Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4643
ORDERV.K. Mohanan, J.1. The prayer in the above Crl. M.C. is to quash Annexure-G order as well as Annexure-H complaint and all further proceedings in S.T. 1279/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Thiruvalla. The above Crl. M.C. is filed at the instance of the accused in S.T. No. 1279/2001.2. The case of the petitioners can be summarised as follows:The allegation against the petitioners is that on 20-10-2000, the 1st respondent/complainant collected sample of Bengal Gram Flour from the shop of the 1st accused. In the complaint the 1st accused is shown as the vendor, the 2nd accused is arrayed as the manufacturer and the 3rd accused as the distributor. After collecting the sample, the same was sent for chemical analysis and Annexure A report was obtained whereby it is opined that the sample contained 35.0 per cent of Peas dhal starch. On the strength of the Annexure A report, the 1st respondent herein preferred Annexure B complaint against the petitioners/acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT38
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The interesting dispute which arises for resolution in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether Ext.P1 instrument dated 5-11-1997 whereunder one of the three partners of a registered partnership firm retired after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is a mere agreement chargeable to stamp duty under Article 5(c) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 or whether it is a release deed chargeable to stamp duty under Article 48(b) of the Schedule to the said Act.2. The stamp duty actually paid on Ext.P1 instrument is Rs. 200/-. If it is a mere agreement falling under Article 5(c) then the stamp duty payable for such agreement at the relevant time was Rs. 50/- and consequently, the instrument is properly stamped. If on the other hand, the instrument is a release falling under Article 48(b), then the stamp duty payable thereon would be the same as in the case of a conveyance falling under Articles 21...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker93
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, for Mr. Tony George Kannathanam and Mr. Romy Chacko for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent in O.P. No. 5150 of 1995 and the sole respondent in O.P. No. 16501 of 1996. The petitioners in both the Original Petitions are Christians. Aggrieved against Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, they have filed the Original Petitions to declare the said provision as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13(1), 14, 15(1), 25 and 51A of the Constitution of India and to direct the State Government to exempt Christians from Section 118 by invoking Section 3 of the Indian Succession Act since Section 118 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further direction is also sought for to the State Government to take a decision on Ext. P-1 representation and pass a speaking order within one month.2. According to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ587Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 expressed their displeasure and sorrow by the unseemly controversy between the Advocate General (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.G.' and the Director General of Prosecution hereinafter referred to as 'the DGP') and disposed of the said case with a fond hope that the unhappy episode will be forgotten and not allowed to recur to sully the image of the two offices, the controversy, which appears to have been simmering, has come to the surface again.2. The root cause for the current controversy is the office direction issued by the Director General of Prosecution under Ext.P-1 dated February 5, 1998 informing the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the High Court Advocates Clerks' Association that copies of all criminal cases may be directly forwarded to his office with memo (after the cases are numbered in the registry section of the High Court and before sent to the Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
V. Ramkumar, J. These two cases filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. come up for consideration before us consequent on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court (Justice Thomas P. Joseph). The learned judge was prima facie of the view that the decision reported in Chacko v. Mohandas – (2010 (3) KLT 122) and the two unreported decisions in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.No.4824 of 2010) and Premkumar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.No.4361 of 2010) require re-consideration by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the amendment made under Sec.151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by introducing two provisos thereto and inserting Sections 151 A and 151 B with effect from 15-6-2007 being amendment of the procedural law and, therefore, retrospective in its application, cognizance taken by Magistrate on police reports filed prior to 15-6-2007 would be valid. 2. Cahcko’s case was decided by one of us while sitting single and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE9H DAY OF DECEMBER201418TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1266 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 732/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-: ----------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MUHAMMED, FLAT NO.3A, HEAVEN, PUNDIT'S COLONY, KURANVANKONAM WARD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM KALANNOOR VEEDU, KALANNOORPURAM DESOM, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. (A1).2. JALEEL, S/O.MUHAMMED, H.NO.A72, SASTHAMANGALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE FROM B.C.HOUSE, KUKAR DESOM MAGALPAD, UPPALAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD (A2).3. RAJKUMAR SAHU, S/O.MUNNAN SAHU, SANTHOSHPUR DESOM, MIRGON VILLAGE VIDANAPPUR DISTRICT, BANGAL. (A3).4. JANTTU SAIT, S/O.PANCHANAN SAIT, RESIDENT OF MINTUGERU DESOM, WEST BENGAL (A4) 5. ABDULSALAM, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR KARUMAVARI MUSLIM JAMA ATH, UPANIYOOR DESOM, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A5). BY A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8745 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- MAHJOOB.C.M., AGED34YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA HAJI, 2/1, BELKEYS, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHETTANCHAL, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------- 1. SUB COLLECTOR (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE), THALASSERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101.2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, POST PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307. R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1903-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 8745 of 2015 (P) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No.8795 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- FIRDOUZ.A,AGED25YEARS,S/O.MOOSA C.K., ATHIKKIL HOUSE,PAYYANNUR,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR),THALASSERRY, KANNUR - 670 101.2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANGADI POLICE STATION, POST PAYYANGADI,KANNUR DISTRICT-670 303. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1903-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk WP(C).No.8795 of 2015 (Y) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1-A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL59F1674 EXHIBIT-P2-A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.401/2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No.8795 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- FIRDOUZ.A,AGED25YEARS,S/O.MOOSA C.K., ATHIKKIL HOUSE,PAYYANNUR,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR),THALASSERRY, KANNUR - 670 101.2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANGADI POLICE STATION, POST PAYYANGADI,KANNUR DISTRICT-670 303. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1903-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk WP(C).No.8795 of 2015 (Y) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1-A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL59F1674 EXHIBIT-P2-A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.401/2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT731
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Rule 39 Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules provides for certain situations where the Government is empowered to relax the rigour of any rules, if it is required in the interests of justice and equity. (1) If pass in an examination prescribed under the Special Rules is mandatory for confirmation in service and in case such examination was never conducted, is it a just and equitable cause to invoke the Rule granting exemption? (2) Could the same be exercised giving confirmation retrospectively and is it mandatory that notice is issued to the affected parties2. Petitioners are presently holding the post of Superintendent of Police (non IPS). They are aggrieved since respondents 3 to 6 are exempted from passing the prescribed test and also in declaring their probation retrospectively. The impugned orders are Exts.P6 and P7. At the outset two things are to be noted: (1) the case is contested only by respondents 3 and 6, among the contesting party r...
Tag this Judgment!