Kerala Court October 2015 Judgments
Shihahbuddin Ahammed Vs. A.K. Krishnaraj and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. The question is whether non mentioning of the cheque number in the notice issued by the payee or the holder of the cheque amounts to non-compliance of S.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act? This revision petition was preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.109/2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast rack- I, Palakkad. The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.No.274/1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad for having committed an offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N. I. Act). The complainant's case in the trial Courtwas that the accused borrowed a sum of 1 lakh from him and in discharge of that debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant, who is the holder of the cheque demanded the amount by issuing a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque. Even after notice, there was no repayment, h...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Vs. The Excise Inspector, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. 1st accused in SC No.18/2001 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-1) Thrissur is the appellant in Crl. Appeal 316/2003, while the 3rd accused in the same case was the appellant in Crl. Appeal 359/2003. The appellants in these cases along with another person were charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Thrissur Range in Crime No.9/1998 of that range under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the 3rd accused being the owner of the vehicle KL 5B 1699, 1st accused being the driver of the vehicle and 2nd accused who travelled in the vehicle with a connivance and active participation have transported 1750 litres spirit in a secret chamber of the cabin of that lorry in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby all of them have committed offence punishable under Sections 55(a) of the Abkari Act and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After investigation, fina...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Balagopalan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the Se ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. Under challenge in these writ petitions are the orders of termination of the petitioners who are working in different capacities in Dr.Padiar Memorial Homeopathic Medical College, Chottanikkara (hereinafter referred to as 'college' for short). The petitioners are also seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the salary as in the case of other similar employees in the said medical college and in the hospital attached thereto who are being paid salary by the Government. The petitioners allege that the payment of salary by the Government, only to some of the employees working in the hospital attached to the medical college is discriminatory and is the result of creating two types of employees in the same institution. There is yet another prayer for directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to sign the muster roll register and allow them to work in the post they are holding for the last so many years. 2. WPC No.606/2013 is filed by certain persons who are working as L.D....
Tag this Judgment!Sajeev Vs. The State of Kerala, represented by The C.I. of Police, Per ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. The sole question arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C', for short) is: Whether the presence of the accused is mandatory for the examination contemplated under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C? 2. The person who has raised this question before this court is the 2nd accused in S.C No.1075/2007. According to him, an application moved by him as Crl.M.P No.1383/2013 after the closure of the prosecution evidence for getting exempted from being personally present for examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Additional District and Session's Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 22.04.2013 and therefore, he was aggrieved. 3. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with the 3rd accused in the case has sold the dinner sets stolen by the 1st accused on 23.06.1999 from the Kowdiar Palace to multiple persons, during the course of his employment there as a store-keeper. 4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Retnakaran @ Chetha Vs. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. The accused in S.C.No.330/2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-III, Thiruvananthpuram is the appellant herein. 2. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Thumba police station in Crime No.88/2001 under sections 55(a), (h) and section 8(1) of the Abkari Act. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 25.7.2001, at about 3.20 p.m, the accused was found to be in possession of 19 litres of arrack in a jerry can and a plastic bottle and engaged in the sale of the same and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under sections 55(a), (h) and 8(1) of the Abkari Act. 4. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram where it was taken on file as C.P.No.73/2002. After complying with the formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. After committal, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.330/200...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam, Cochin and Others Vs. C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge rendered on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the High Court of Kerala and subordinate judicial officers in a matter relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent who was a sweeper attached to Munsiff Magistrate Court, Mananthavady. The learned single Judge struck down the enquiry report and the consequential penalty and ordered reinstatement of the delinquent with full back wages. 3. In support of the establishment's appeals, it is argued that even if it was held that copy of the enquiry report was not served on the delinquent, learned single Judge should have applied the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, ECL Hyderabad and others V. Karunakar and Others [1993 (4) SCC 727] and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Scaria @ Kariachetan Vs. State of Kerala, represented by The Sub Inspe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.397 of 2006 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nilambur. 2. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner under Sections 447 and 324 of I.P.C. and released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958, on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year and to appear and receive the sentence as and when called for within the said period of one year. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to PW3 as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act with a default clause for simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed against the said conviction and order of probation was dismissed. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 27.10.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., the revision petitioner trespassed into the court yard of the house of PW3 and ca...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gireesan Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The petitioner, a businessman is the 1st accused in C.C. No.767 of 2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. The said case originated from a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent as Crl.M.P.No.5943/2010 under Section 190(i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ). 2. The allegation in the complaint was that, accused, four in number, restrained the 2nd respondent at 8 p.m on 14.09.2010 while he was moving in a motor cycle through the road near High School Junction, Kollam. It is alleged that the accused attacked the 2nd respondent, questioning him, how he dare to file a case against a lady named Geethu, who is none other than the 4th accused in C.C.No.767 of 2011. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam has recorded the statement of the de facto complainant and an occurrence witness and arrived at the conclusion that prima facie grounds are existing for proceeding with the matter further and took cognizance of the case ...
Tag this Judgment!E.L. Joseph Vs. Kerala State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board, Rep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The petitioner, having put up more than thirty years of service, retired on 31.12.2005 as Secretary from the Kozhippully Service Co-operative Bank. After considerable delay, the first respondent Pension Board, through Exhibit P2 dated 27.03.2007, sanctioned Rs. 10,000/- as monthly pension to the petitioner. Contending that in terms of the then regnant pension regulations, the petitioner ought to have been paid Rs. 13,115/- as monthly pension, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 22 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Self-Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 ('the Scheme' for brevity) governs the aspect of fixing the quantum of pension. According to her, though the petitioner's length of service is beyond thirty years, it can be taken as thirty years in the light of the statutory cap imposed in that regard. Nevertheless, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner's average pay...
Tag this Judgment!Peruvallur Sidhikkabad Nusrathul Islam Sangham, Juma-Ath Palli Committ ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Questions as to how a dedication amounting to a Wakf is effectuated; when does it take effect; and, as to what is the effect of a purported subsequent substitution of the dedicated corpus by the Waqif are raised for decision in these revisions under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, for short, the Act, preferred against the decision rendered by the Wakf Tribunal in a suit. Defendants 1 and 2, jointly; and, the third defendant have instituted separate revisions. Heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions; for the contesting respondent, the plaintiff and for the Wakf Board. 2. Ext.A1 is a dedication of 1997 resulting in a Wakf as defined in Section 3(r) of the Act. The plaintiff sued alleging that the property of that Wakf has been transferred by defendants 1 and 2 to defendant No.3. The defendants contended that on 17.10.2002, there were different transactions under which the Waqif of Ext.A1 gave an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »