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.
R. Vijaya Kumaran Pillai Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Public ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
1. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 339 of 2009 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class- IV, Kollam. 2. The trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him thereunder to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the appeal, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. Heard. 4. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the said liability, the revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was issued on behalf of the complainant. The r...
T.N. Ramakrishnan and Another Vs. The National Textiles Corporation Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that in retiring them under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S), the petitioners were granted ex-gratia benefits only reckoning their retirement age as 58, while they are entitled to be treated as workers liable to be superannuated at 60 years of age. The petitioners admittedly had applied under Ext.R2(b). The petitioners on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 contend that they had been issued with E.S.I identification as early as on 15.01.1969 and hence they also come under the exception provided in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for brevity 'Standing Orders Act') with respect to age of superannuation. 2. Admittedly the 2nd respondent was in the private sector and in the year 1974, the 1st respondent took over the unit of the 2nd respondent. The retirement age of all employees was stipulated as 58; despite there being a clause in the existing Standing Orders with respect to the 2nd respondent Unit; th...
Laila Kassim Vs. V.K. Kunjumol
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.142 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kattappana, a suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement dated 6.5.2011 to sell six cents of land with the building therein. The suit was decreed exparte by judgment delivered on 11.01.2013. By that decree, the defendant was directed to execute a sale deed after accepting the balance sale consideration within one month from the date of the decree. It was stipulated that in the event of default on the part of the defendant to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff will be entitled to get the sale deed executed within one month of the default by depositing the balance sale consideration in court. The total agreed sale consideration according to the plaintiff was Rs.3,00,000/- and out of the said amount, the sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was paid to the defendant on the date of the agreement. Going by the averments in the plaint, the balance sale...
K. Dakshayani Amma represented by her Authorised Attorney K. Rugmani V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
1. The petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 53 cents of land in Survey No.84/1A of Guruvayur Village in Chavakkad Taluk in Thrissur District. She acquired title over the said property under Sale Deed No.313/1965 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Kottappadi. For constructing a multi-storied residential complex in the said property, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for building permit dated 22.2.2011 before the 1st respondent Municipality, along with a covering letter dated 21.3.2011 addressed to its Secretary, the 2nd respondent herein. As requested by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 survey sketch and Ext.P3 possession certificate dated 22.2.2011. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P4 letter dated 26.4.2011 informed the petitioner that, the proposed site is within the area set apart for park and open space in the Master Plan for Guruvayur Township and as such no construction could be permitted. On enquiry, the petitioner came to ...
V.V. Kurian Vs. Leelamma Sebastian and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. A prosecution involving the offences under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act is sought to be quashed on the ground that the allegations in the final report submitted by the police, or in the complaint, will not in any manner constitute the essentials of the offences alleged. The complaint in this case was made by the 1st respondent herein, who had admittedly borrowed an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from the accused. At the time of borrowal, the complainant had also handed over some blank cheques, blank stamp papers, and promissory notes. When the complainant failed to make payment as agreed, the accused brought a prosecution against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act'). On full trial, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Ettumanoor convicted the 1st respondent under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. She was also ordered to pay a compensation o...
Divisional Forest Officer Malayattoor and Others Vs. P.M. Jalal and An ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. This revision at the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer and the forest officials of the Kerala Government, filed under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) is directed against the judgment of the District Court, Ernakulam in C.M.A.No.97 of 2010 2. The first respondent is the owner of a mini lorry and the second respondent is the owner of a pick up van. It was alleged that on 18.06.2010, both the above vehicles were used to transport 37 pieces of different species of forest timber illegally felled from the property belonging to one Josepheena @ Thankama, situated in Kuttampuzha Village. The vehicles were seized by the forest officials alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 27(d) and (e) of the Act. The mahazar was prepared and Crime No.8/10 of the Pooyamkutty Forest Station was registered. After investigation, final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam and the crime is pending. 3. The first revi...
Jacob Thomas @ Sabu Paster Vs. The Assistant Excise Commissioner and A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. The petitioner, a Pastor in the Church of God, is the accused No.1 in Crime No.6/2007 on the file of Agali Excise Range for offences under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act ('the Act'). 2. The facts in brief are that on 27.04.2007 the officials of the Excise Department intercepted the petitioner's vehicle and found it transporting 230 litres of arrack, a prohibited substance. As the inmates of the jeep in question fled from the scene, the authorities could not make any immediate arrest. 3. As can be seen, later, the officials arrested the petitioner and another, said to be his accomplice, the second accused. Keeping aside the criminal proceedings in Crime No.6/2007, the progress of which the learned counsel for the petitioner has no knowledge, I may focus on the confiscation of the vehicle, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 4. Initially, after the seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.20423/2007 and invited judgment dated 11.09.2007, ...
Sini Ben and Another Vs. Union of India represented by the Ministry of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. The petitioners had applied for the post of Inspector (Prosecution) in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), under the Ministry of Railways pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 14.11.2009 issued by the Chairman, Central Recruitment Committee, the 2nd respondent herein. They have approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 final list of the candidates provisionally selected to the post of Inspector (Prosecution) in the RPF, to the extent of non-inclusion of candidates under the categories 'Female OBC' and 'Ex-Servicemen'. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that, they are entitled to be included in Ext.P2 final list and resultantly entitled to be appointed as Inspector (Prosecution) on the basis of the reservation 0provided in Ext.P1 notification. By way of an amendment, a writ of mandamus was also sought for, commanding the respondents to appoint the 2nd petitioner as Inspector (Prosecution), by invoking Rule 6A of the Ex-Se...
Pareed Musaliyar Vs. State of Kerala, rep. by the Secretary, Excise De ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. In relation to a hooch tragedy, the respondent authorities registered a crime in Crime No.361/2010 on the file of Wandoor Police Station for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 57(A) of the Abkari Act and investigated the crime. 2. During the course of the investigation, based on the alleged confession made by one of the accused in the crime, the Police seized the petitioner's vehicle, a Tempo Traveler bearing Registration No.KL7-BC-4141, though the petitioner himself is not an accused. Later, after the initial seizure, the authorities confiscated the vehicle, as part of which the third respondent passed Exhibit P5 order under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (the 'Act' for brevity). 3. Aggrieved, when the petitioner appealed against Exhibit P5, the second respondent, through Exhibit P6 order, negatived the petitioner s claim and confirmed the findings of the third respondent. The fact, however, remains that in the light of the interim custody ...
Project Engineer, Kerala Road Fund Board Vs. Thankappan and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. Writ Appeal No.1508 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment dated 15.03.2015 in W.P(C) No.33114 of 2014 filed by the first respondent to this Writ Appeal by which judgment the Writ Petition has been allowed directing the respondents to the Writ Petition not to evict or prevent the first respondent from continuing the street vending business at the spot without resorting to the procedure contemplated under the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 or the scheme provided under Ext.P9 Government Policy. W.P(C) No.23374 of 2015 has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation praying for a direction to respondents to ensure that the bunk shop owned by the 7th respondent to the Writ Petition (petitioner in W.P(C) No.33114 of 2014) from functioning at its present location in order to facilitate construction of a bus-bay in that place. Parties shall be referred to as described in the W.P(C) No.33114 of 2014. 2. Facts givi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »