are juvenile, found them not juvenile. 2. The petitioners produced Annexure-1 to 6 before the court below in support of their plea that they are juveniles. But without considering those documents, petitioners were referred to Forensic Department of the Medical College and obtained certificate certifying that they are aged between 18 years and 21 years. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 deals with the procedure for deciding the juvenility concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law and that the juvenility should...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. PatspIn India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These review petitions are filed for reviewing the common judgment rendered in the Income Tax Appeals filed by the assessee. The only ground raised by the review petitioners is that this Court did not take into account a subsequent decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., reported in 341 ITR 385. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the earlier decision of the Karnataka High Court is referred to by this Court and when assessee's counsel challenged the correctness of the said decision, this Court independently considered the matter with reference to the amended provisions of the Act, and so much so, another decision of the Karnataka High Court to the contrary does not offer a ground for review. 2. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that we have in our own way considered the scope of amended provisions and so much so the decision rendered by us is not based on the earlier decision of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Mattancherry Mahajenic Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., Kochi, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the direction issued by the Joint Registrar directing appellant’s society to pass a Resolution requesting the Government to consider first respondent’s application for relaxation of age limit for appointment as an Attender in the dying-in-harness Scheme provided under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (‘the Rules’ for short). We have heard counsel for the appellant, counsel for the first respondent and also the Government Pleader for other respondents. 2. The facts leading to the Writ Appeal are as follows:- One Mr. Radhakrishnan, who was Attender in the Appellant’s Society died in service. First respondent was living with him and was dependant on him for her livelihood, though she was married to a person, who is said to be sick and unable to earn his livelihood. Consequent upon the death of the brother on whom first respondent was de...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Vijaya Value Electric (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. K.N. Sasid ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER No representation for the appellant. During the previous posting dates also there was no representation. Hence appeal is dismissed for non prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›