Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(3)KLJ31
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the impact (limited impact as explained by the Division Bench in Abdul Hameed v. Fousiya : 2004(3)KLT1049 of a post iddat remarriage on the claim of a divorced wife for fair and reasonable provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act')? Should a post Iddat remarriage during the pendency of the claim under Section 3 of the Act influence the Magistrate while quantifying the amount due? Should remarriage pending revision or post revision persuade the superior courts to make appropriate modification of the amount quantified earlier by the Magistrate? Are the rights of a divorced Muslim woman under Section 3 of the Act larger and supplemental to the rights under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.? Cannot the amount due under Section 3 of the Act in a case of remarriage exceed the arithmetical equivalent of maintenance which would have been payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. between the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2190; 2008(1)KLJ508(1)
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a complainant has a right to demand that Magistrate shall forward the complaint for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Is it for the Magistrate to decide whether a complaint is to be forwarded for investigation by the Police? Can the Magistrate to take cognizance and conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure even if complainant seeks only for forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the allegations in the complaint with the sworn statement of the complainant makes out a prima facie case can the Magistrate dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure?. These are the relevant aspects to be decided in this revision petition.2. Revision petitioner filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irattupetta with a prayer to forward the complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Irattupetta for investigation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker122
Mohammed, J.1. The main dispute involved in these appeals relates to the award of contract work for the second stage construction of breakwaters for the Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project. The contract was awarded to the existing contractor M/s. Kaikkara Construction Company who was one of the pre-qualified contractors participated in the tender for first stage of the work in respect of the same project.2. These two writ appeals arose from the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 6242 of 1998 declaring Ext. P7 decision of the Superintending Engineer, Harbour Engineering Project Circle, Kollam as illegal. The decision was that 'M/s. Top Constructions' was the sub-contractor of M/s. Paily Pillai and Sons and the tender documents in relation to IInd Stage work of the Project would be issued only to the pre-qualified contractors of Thangassery Fishery Harbour-- construction of breakwaters. W.A. No. 1765 of 1998 is filed by the fifth respondent in the writ petition; M/s. Kaikka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(1997)ACC116
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Original Petition is filed challenging Ext, P6 proceedings passed by the second respondent/Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum. Second respondent decided to grant a regular permit on the route, Poonthura-Pappanamcode in Trivandrum city. But the regular permit was not issued, as the grantee did not produce the current records and because of the pendency of O.P. No. 16137/95 before this Court. The route is reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.2. Thereafter, it was decided to grant temporary permit on theroute. By Ext. P1 dated 18.12.1995, Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum decided to grant temporary permit for 20 days on the route to the petitioner. On the expiry of the permit, there were two applications; one by the petitioner and the other by the third respondent. Secretary preferred the petitioner on the ground that he is operating on the route. This is evidenced by Ext. P2 order dated 6.1.1996. Subsequently, applications for temporary per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(2)KLT269
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Thirty-five accused persons were convicted in S.C. No. 187 of 1999. They have filed the above appeals except Crl.A. No. 877 of 2002. Crl.A. No. 877 of 2002 is by the sole convicted accused in S.C. No. 241 of 2001. At the outset we may mention that the facts relating to both the cases emanate out of the same occurrence of alleged kidnapping, wrongful confining, procuration of a minor girl and rape and gang rape of the victim, P.W.3, in this case. P.W.3 was reported missing from 16.1.1996. Initially the case was registered under the caption 'man missing' based on information furnished by P.W. 1, the father of the victim on 16.1.1996 itself. For about 40 days, in spite of the investigation conducted by P.W.82, the local Asst. Sub Inspector, the whereabouts of the girl could not be found out. The girl later appeared in the office of her father P.W.1 on 26.2.1996. Next day she gave a statement to P.W.82 revealing information about the commission of cognizable offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : ILR2011(1)Ker697
1. Important questions concerning the interpretation of Part IX-A of theConstitution of India, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the TownPlanning Act,1939 arise in these two writ petitions. Since commonquestions arise, they have been heard together and are disposed ofaccordingly.W.P.(C) No.24526/2009 2. The issue raised herein pertains to the Town Planning Schemes for Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, especially the Plamoodu area. Thepetitioner is the owner of properties in Sy. Nos.2101/2.1.1, 2079/1, 2079/1-1-1 of Kawdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Ext.P1 series are thetrue copies of the applications for building permit, location plan, site plan,etc. which relate to the construction of a shopping mall comprising of 2lakhs sq. ft. The Corporation rejected the application as per Ext.P2 orderstating that the proposed site comes under the residential zone of theGovernment sanctioned General Town Planning Scheme (Master plan) forThiruvananthapuram and also the property comes unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT1
ORDER1. (i) Does a Criminal Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction, have the power under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code') to direct re-trial of the appellant by the court below for the purpose of imposing an appropriate and just punishment after upholding the conviction and setting aside the sentence?(ii) Is the expression 'reverse the finding and sentence' in Section 386(b)(i) of the Code elastic enough to justify it being read as 'reverse the finding and/or sentence'?(iii) If injustice results, can the revisional court invoke its powers of revision notwithstanding the fact that the lower Appellate Court has not technically committed any error?(iv) Does the decision of the learned single Judge in Vijayakumar v. State 2009 (2) KLT 499 lay down the law on this aspect correctly?2. These questions arise for consideration in this Revision Petition which has come up before us on a reference made by a single Judge (one of us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT895
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. O.P. No. 31103 of 2002, which is the leading case among the group, has been filed by the Association of Registration Plates Manufacturers of India, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Respondents initially were the Union of India, the State and the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. Additionally 4th and 5th respondents also had been impleaded. In view of the urgency expressed by the parties, and especially the Government, the Original Petitions were given a priority in the matter of hearing. Senior Counsel Sri K. Radhakrishnan appeared for the petitioner, on instructions. The learned Advocate General represented the State Government. I had also opportunity to hear Sri. P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar. Senior Advocate, appeared for the additional 5th respondent. Sri. C.A. Majced appeared for the petitioner in O.P. No. 31643 of 2002 and adopted the argu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
COMMON JUDGMENT: Basheer, J. The common appellant in these two appeals was the successful bidder in an auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer (Special), Palakad for the right to collect and remove bamboos from Arippara Coupe No.1. A fire broke out in the forest allegedly causing heavy damage not only to the bamboos cut and stored by the appellant/ plaintiff, but also to the forest properties. The forest authorities initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the appellant/plaintiff to realise the balance amount due from him in connection with the auction sale. Therefore, he filed O.S.No.19/1989 before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad praying for a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount to the Forest Department and also for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Forest Department and the Revenue Recovery Authorities from proceeding against him. 2. Yet another suit, viz., O.S.No.378/1989, was instituted by the appellant/ plaintiff before the Subord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
B.A.Nos.5641 of 2011 and 5776 of 2011 are under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.4642 of 2011 is for anticipatory bail, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The name of accused, rank in the case, Crime number, date of arrest and Bail Application number are shown below. Sl.No.Name of accusedRankCrime No. and Police StationDate of arrestBail Application number1Abdul ArshadA9497/11 Sulthan Bathery11-6-115641/112KunhumuhammadPradeepBaurajanShajiKrishnanArun. BPratheeshPreyeshJosephA8A2A3A4A5A6A7491/1110.6.115776/113.K.T. Gopinathan Town North Police Station, Ernakulam 4642/113. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Central Act No.43 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Prize Chits Act.’) 4. The prosecution case is the following: Accused No.9 Abdul Arshad is the Managing Director of B...
Tag this Judgment!