Kerala Court January 2016 Judgments

Mathew Vs. Rajan

Court: Kerala

A. Hariprasad, J. 1. Defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, rejecting his contention that the subject matter of the suit is not a co-ownership property of the plaintiff and the defendant, but it is a property belonging to a partnership firm, constituted by the parties to the suit. Appellant therefore contended that a suit for partition is incompetent. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We carefully perused the lower court records. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal, stated shortly, are as follows: The appellant and respondent are brothers. Two others by names Varghese and Babu, are their siblings. Plaint schedule property was acquired by all the four brothers in the year 1973 as per Ext.A1 registered sale deed. A cinema theater by name 'Thavus Theater' was established in the property under a partnership by all the four co-owners. While so, a suit for dissolution of partnership and r...

Prithviraj Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

1. A film actor named Pridhviraj, who had occasion to act in the lead role in a film titled Seventh Day , has presently the ordeal to face the trial in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence punishable under Section 55 I (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the statutory warning that CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS INJURIOUS TO HEALTH , had to be exhibited in a particular scene in the film and that such a statuary warning exhibited in the film was not really legible and also that it did not conform to the size prescribed under Section 55 I (1) of the Abkari Act. 3. As per Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act, whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit any cinema having a scene in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) in any theatre shall be punishable for such an offence . Here the question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who can be clothed with criminal liability under Sect...

Sachidanandhan Vs. Vijesh and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in:

Cases Relied:
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom 279].
Vimala Ammal V C. Susheela [AIR 1991 Mad 209].
Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh [(1973) 1 SCC 179 :. AIR 1973 SC 655].
P.P.S Pillai V Catholic Syrian Bnak [2000(3) KLT 629].
Peter Cherian v. Abraham [2007 (4) KLT 680].
Satheedevi v. Prasanna [2010(2) KLT 642 (SC)].
Ali Rowther v. Kochupennu [1986 KLT 718].
Kali Charanv. Janak Deo [A.I.R. 1932 Allahabad 694].
Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [A.I.R.1982 S.C.818].
Potter v. Sanders (6 Ha. 1).
Daniels v. Davison (17 Ves 433).
Holmes v. Powell (8 De G.M. and G. 572).
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397.
(Kafiladdin case, AIR p. 68).
R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal:AIR 1971 SC 1238:(1970) 3 SCC 140.
SCR p. 369 in Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand viz.
S.V.R. Mudaliar v. Rajabu F. Buhari, AIR 1995 SC 1607.

Cases Referred:
Bankim Chandra v. Anand Bazar Patrika [AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 128].
Thanga Pandiyan v. S.R.Periaswami Thevar [1953 KHC 196: 1953 KLT 475, 2015 KHC 90.
Mohandas K. K. and others V Thankamma Pillai [2015 KHC 90].
Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Deep Chand and Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 75].
Appukuttan v. Kamalakshi [1996(2) KLT 977].
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom. 279],
W.P. 6225 of 2007 of Bombay High Court, Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [AIR 2015 Mad 96], 2010(2) KLT 642 (SC).
Krishna Chandra Kabiraj and others V Sankaran Kabiraj and others [AIR 1950 Calcutta 128].
Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [2015 KHC 2237: AIR 2015 Mad 96].
Vigro Industries Pvt Ltd V Venturetech Solutions P Ltd : 2012(5) CTC 359.
State Bank of India V Cracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd : 2013 STPL (Web) 939

Comparative Citation:
2016 (1) KLT 75 (SN) (C.No.79),

Asha, J. 1. Appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S No.478 of 2007, on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. 1st respondent herin filed the suit against the appellant and his wife who is the 2nd respondent herein, praying for a decree for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement. On coming to know about the settlement deed executed by the appellant in favour of his wife alienating the plaint schedule property in her name, the plaint was amended as per order in I.A No.626 of 2009, seeking a declaration that the document No. 902/07 of Sub Registry Office, Thrissur is not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint schedule property and cancelling the document. 2. The suit was decreed declaring that document No.902/2007 executed between the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein is a sham document not binding on the 1st respondent and directing the 1st respondent to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,22,500/- to the appellant within 30 days and a further direction to the...

P.V. Cherian Vs. George Babu and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The third respondent obtained a money decree against respondents 1 and 2 who are husband and wife. In execution of the decree the property of the first respondent was sold on 20.6.2013. It was purchased by the petitioner. On the same day he deposited 25% of the purchase money. The very next day (29.6.2013) the judgment debtors filed Ext P1 application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. But they did not deposit any amount along with the application. On 3.9.2013 they filed Ext P4 application to grant them two weeks time to comply with Order 21 Rule 89 . On 20.9.2013 they paid Rs.5,12,881/- to the decree holder, which received it in full satisfaction of its claim under the decree as evidenced by Ext P7 copy of the receipt. On 27.8.2013 they filed Ext P9 application for permission to deposit five percent of the purchase price. They deposited in court 5% of the purchase price apparently on 20.9.2013. On 25.9.2013 the purchaser filed Ext P6 applic...

