Kerala Court September 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.
Ayodya Printers Ltd. represented by M.R. Krishnakumar General Manager ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. The revision petitioner is the complainant in CC 2448/2010 on the files of the court of the judicial magistrate of first class-V, Ernakulam, who in this revision petition challenges the order passed by the court below dismissing the complaint under section 204 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code ). 2. The facts leading to the present revision petition can be briefly stated as follows:- The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-V, Ernakulam against the 2nd respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After complying with the legal formalities, summons was issued to the 2nd respondent under Section 204 (1) (a) of the Code. In response to the summons issued by the court, the 2nd respondent appeared before the court through his counsel. Copy of the complaint was also given to the 2nd respondent through his counsel and the case stood posted to 7-2-2013 for reco...
Vavachan Vs. Sasi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction in relation to an item of immovable property as claimed by him is the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 3. During the course of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.4243 of 2009 for survey and measurement of the property. The commissioner appointed in terms of the order in that interlocutory application later on reported to the court that he is unable to execute the commission in view of the fact that survey plan is not available. The plaintiff was directed to have the survey plan produced. It appears that he took certain steps. Later on, since the survey plan was not produced, the trial court dismissed the commission application and also dismissed the suit for default. Later on, the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit along with an application seeking condon...
E.C. Johny Vs. The Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, Collecto ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These writ appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.6498, 12837 and 15111 of 2011 against the judgment dated 06.04.2015. The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment and the subject matter of the dispute involved in the appeals are one and the same and therefore we propose to dispose of the writ appeals also by a common judgment. The facts in the subject matter of the dispute are almost similar and therefore wherever required the facts will be stated separately. The facts as narrated in W.A.No.1847 of 2015 is stated hereunder for the disposal of the above writ appeals. 2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) to draw a 33 K.V. electric line through the properties of the appellants, Representations were submitted against such action of the Board. By the representations, appellants suggested alternative routes so as to avoid drawing line throu...
State of Kerala represented by The Secretary, Department of Forest Thi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by Respondents 1 to 3 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10163 of 2015 dated 21.08.2015, by which the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P10 order passed by the 2nd appellant, refusing to draw electric line through the area in question and the Respondents were directed to provide electricity connection well ahead of 30.09.2015 and the exercise was directed to be completed before 15.09.2015. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: 1st Respondent herein is residing within the Thattekkad Forest Section of Kothamangalam Forest Division for the last more than 65 years. 1st Respondent is a Scheduled Caste belonging to Pulaya community and his wife belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. They are residing within the aforesaid area 1 kms. away from the public road. The Grama Sabha of Ward No.1 of Keerampara Grama Panchayath in its meeting held on 10.08.2014 had decided to request the Kerala State Electricity ...
M.K. Suseela Vs. P.N. Mangalam and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
Surendra Mohan, J. 1. This is a tenant's revision against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad in RCA No.8 of 2013 reversing in part, an order passed by the Rent Control Court, Palakkad in RCP No.27 of 2011. The landlord had filed the Rent Control Petition on the grounds under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. The landlady owns a building that is situate by the side of the College Road at Palakkad. The building consists of two shop rooms facing the road, with the landlady residing in the residential portion behind. According to the landlady, her son is employed in a software company in Hyderabad. He is suffering from a disease by name Cervical Dystonia which debilitates him from continuing his present employment. Therefore, he wants to return to his native place and to start a business in computer peripherals from the tenanted shop room. The firs...
K.V. Bejoy Vs. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor and An ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
1. The counter petitioner in M.C No.165/2014/C on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi has moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C, for short) seeking to quash Annexure A1 preliminary order issued on 30.03.2014 against him pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 107 Cr.P.C. 2. By issuing Annexure A1 order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the petitioner to attend in person before him at 11 a.m on 08.04.2014 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond for Rs.25,000/- and also furnish security by executing a bond with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, for keeping peace for a period of one year. Annexure A1 order is sought to be quashed on the reason that it is improper and illegal. 3. Smt.C.N.Charisma the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Madhu Ben, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State are heard in detail. 4. Smt.Charisma contente...
The Karannur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Calicut City Servi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
1. In this writ petition, yet again, the issue of a turf war between the co-operative societies operating in the adjacent areas has fallen for consideration. In fact, the core issue to be determined is about the resultant alleged prejudice on account of encroachment by one society into the area of another society. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank established in 1943, whereas the first respondent was established in 2002. The petitioner Bank has Elathur as one of its areas of operation; the first respondent Bank has as its area of operation the entire territory of Kozhikode Corporation. 3. In the course of time, to be more specific, in 2009, the Government expanded the territorial limits of the Kozhikode Corporation by including four more Grama Panchayats. Incidentally, Elathur is one of the Grama Panchayats that has been annexed to the Kozhikode Corporation. Taking advantage of the expanded area, the first respondent Bank has amended its bye-laws, including newly-annexed areas a...
Cherian Varghese, (Retd. Chief Judicial Magistrate) and Another State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
W.P. (C) No. 28111 of 2012 1. The petitioner had retired from service as Chief Judicial Magistrate. He is aggrieved by the payment of commuted value of his pension taking the commutation factor as 8.194 which in the rate applicable to Central Government employees instead of the rate available for State Government employees which is 9.81. The claim of the petitioner is based on the recommendations of the National Judicial Pay commission which was accepted by the Apex Court with the modification contained in the judgment reported in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India [2002(4) SCC 247]. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission to the effect that in the matter of calculation of pension of Judicial Officers, the State Rules for the time being in force in the respective States was accepted by the Central as well as the State Governments. Though, Ext.P2 Government order specifically provided that 10 years service shall be the m...
Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2015
1. This Writ Petition is filed by a contractor pursuant to Ext.P10 tender notification dated 1.10.2014. 2. As per Ext.P1 notification, a stipulation is made as follows: Online Tenders/bids are to be accompanied with a preliminary agreement executed in Kerala stamp paper worth Rs.100/-. Tenders/bids received online without scanned copy of contractor s lincense, preliminary agreement e-payment form and filled tender documents will not be considered and shall be summarily rejected. Further details can be had from the NIT or Office of the Superintending Engineer. 3. The 4th respondent, to whom the work has been awarded, executed a preliminary agreement in a stamp paper worth Rs.100/-. This was ignoring the enhancement of stamp duty payable as per Ext.P2 Government Order and Ext.P3 proceedings of the Chief Engineer, PWD, wherein it is stipulated that preliminary agreement shall be executed in a stamp paper in revised rate. It appears that the 4th respondent was subsequently permitted to ex...
Devasya @ Jose P.M. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE17H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201526TH BHADRA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1224 of 2014 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA792013 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, KASARAGOD DATED2503-2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC2622009 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, HOSDRUG DATED2703-2013 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- DEVASYA @ JOSE P.M. AGED52YEARS S/O.MANUAL, RESIDING AT VANNARKKUNDU, BIRIKULAM PARAPPA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R. GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1709-2015, THE COURT ON TH...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »