Kerala Court October 2015 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.
Sheeja Mol Vs. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecuto ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. In discharge of the liability of a partnership firm, its Managing Director, who is the first accused and 3rd respondent herein, has issued the cheque in question. The 2nd accused is another partner of the firm. Strangely enough, the partnership firm is not arraigned as the accused. 2. Normally, in case of civil liability, for suing a partnership firm, two or more partners can be sued within the meaning of Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. At the same time, as far as the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is concerned, in such a case, a complaint has to be filed under Section 142 of the N.I. Act, in conformity with Section 141(1) of the N.I. Act. Section 141(1) of the N.I. Act says: If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be g...
Sukesini Vs. Sajeev Chandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The suit was one for setting aside the decree and judgment in an earlier suit in respect of the suit property. The fact that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff is not in dispute. According to the plaintiff, she entrusted the title deed of the property with one Dr.K.R.Thankappan with whom she was living to enable him to raise a loan; that a few persons attempted to install a gate in front of the suit property on 15.9.2008 and that the enquiry made by the plaintiff thereafter revealed that Dr.K.R.Thankappan borrowed money from the defendant against the security of the title deed of the suit property and since Dr.K.R.Thankappan did not repay the loan, the defendant created a false agreement for sale in respect of the suit property and filed a suit as O.S.No.470 of 1992 and obtained a decree for specific performance in respect of the suit property. It is alleged by the plaintiff that she did not receive summon...
K.V. Sadayakumar, Excise Inspector and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. The above Original Petitions are filed against the common judgment in T.A.Nos.4522 and 5730 of 2012 respectively by the applicants in T.A.No.4522 of 2012 and Respondent Nos.10, 4, 5 and 11 respectively in T.A.No.5730 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012. By the said order, Administrative Tribunal dismissed T.A.No.4522 of 2012 and disposed of T.A.No.5730 of 2012 filed by the 5th Respondent in O.P.(KAT) No.5730 of 2013 with suitable directions to the 1st Respondent. Since the subject matter of the Original Petitions are similar in nature and they were disposed of by the Administrative Tribunal by a common judgment, these Original Petitions are also disposed of by a common judgment. The facts described in O.P.(KAT) No.504 of 2013 are stated hereunder and the decision taken thereon will guide the fate of O.P.(KAT) No.530 of 2013 also. 2. Brief facts required for the disposal of the Original Petitions are as follows: 3. Petitioners are presently working in the cadre of Excise Ins...
Mohanan Nair Vs. Premachandran Nair and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. The Original Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.588 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the court below dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with the respondents. The respondents agreed to sell their property to the petitioner fixing a price at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent of land. The plaintiff contended that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was received by the defendants as advance sale consideration. As per the agreement dated 17.5.2006, the period of six months was fixed for completing the transaction. 3. Since the defendants were not ready to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff caused to issue two lawyer notices to the defendants directing them to execute the document after receiving the balance consideration. In the notice dated 4th October, 2006, it is stated thus : That my client is always ready and willing to purchase the property m...
K.K. Abdul Rahiman Vs. Arakuzha Grama Panchayath, represented by its S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of 2.65 acres of land in Sy.No.821/1, 821/1-4 of Arakuzha Grama Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the quarrying license which would be valid up to 24.2.2021. Exts.P2 to P5 are the permits and consent issued by all the authorities. Ext.P6 is the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer which would show that there are no objectionable things within the prohibited distance. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P7, the license application for quarry was dismissed. Ext.P8 is the application for re-consideration of Ext.P7 which was also dismissed by Ext.P9. The petitioner points out that Ext.P10 would show that license has been granted to quarries by respondents in the very same area. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Secretary of the Arakuzha Kurussumala Samrakshana Samithi got himself impleaded as additional third respondent. 3. The first respondent who is the Secretary of the Arakuzha Grama Panchayat filed a counter affidavit contendi...
S.G. Vaisakhan and Another Vs. The Kerala Public Service Commission re ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These Original Petitions are filed from the separate orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (Ekm) No.242 of 2015 dated 10.03.2015, O.A.No.2351 of 2014 dated 15.12.2014 and O.A.No.2066 of 2014 dated 29.10.2014 by the applicants therein, by which, the Tribunal refused to entertain the claim of the petitioners that the rank list drawn by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, K.P.S.C ) was not in accordance with law and declined the reliefs sought for. Even though separate orders are passed by the Tribunal on different dates, the subject matter of the Original Petitions are common in nature and therefore we propose to dispose of the Original Petitions by a common judgment. The facts are common in nature and they are not elaborately required for the purpose of disposal of the Original Petitions in view of the nature of the short but interesting question to be decided. 2. The common question that arises for consideration in these Original Petiti...
Pokker Vs. P.K. Abdurahiman and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. This Revision petition is preferred by the defacto complainant against the judgments in Crl.Appeal No.670 of 2004, 741 of 2004 and 749 of 2004 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The accused were charge sheeted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 r/w 149 IPC. The charge against the accused is that on 6.2.1996, after 12 O'clock in the night, the accused, along with 75 unidentified persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the property owned by the brother of the revision petitioner, committed rioting and demolished the compound wall and thereby sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/-. In this incident, Payyoli police registered a case and after completing investigation, SHO, Payyoli laid a final report before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli. A2 is absconding, therefore his case was split up and refiled. 2. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 t...
Dr. Vincent Panikulangara, Lawyer Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. This public interest litigation has been filed by a lawyer practising before this Court pointing out certain inconsistencies in the statutory provisions especially the punishment imposed for committing sexual intercourse with minor female. Petitioner points out that the writ petition is filed to protect and uphold the honour of Indian minor women in so far as a provision has been made under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code which indicates that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, she not being under 15 years age, is not rape. The contention urged by the petitioner is that as per the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, which is replaced by Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as '2006 Act'), child is defined as a person, if a male who has not completed 21 years of age and in case of female, if she has not completed 18 years of age. Child marriage is prohibited and after the 2006 Act coming into force, identical pr...
Gopinathan Pillai Vs. Sumathykutty Amma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. The question involved in this Original Petition is whether an application for amendment of the plaint can be maintained in an appeal filed after the enactment of the CPC Amendment Act 22 of 2002. 2. The petitioner filed A.S.No.56 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kollam challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.188 of 2002, Munsiff's Court, Kollam. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint (I.A.No.3382 of 2010). The lower Appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that as per the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The court below also held that on the merits, the application for amendment cannot be allowed. 3. Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code o...
A.P. Daisy Vs. Bishop Dr. Thomas Mar Koorilose represented by His Powe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. The defendant in a suit for eviction is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. The plaint schedule building which was owned by the Thiruvalla Diocese of the Malankara Catholic Church was let out to the defendant on 1.8.1997 by its Bishop. Later, a new Diocese of the church was formed as the Muvattupuzha Diocese by bifurcating the Thiruvalla Diocese of the church. Since the plaint schedule building is situated within the jurisdictional limits of the Muvattupuzha Diocese, the Bishop of the said Diocese instituted the suit when the defendant failed to surrender vacant possession of the building as per the terms of the lease. The defendant resisted the suit. The main contention raised by the defendant was that the suit property belongs to the Thiruvalla Diocese and the suit instituted by the Bishop of the Muvattupuzha Diocese is, therefore, not maintainable. The trial court rejected the contentions of the defendant including the contention referred to above and decreed the suit. The de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »