Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT882
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The judgment debtor, whose application for setting aside the court auction sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI was dismissed by the Executing Court, challenges the order in this appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent for amounts due to him as per an equitable mortgage created by the appellant/petitioner. The suit was compromised and a compromise petition was filed by the parties. The trial Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.2. In execution of the compromise decree, E.P. No. 91 of 2002 was filed by the decree holder for sale of the immovable property belonging to the judgment debtor. It would appear that there was attachment of the property, though it was not necessary since the suit was on mortgage. The Executing Court passed an order to sell the immovable property for realisation of the decree debt. A proclamation was issued fixing the date of sale as 7-1-2003. On 7-1-2003, the judgment debtor paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the decree debt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker369
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The judgment-debtor, whose application for setting aside the Court auction sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI was dismissed by the Executing Court, challenges the order in this appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent for amounts due to him as per an equitable mortgage created by the appellant/petitioner. The suit was compromised and a compromise petition was filed by the parties. The trial Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.2. In execution of the compromise decree, E.P. No. 91 of 2002 was filed by the decree holder for sale of the immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. It would appear that there was attachment of the property, though it was not necessary since the suit was on mortgage. The Executing Court passed an order to sell the immovable property for realisation of the decree debt. A proclamation was issued fixing the date of sale as 7-1-2003. On 7-1-2003, the judgment-debtor paid a sum of Rs. 25.000/- towards the decree debt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT962
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track-I, Thrissur is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in this appeal. The appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Set off was also allowed.2. The prosecution case is as follows: The appellant's wife and children deserted him about 2 1/2 years prior to the date of the incident and were living separately. The appellant believed that his mother was instrumental for the separation of his wife and children from him. He became enmical towards his mother. On account of that enmity, he committed the murder of his mother, Kousalya, a 70 year old woman, at about 11p.m. on 27-5-2001 in the building bearing No. 111/2001 of Puthur Panchayat which belonged to the deceased. The appellant was also residing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT235
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed, challenging the method of selection of candidates, for filling up the Management quota seats for M.B.B.S. course, in the Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram and the Co-operative Medical College, Kochi. So, they are heard and disposed of by a common Judgment.2. The facts of the above three cases, necessary for their disposal, are summarised below:WP(C) No. 23200/053. The petitioner was a candidate, who applied for admission to the MBBS course, pursuant to the prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala. In the rank list published by the Commissioner, the petitioner was Rank No. 1366, in the medical stream. But, he could not get admission in any of the Government Medical Colleges or in any of the merit quota seats in the self-financing colleges. He was desirous of getting admission in the Management quota seats, in the Colleges of respondents 1 and 2, namely, Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT791
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 103 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants in the appeal. The basic facts stated in the plaint are as follows.2. The plaintiff is a native of Meenachil Taluk. He was working as lecturer in St.Thomas College, Palai, from 1959 to 1961. In 1961, he went to Canada for higher studies. He took his master degree in Mathematics from the University of Toronto and took his Ph.D. He joined as Assistant Professor in Mathematics and Statistics in Mcgill University, Montreal in Canada and now he is the senior most Professor in that University. The defendants 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the 1st defendant who was working as attender in St.Thomas College, Palai. The 2nd defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff and defendant also belong to Meenachil Taluk. The plaintiff used to come to India every year and in 1985 he accepted the post of Director of Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT197
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the sweep of the expression 'family or other near relatives' in Explanation-I of Section 499 IPC? In the absence of intention to be hurtful to the feelings of 'family or other near relatives' is the mere knowledge that the defamatory publication would be hurtful to them sufficient to bring the conduct within the sweep of culpability under Section 499 IPC? Does Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short 'the Act') apply at all to a publisher? These interesting questions of importance, on which no binding precedents are shown to exist, arise for consideration in this case.2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 3 to 14 in a prosecution initiated against them by the 1st respondent herein by filing a private complaint. Respondents 3 to 5 are the co-accused in the said crime. Altogether there are 15 accused. The accused persons face allegations of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 500 of the IPC and Sections...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC469; 2005(4)KLT391
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Insurance Ombudsman has rejected the complaints filed by Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Limited under Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998, (for short 'the Rules') claiming an amount of Rs. 9,44,551/- with interest from the United India Insurance Company Limited and also Rs. 10,94,404/- with interest from the National Insurance Company Limited. Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi dismissed both the complaints stating as follows:'On an examination of the allegations in the complaint and the cause title of the complaint, I find that the insured is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and hence the Insurance policy cannot be said to have been taken on 'Personal Lines' or in other words, in an 'Individual Capacity' as defined in Rule 4 (i) and in Rule 4(k) of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and as such, the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint and grant the relief.'2. Petitioner, a pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)30; I(2006)BC489; [2006]131CompCas474(Ker); 2005(4)KLT174
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The common petitioner in all these criminal miscellaneous cases is the common 3rd accused in 8 private complaints filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Ernakulam. The common 2nd respondent in all these Crl.M.Cs. is the common complainant in all the private complaints referred to above. The said complainant is a proprietary concern by name 'International Trade Links', Ernakulam. As per the said private complaints produced as Annexure A1 in each of these cases, the 2nd respondent herein has sought to prosecute a partnership firm by name 'M/s. Star Trading', Kochi, which is the 1st accused. One Ali and his wife, who is the petitioner herein, are the Managing Partner and Partner respectively of the said firm and they are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short).2. In each of the said private complaints, the complainant has inter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT39
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. This revision has come up before us upon a reference by a learned Single Judge (Sri. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.) who was of the opinion that there is an apparent conflict of views in the decisions reported in 1995 (2) KLT 873 -- State of Kerala v. Thomas & 1998 (2) KLJ 613 -- State of Kerala v. Manoharan and Ors. on the one hand and the decision reported in 2003 (3) KLT 100 = ILR 2003 (2) Ker. 480 Sivadasan v. State, on the other.2. We heard Mr. Sojan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sujith Mathew Jose, the learned Public Prosecutor.Consideration of the Judicial Conflict3. Before going into the facts of this case we would endeavour to see whether there is any conflict in the decisions referred to above and, if so, which of the decisions lays down the correct law.4. According to the prosecution the revision petitioner, who is a lady, was found in possession of 1200 grams of ganja on 2.11.1987 and she had, therefore, committed an offence punishable unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR589]; 2005(3)KLT1038
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act which is represented by its Managing Partner. The firm, apart from other undertakings, owns a petroleum dispensing unit, situated at premises No. 4/137, Cannanore Road, Calicut. The above unit is engaged in dispensing diesel, petrol and motor lubricants. Apart from the above undertaking, the appellant has an office at Oyitty Road, Calicut and a tyre sales business at Court Road, Calicut. There are six employees in the petrol pump. Bills are issued for sale of petrol from the petitioner's pump itself. However, in the office which is situated one and a half kilometre away in another road, there is an office of the firm. In the office, three persons are employed in the final accounts of the firm, accounts of the petrol pump, tyre sales business etc. are reflected. On 7-1-1992, Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation visited the petrol pump and thereafter notice was issued stating that seven persons were emplo...
Tag this Judgment!