Kerala Court March 2016 Judgments
Jagadeesh Vs. A.K. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. The simple question that is agitated in this Original Petition filed by the defendant is whether the document on the basis of which the respondent filed the suit is a promissory note or bond. In the affidavit filed by him in lieu of his examination-in-chief in the trial court the petitioner sought to get it marked as a promissory note. The petitioner filed an objection to it. The court after hearing both parties held that it is a promissory note. 2. The document carries the label promissory note. The essential recitals in it are as follows: On demand I will pay Rs.22,00,000/- I have borrowed from you with interest at Rs.3/-per Rs.100/- per month . It is attested by two witnesses. 3. Promissory note is defined in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as follows: A promissory note is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currencynote) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Reju and Another Vs. The Maintenance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
1. The petitioner, challenging an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Senior Citizens Act ), has approached this Court. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioners have been directed to provide welfare measures to the third respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are not liable to provide any maintenance or basic amenities to the third respondent. It is their case that the third respondent is not their parent nor would he come within the biological father/adopted or step father and therefore, the application filed by the third respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal is not maintainable. 4. The case of the third respondent, who is the complainant before the Tribunal, is that he married to the mother of the petitioners, namely, Devaki as per Ext.R3B and he expended a large sum of money for the upkeep of immovable properties as well as, the well being of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Babu John Vs. A.K. Ramakrishnan and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Antony Dominic, J. 1. FAO.306/13 is filed by the judgment debtor in EP.24/08 in OS.30/03 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad, challenging the order passed by that court in EA.87/11, whereby, his application filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set asid e the sale conducted on 26.5.2011 was dismissed. FAO.27/14 is filed by the purchaser of the property in court auction, aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2013 allowing EA.105/13 filedby the judgment debtor. 2. On facts, it is only relevant to state that the first respondent had filed OS.30/03 which was decreed in his favour and the decree has become final. EP.24/08 was filed to realise the decree debt by sale of the attached properties owned by the appellant judgment debtor. In the execution petition, on 25.7.2009, the decree holder submitted schedule of properties for proclamation and sale. This consisted of two items, having an extent of 25 cents and 11 cents respectively. 3. In EA.124/10 filed by...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sudhakaran Vs. Pallichal Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to this Court by the learned Single Judge as per reference order dated 21/1/2016. Petitioner in the writ petition claimed to have a deemed licence for conducting quarrying operations in a property for which he was having quarrying lease. According to the petitioner, though he submitted an application for renewal of licence for conducting the quarry, the application was not disposed of within a period of thirty days as provided under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, he was entitled for deemed licence. However, the Panchayat after the prescribed period of thirty days issued a communication to the petitioner rejecting his application for renewal of licence. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to reject the application for renewal on account of the fact that the renewal application is deemed to have been allowed for the usual period of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. George Patlatt and Another Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Shaffique, J 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking police protection on the allegation that petitioners, who are appointed as the Vicar and the Assistant Vicar of St.Mary's Church, Odakkali, are not being permitted by respondents 5 to 7 and their men in performing their religious and other duties in the Church. 2. Petitioners submit that they were appointed by the Metropolitan of Angamali Diocese as per proceedings dated 01/10/2014 and 11/01/2010 respectively. The power has been exercised in terms of Clause 40 of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara church. It is stated that a faction of Malankara Christians broke away in the year 1973 defying the 1934 Constitution and challenging the authority of the Catholicos who is the spiritual head. Their faction is known as Jacobites. The factional dispute had resulted in various issues and ultimately by judgment of the Apex Court in Most.Rev.P.M.A.Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and Others (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2001), i...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Shajil Vs. The State of Kerala, rep. by the Public Prosecutor and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.6/2016 of Edavana Police Station registered for the offence under Sections 450, 376(2)(f) and 506(i) IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner committed rape on the de facto complainant, aged 38 years on so many occasions from 4.11.2015 onwards. The petitioner also threatened that he would kill her, if she divulged the incident to anybody. The petitioner surrendered before the court on 17.2.2016 and ever since he has been in custody. 4. Heard. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the final report has been already filed by the police after completing the investigation. The petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. The petitioner is having a place of abode in Kerala. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. In the said circums...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the State/acquisitioning authority seeking to review the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010 in L.A.A. No. 535 of 2010, which was preferred by the respondent/claimant for enhancement of the compensation. Mistakes which unfortunately crept in the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court continued to be acted upon, going un-noticed and since the verdict of the court below got merged with the verdict passed by this Court, it became essential to file this review petition. 2. Heard both the sides in detail. 3. Keeping the principle of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) in mind, the endeavour is to see whether any mistake has actually been resulted and if it does require to be rectified ?. 4. The case projected by the review petitioner/State is that an extent of 1.50 Ares of land was acquired from the respondent pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 10.06.2004. The land ...
Tag this Judgment!Pantheerankavu Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State Of Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These six Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 13.10.2015 delivered in a bunch of Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 was treated as the leading Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge for referring the facts and pleadings. Writ Appeal No.2441 of 2015 arising out of Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and it shall be sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in W.A. No.2441 of 2015 for deciding all these Writ Appeals. The parties shall be referred to as described in Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015. 2. Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 giving rise to Writ Appeal No.2441 of 2015 was filed by five Writ Petitioners who were all Primary Agricultural Credit Banks. The first petitioner, Perumanna Service Co-operative Bank was registered on 24.02.1966 which is a Class I Special Credit Bank under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 which was enforced in Malabar area. Second petitioner, Olav...
Tag this Judgment!Sharafudeen Vs. The State Of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.820 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate s Court, Karunagappally, for the offence under Section 379 IPC. 2. The offence was allegedly committed on 02.03.2008. Subsequently, as per Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which has come into force on 31.12.2009, the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC is made compoundable irrespective of the value of the subject matter, and the owner of the property stolen has been given the power to compound the offence. Based on the amendment, the petitioner along with the defacto complainant filed an application seeking permission to compound the offence as C.M.P.No.6464 of 2015 before the court below. 3. Through Annexure-III order, the court below has dismissed the C.M.P. by stating that the amendment was through Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010 and the same was with effect from 31.12.2009. The said finding is totally erroneous. 4. The amendment in question was through the Code of Crim...
Tag this Judgment!Jafar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
1. The short question to be decided is whether a vehicle made use of for transporting sand removed from another vehicle by which the said sand was illegally transported from a kadavu, can also be treated as a vehicle used for transporting sand from the kadavu, within the meaning of Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the goods auto rickshaw by which the sand was allegedly transported after it is removed from the lorry which capsized, could not be treated as a vehicle which could be subjected to seizure within the meaning of Section 23 of the Act. In this particular case, sand was allegedly transported illegally by making use of a lorry. In the course of the transport, the lorry capsized and the driver became injured. The driver was taken to the hospital. In the meantime, the petitioner had allegedly made use of his goods auto rickshaw to remove sand from the capsized vehi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »