Kerala Court November 2015 Judgments
P. Manjunatha Vs. State of Kerala rep. by Pulic Prosecutor and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. PW1, who is the son of the deceased in S.C.No.173/2009 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod, filed Crl.M.P.No.3062/2015 before the court below under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the production of some documents and the recalling of some witnesses for examination. Through Annexure-II order, the court below has dismissed Annexure-I Crl.M.P. 2. It is true that the court below has permitted the petitioner to engage an Advocate of his choice for assisting the prosecution under the proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. As to the manner in which such a pleader, who is engaged on the application of the defacto complainant should act, are contained in Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. If any such private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, s...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhu Babu Vs. The Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram and Oth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. The petitioner, a lady, is the registered owner of an auto-rickshaw, which was seized on 23.10.2005 by the Adoor Police. The seizure was on the allegation that the vehicle was carrying about fifteen litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL); the police registered Crime No. 735/2005 under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act ('the Act'). 2. Initially, when the petitioner filed C.M.P.No. 5438/2005, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor, rejected the petitioner's request for interim custody of the vehicle. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No. 3976/2005 and invited Exhibit P1 order from this Court. This Court, in fact, has directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the issue afresh. As a result, the petitioner obtained interim custody of the vehicle. 3. Soon after the petitioner's getting the interim custody of the vehicle, the third respondent issued a notice under Section 67B of the Act to the petitioner why her vehicle should not be confiscated. The third respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Jiju Lukose Vs. State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Home Departm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed as a public interest litigation seeking a direction to upload the copy of the FIR in the website of the police station and to make available copies of the FIR to the accused immediately on registration of the FIR. 2. Petitioner in the Writ Petition has narrated the circumstances and the background facts for filing this public interest litigation. Petitioner, a resident of Ettumanoor was made an accused in C.C. No.567 of 2013 alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the petitioner's wife. Petitioner's parents are senior citizens and on registration of the FIR, the family members were called upon to come to the police station. Although the FIR was registered on 21.12.2012, petitioner could obtain a copy of the FIR only after two months. Till the petitioner could obtain a copy of the FIR, the petitioner and his family members were in dark about the nature of the allegations levelled against the...
Tag this Judgment!Nayarambalam Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary Vs. Kuthrat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the Nayarambalam Grama Panchayath against the judgment dated 07.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No.25885 of 2014 by which judgment the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the auction notice dated 26.10.2013 issued by the Grama Panchayat for auction of right of fishing in Kuthrathode. Petitioner had made an application for grant of lease which was rejected by the Panchayat. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleading of the parties are: The Kuthrathode having an extent of 2.32 Acres vests in Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat. The petitioner is a registered Paddy Growers' Agricultural Society. The petitioner Society was given fishing right in the Kuthrathode from 10.11.1998 to 15.04.1999. The President of the petitioner Society submitted a representation claiming lease of fishing right. O.P. No.24256 of 2002 was also filed by the President of the Society befo...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Abdul Manaf Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. The petitioner intends to marry a foreign national of the country of Switzerland. The petitioner gave a notice of marriage under Special Marriage Act. The notice was given on 13/08/2015. On account of non-acceptance, the petitioner had approached this Court. By the judgment in W.P.(C).No.18598/2015, this Court directed the Marriage Officer to accept notice on being satisfied with the single status of the foreign national. 2. The petitioner approached this Court on account of the fact that the certificate produced by the petitioner as per Ext.P5, to prove single status, is not acceptable to the Marriage Officer. 3. Ext.P5 certificate of civil status is issued by the Swiss Confederation, to prove the bride marital status, attested by a notary in terms of Hague Convention, abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents (Apostille Convention). India has declared its accession to above Convention on 05/10/1961. The Switzerland has not objected to accession of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan and Another Vs. Anilkumar and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. Can the prosecution in a case before the Court of a Magistrate be conducted by a Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government for the said case? 2. The Government has appointed an Advocate as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C., for conducting the prosecution in C.C.No.617/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara. The same is under challenge here. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appointment has been made as a 'Special Public Prosecutor' and not as a 'Special Assistant Public Prosecutor' and therefore, he cannot conduct the prosecution before a Magistrate's Court. 4. Section 24(3) Cr.P.C. says: For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district: Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Addit...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeesh Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor High ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. The legality of the order dated 7. 10. 2015 in Crl.M.P. No 1784 of 2015 of the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, is challenged in this appeal preferred u/s 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 by the appellant, who is the 6th accused in crime number 142/2014 of the Vellamunda police station. 2. The above petition was preferred by the appellant under section 439, 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) read with section 43(D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the UA(P) Act), seeking default bail. 3. The question raised by Sri K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, centers around the interpretation of S. 43D (2) of the UA(P) Act which modifies the operation of S. 167 (2) of the Code , when offences under the UA (P) Act are involved. 4. Skeletal facts will have to be noted first :- (a). On 24.4.2014, at about 20.30 hrs, one Roopesh along with 4...
Tag this Judgment!C. Suresh Vs. India Cements Capital And Finance Limited Chennai repres ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. Applicability of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure in executing the award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter called the Act) is the pivotal question in this revision petition. 2. The award involved in this case was passed in favour of the respondent by an Arbitrator at Chennai. Execution Petition was filed in District Court, Manjeri. The contention of the petitioner that the court at Manjeri has no jurisdiction to execute the award as it has not been transferred to it by the court at Chennai was repelled by the learned District Judge. 3. The respondent relies on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Ramaswamy v. Principal Subordinate Judge (1997 (2) KLT 393) in support of his argument that the award need not be transferred. But the question that came up for consideration in Ramaswamy's case was whether a person who has obtained an award in his favour should produce a decree drawn up by the court which has jurisdiction over t...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by the Authorised Signator ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. This appeal preferred by the Insurance Company challenges the correctness and sustainability of the award passed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs.4.42 lakhs, which has been directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 2. The case of the insurance company is that no liability could have been fastened on the shoulders of the Insurance Company by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in 2011 (4) KLT 821 (SC) (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. V. Sinitha) and that of the Full Bench of this Court in 2012 (2) KLT 132(FB) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Joseph), it being a case of self accident. The accident was on 30.04.2006. The deceased, aged about 24 years was driving a Goods Autorickshaw bearing No.KL.7/AZ-1613 owned by the first respondent before the Tribunal and insured by the appellant herein. While so, on seeing a vehicle which was coming from the opposite side, the Autorickshaw was suddenly swerved to t...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Jolly Vs. Union of India, represented by the Secretary and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
Surendra Mohan, J. 1. The applicant in O.A.No.243 of 2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT, for short), Ernakulam Bench has filed this Original Petition aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, dismissing the Original Application. The petitioner claims that he was being engaged in the Public Works Department, Lakshadweep Administration, Cochin from 1992 onwards on daily wages. During 1993-1994, he was engaged as a Driver. It is his contention that he was engaged as a Jeep Driver against a sanctioned post. Though Ext.P1 Scheme was for granting temporary status to workers similarly engaged, he was not granted the benefit of Ext.P1. As on 01.09.1993, the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days. From 15.03.1995 onwards, the petitioner has been working under the 4th Respondent as an NMR Driver, continuously. Even now, he is working as such, without any break in service. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularized in service in accordance with the directions of the Suprem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »