Kerala Court January 2016 Judgments
Archana Raj Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, no further grievances survive. Therefore, making the interim order absolute, the writ petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Ummul Faiza and Another Vs. Akbar Quarashi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. The defendants in a suit for mandatory injunction are the appellants. 2. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The suit property belonged to Ebrahim, the father of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Ebrahim divorced the first defendant. After the divorce, the first defendant filed O.S.No.124 of 2007 for a declaration of her right in the suit property and for a prohibitory injunction restraining Ebrahim from evicting her from the building in the suit property. The case set up by the first defendant in O.S.No.124 of 2007 was that the suit property was acquired by Ebrahim making use of her money also. The case of the first defendant that the suit property was purchased making use of her money also was not accepted by the court in O.S.No.124 of 2007. Consequently, the declaration of title sought by the first defendant over the suit property was declined. The first defendant was, however, granted a decree in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pathmavathi Karippaprambil Vs. Sheeja Makkoram Veetil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner in E.A. No.33/2014 and judgment debtor in E.P.No.17/2013, against the order passed by the Family Court, Tirur in E.A.No.33/2014 in E.P.No.17/2013 in O.P.No.822/2007 dated 2.7.2014 whereby the Family Court has declined the relief sought for by the petitioner under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 1st proviso to Section 60 and sub-section (c) thereto of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the CPC ) read thus: Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:- (a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x (c) houses and other buildings (with materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist [or a labourer or a domestic servant] and occupied by him: It is thus claiming protection available to...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas and Another Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. Can a person, who availed of all the benefits of a settlement, be permitted to backtrack from the settlement, and to continue with the prosecution proceedings against the adverse party, in violation of the terms of settlement? Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.481/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thrissur, which has arisen from Crime No.120/2012 of the Thrissur West Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The defacto complainant was the son-in-law of the first petitioner. There was difference of opinion between the defacto complainant and his wife, who is the daughter of the first petitioner, which culminated in a series of litigations between them. As the wife of the defacto complainant was tortured and harassed with a demand for dowry, and as her properties were misappropriated, a case was pending for the same against the defacto complainant in this case, as C.C....
Tag this Judgment!Issac Mathew Vs. G. Nirmala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. This revision is preferred by the defeated tenant in RC(OP) No.43 of 2012, confirmed in RCA No.10 of 2014 of the Rent Control Court, Kollam and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam respectively. RC(OP) No.43/2012 was tried along with RC(OP) Nos.20/2012, 34/2012 and 37/2012. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction in all the cases and the revision petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession of the buildings. More particularly, in RCP No.43/2012, the subject matter of this revision, Rent Control Court has ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The revision petitioner herein aggrieved by the said order of eviction, preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam by filing RCA No.10/2014. The appellate authority vide its order dated 22.3.2014 has affirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of this revision are as follows: 3. The respondent land lady has filed the eviction p...
Tag this Judgment!Ravikumar Vs. The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is made clear that irrespective of the fact as to whether the right of set off is expressly given or not in the judgment, the accused are entitled to get the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. All such accused are entitled to set off of the period undergone by them in detention in connection with the investigation, inquiry and trial of that particular case. The right to set off cannot be denied to the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment for life. The jail authorities shall see that the right to set off is extended to the petitioner. With the said direction, this writ petition is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Beena Vs. Sundaresan, (*Died) and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. The above appeal is filed by the Respondent against the judgment of the Family Court, Nedumangad in O.P.No.574 of 2008 dated 26.09.2012, whereby the Family Court allowed the Original Petition filed by the 1st Respondent herein, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of this appeal, 1st Respondent died and consequently additional Respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded by this Court as per its order dated 15.01.2015 and in spite of service of notice, none appeared either personally or through counsel to contest the proceedings. 2. Brief facts required for the disposal of the appeal discernible from the Original Petition are as follows: 3. The appellant and the 1st Respondent are Hindus and their marriage was solemnized as per the custom, rituals and ceremonies prevailing in the community on 30.08.2002 at Nirmala Kalyana Mandapam, Kazhakoottam. Thereafter, they resided in the house of the 1st Respondent. According to the 1st resp...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Tahsildar, (RR) Kerala Financial Corporation and Another Vs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Shaffique, J 1. This appeal has been remitted back to this Court by the Supreme Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, with the following observations: 7. In our opinion, in these types of cases, the High Court should have taken up the matters individually and decided whether the State was justified in issuing the demand notice(s) for the purpose of collection charges as well as service charges under Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matters to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. We also request the High Court to take the cases individually instead of clubbing all the matters and look into the facts of each case and take a positive decision on the pleadings adduced by both the parties. 2. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking for a direction to the respondents namely Kerala Financial Corporation (for short 'KFC') and its officers ...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Augustine and Another Vs. State of Kerala, to be represented by T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. The grievance projected in this Writ Petition is relating to regularisation of the title acquired by them by way of assignment proceedings pertaining to their ancestral property which is said to have a total extent of 43 cents comprised in Sy.No.212 of Kannan Devan Hills (KDH) Village. The possessory right in respect of the said property is stated to have been acquired by the maternal grandfather of the petitioner in the year 1930. The said maternal grandfather, by Ext.P-1 registered Will of SRO, Devikulam, executed on 6th Dhanu 1124 (ME) i.e., some time in the year 1949, had bequeathed the said possessory rights pertaining to that property to his daughter, Smt.K.B.Cicily, who is the mother of the petitioners. It is made clear in the recitals of Ext.P-1 registered Will that the possessors were enjoying a 'kuthakappattom lease'. Later, it appears that, the mother of the petitioners had made requisite application for assignment of the land. It is pointed out that, assignment was grant...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Sunny and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. All the three petitioners are the employees of the third respondent Bank. In the course of time, the petitioners have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of serious irregularities in the grant of gold loans. As a part of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the respondent Bank suspended the petitioners from service through Exhibits P3 to P5 orders dated 21.12.2015. Assailing the said orders of suspension, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2. Mr. M. M. Monaye, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has singularly contended that the impugned orders of suspension were passed by the General Manager, who is not competent in terms of Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the 'Rules' for brevity). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Saseendran1 2009 (2) KLT 482 (FB). 3. Per contra, Sri. D. Sreekumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »