Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

Killimangalam-paanjaal 5th Ward, Rep. by Its President Vs. State of Ke ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ18; 2012(4)KLT63

1. It is common knowledge that the agricultural production in the State of Kerala has dwindled to almost nil, about which this Court can take judicial notice. It is not as if the powers that be were not aware of the alarming position of the agricultural land and agricultural production in the State, so as to enable them to take steps to remedy the situation. They were aware of the same as early as in 1967, when they promulgated the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, with the avowed object of protecting agricultural land in the State from conversion. But, if we compare the total extent of agricultural land in 1967 to that available today, it can be seen that the said legislation had absolutely no effect on the dwindling trend in the extent of agricultural land in the State. It is not because that legislation was ineffective. It is because the persons, who were vested with the powers to implement that legislation, did not implement that legislation in the right spirit in which that legislati...

Mohamed Shafi Vadakke Peediyakkal Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commis ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ861; 2012(4)KLT7(SN)(C.No.7)

1. This is a writ petition filed challenging Clause 7(2) of Ext.P1 notification to the extent that it insists on experience gained by the candidate after acquiring basic qualification prescribed for the post and for setting aside Ext.P4 rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P2 in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification. 2. The petitioner is employed as Senior Clerk in Kottakkal Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and while in service he applied for the post of Deputy General Manager in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 notifications. The qualification prescribed for the above mentioned post as per Rule 186 of the Co-operative Societies Rules is MBA degree or equivalent with experience of not less than 3 years in Managerial or Supervisory cadre in prescribed institutions. According to the petitioner, he is an MBA degree holder and has more than 7 years experience in Managerial/ Supervisory cadre and is eligible for appointment to the said post. The complaint of the petitioner is that wh...

K.S. Shajahan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. Common questions of law have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and hence, these matters are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners in these cases is that in order to attract section 6 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (34 of 2003), the sale of tobacco products should be to a person who is under 18 years of age and the sale must also be in an area within a radius of one hundred yards of any educational institution. 3. Section 6 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (34 of 2003) reads as follows: "No person shall sell, offer for sale, or permit sale of, cigarette or any other tobacco product - (a) to any person who is under eighteen years of age, and (b) in an area within a ra...

JustIn Joseph Vs. the Additional Registering Authority

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order by which an application submitted by the petitioner for the registration of his vehicle has been rejected. Ext.P4 has been issued for the reason that, the proposed alteration would change the basic features of the vehicle and thereby the particulars recorded in the Certificate of Registration in respect of the type of body, unladen weight etc. as well as the load carrying capacity of the vehicle would be changed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Section 52 permits alterations to be conducted. It is also pointed out that construing the terms of Section 52, this Court has held that the question regarding permissibility of a particular alteration would have to be decided by the competent authority after a physical examination of the altered vehicle. The counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in WP(C).No.29946 of 2006. Since Ext.P4 has not bee...

Mohanachandran Nair Vs. P.C. Cheriyan and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ110; 2012(4)KLT35(SN)(C.No.34)

1. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.466 of 2000 on the file of the judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ramankary. Before the trial court, he prosecuted the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (NI Act) with an allegation that the first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 85,000/- from the appellant and in discharge of the liability, a cheqe which was marked as Ext. P2 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kottayam Branch was issued and that when presented for collection through the State Bank of Travancore, Pazhaveedu branch, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds and dispite the acknowledgement of the notice demanding discharge, the liability was not discharged. 2. The first respondent in response to the process entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, the power of attorney holder of appellant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. During the cross exami...

Manikuttan @ Sajay and Others Vs. State of Kerala of Police, Thrissur ...

Court: Kerala

Sasidharan Nambiar, J. Appellant in Crl.A.No.651 of 2009 is the first accused and appellants in Crl.A.No.251 of 2009 are accused 2 to 6 in S.C.No.256 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Thrissur. They faced trial for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341 read with Section 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the first accused for the offences under Section 143, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 for the offences under Section 143, 147, 341 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and 5th accused for the offences under Section 143, 148, 341 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. First accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25000/-, and in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, rig...

P.V. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ878; 2012(3)KLT921

1. These original petitions have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings taken for execution of its orders by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, setting forth a case that such Forum is not competent to entertain complaint over, and proceed with, execution of its orders exercising the powers of a First Class Magistrate. 2. Petitioner, who is common in all the above petitions, had raised identical challenge as aforesaid to question the competency of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, for short, the 'Forum' to enforce its orders as a First Class Magistrate. Some of the facts involved deserve to be taken note of before analysing the challenge posed for consideration. 3. The Forum on complaints filed by aggrieved persons against a financial concern and its Managing Director, the petitioner, has passed orders directing them to refund the amount collected from the respective complainant with interest and costs. Complainant...

D.i. Michale Nirmala Deelite Vs. K.K. Koshi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT197

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. The short question which this Court is called upon to answer in this revision petition challenging the order dated 27/01/2004 in E.P.No.280/1996 in O.S.No.124/1992 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is whether the execution court can refuse to execute a compromise decree placed on board for execution on the ground of substantial compliance. 2. Now to the facts. The revision petitioner is the decree holder. The suit was instituted for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs alleging excavation of soil by the first respondent from his property to such depth that it caused the erosion of soil from the petitioner's property which is lying adjacent, thereby causing damage to the petitioner's property. Later, a compromise was entered into by the parties which was accepted by the court and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Subsequent to the compromise decree, the respondents constructed a wall....

C.L. Antony Vs. K.A. Anto and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)225; 2012(4)KLJ193

1. Appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.554/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thrissur. He prosecuted the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act ) with a plea that the first respondent owed a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 12.5.1998 drawn on Canara Bank, Puthanchanda, Trivandrum branch was issued and that when sent for collection through the State Bank of India, Thrissur branch, Ext.P1 was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds along with Ext.P2 memo issued from the drawee bank and Ext.P3 intimation issued from the payee's bank. Exts.P2 and P3 are dated 14.8.1998 and 21.8.1998 respectively. The appellant pleaded that he got Exts.P2 and P3 on 9.9.1998 and issued a notice on 14.9.1998, a copy of which was marked as Ext.P5, demanding discharge of the liability. Though the first respondent acknowledged the notice on 16.9.1998 the liability was no...

C. Arun Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Bhavadasan, J. Twelve persons were sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 (2)(g), 511 of 376, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Among them, the second accused absconded and eleven accused were available for trial. The first accused, who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.134 of 2010, was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 366A, 376 and 120B I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of which, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 366A I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of which, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of wh...