C.A. Alex Vs. The Excise Commissioner and Others

Court: Kerala

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. 2. The petitioner, the owner of a motor vehicle, assails Ext.P5 order of confiscation passed by the second respondent, who, in fact, confirmed the initial order of confiscation in Ext.P3 by the third respondent. 3. The facts in brief are that, on 21.07.2010, the petitioner's vehicle while being used by another person, namely one Mr. Shijo, was intercepted and seized by the fourth respondent on the allegation that it was used as an escort vehicle for another vehicle carrying certain contraband. In fact, Crime No. 27 of 2010 for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Act was also registered. 4. In the course of time, the third respondent, exercising his powers under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (the Act), confiscated the petitioner's vehicle through Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and invited Ext.P4 order from the second respondent, who con...

Sabitha Salim Vs. P.A. Gopi and Others

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The claimant is the appellant before this Court. She was a Post Graduate student doing her first year M.Sc course. The fate struck her very hard in the form of a road traffic accident. The appellant was walking along the M.G. Road, near Perumannor Junction, when a stage carriage bearing No.KL.7/E.414, owned, driven and insured by the respondents 1 to 3 respectively knocked her down causing serious injuries, resulting in multiple fracture and also loss of 12 teeth. This led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, seeking for a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads. 2. The owner and driver of the bus did not choose to contest the matter and were set ex parte. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company on general grounds, as no violation of statutory/policy conditions was available. 3. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A17, marked from the part of the petitioner/claimant, b...

Mani and Others Vs. Joby John and Another

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The grievance of the appellant is two fold; firstly that the Tribunal has gone wrong in exonerating the Insurance Company and secondly, that the quantum awarded in respect of the death of a person aged 28 years is much on the lower side. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the appeal shows that there occurred an accident on 1.12.2002, when the lorry bearing No.KL-10B/4604 owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent capsized on the road resulting in serious injuries to the deceased, leading to his death on the same day. The case projected by the claimants, who are the parents and siblings of the deceased, was that on the date of accident, the deceased was returning along with the goods carried in the lorry bearing No.KL-10B/4604 and it was because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver, that the accident had occurred. 3. The owner-cum-driver of the vehicle chose to remain ex parte. The matter was contested by the Insu...

Ramanathan @ Raju Vs. The State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecut ...

Court: Kerala

V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. Whether the conviction of the appellant based on three circumstances, viz. (i). last seen together with the deceased (ii). presence of blood of unknown origin after two years of the date of occurrence on the alleged weapon of offence and (iii) alleged act of absconding by the appellant, can be sustained under law, is the substantial question which arise for our consideration in this appeal. 2. It would be convenient to state the prosecution case briefly at the outset itself:- The appellant, Ramanathan @ Raju, a stone cutter by profession, was occupying a shop room in the building by name Madhavam buildings owned by PW4 - Rajasekhara Kurup. Deceased Baldas @ Marthandan was a Mason and he was staying along with his brothers and workers in an adjacent room in the same building. Both the accused as well as the deceased were natives of Tamil Nadu and they have been working in this area for the past several years. On 20.4.2004, 1st informant Kolappan, while on h...

Valsamma Vs. District Collector and Others

Court: Kerala

Shaffique, J 1. All these cases concern steps taken by the Revenue Authorities for recovery of sales tax due from one E.V.Thomas. The writ petitioners were proceeded against mainly on the ground that they have acquired properties which belonged to Sri.E.V.Thomas, his wife and children and therefore became liable to the extent of properties acquired by them. The said action of the revenue authorities came to be challenged in separate writ petitions. 2. The writ petitioners are the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008. They challenge the judgment in W.P.C.No.26177 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 01/09/2008 relegated the writ petitioners to prefer a revision before the Government under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the RR Act'). 3. W.P.C.No.16382/2009 is also filed by the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008, seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P3 representation before taking any further proceedings to recover any amount...

P.M. Kelukutty and Others Vs. Young Men's Christian Association, repre ...

Court: Kerala

1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C).No.30016/2015. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are tenants in buildings owned by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent constructed the said building, which is a four storeyed building, after demolishing a two storeyed building that originally stood on the site. For the purposes of constructing the said building, the 1st respondent had availed a term loan of Rs.400 Lakhs from the 2nd respondent bank. The security offered by the 1st respondent, for the loan amounts advanced to it by the 2nd respondent, was in the form of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Ext.P2 dated 31.12.2004 is the memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The 1st respondent also entered into Ext.P3 loan agreement dated 27.12.2004, whereby it agreed to repay the 2nd respondent the...