Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-07-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)KLJ89
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code', for short) for anticipatory bail be permitted to be withdrawn?2. According to prosecution, petitioner's husband (A9) was the President of a Bank and he is an active politician also. In pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched among him and various accused including petitioner (A21), an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs (which is more than the permissible limit of loan which could be sanctioned by the Bank) was advanced to petitioner's firm, on the strength of mortgage by deposit of title. Thereafter, the title deeds which were deposited in Bank were clandestinely taken out by the accused from the Bank, and properties covered by the deeds were sold. The President, Secretary, other office bearers of the Bank and loanees criminaly conspired to commit offences of misappropriation, forgery, falsification of accounts etc., and caused a huge loss to the bank by misappropriation of its funds. Vario...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Ker76; [2009]149CompCas409(Ker)
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner availed different financial assistance from different creditors, including respondents 1, 6 and 7. In 2005, the BIFR issued an order under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 hereinafter, the SICA, for short in pursuance to a reference made to it under Section 15 of SICA. In spite of those guidelines issued as per Ext. P2, nothing worked out and going by Ext. R3(g), the Indian Bank addressed BIFR, requesting to take suitable misfeasance proceedings against the company under the provisions of the SICA. It brought to the notice of BIFR that the movable assets of the company have already been stolen; the premises of the factory are under the control of anti-social elements; due to militant labour present in front of the factory, it is very difficult to enter into the factory and no workers have got their settlements ever since the factory closed; no security is available in the factory even to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-25-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2272
Nair Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. Right of succession of illegitimate children born to Christian parents is the bone of contention cropped up for consideration in this case. While considering this, following issues arise for consideration:(i) Whether the requirement of a central legislation recognising the right of illegitimate children of all classes irrespective of their religion to inherit the property of their parents is the need of the hour?(ii) Whether illegitimate children born to Christian father and mother are entitled to inherit the property of their father under the Indian Succession Act?(iii) Whether children born to parents living as husband and wife during the subsistence of the father's first marriage are legitimate or illegitimate in the eyes of law?2. The appeal is directed against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P. (MV) Nos. 1073 and 1270 of 1995. The case of the appellants in brief is as follows:The deceased Dr. Antony was a 36-year old doctor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-13-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Ker9; 2008(3)KLJ92
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. While computing the period of limitation for execution of the decree under Article 136 of Limitation Act, whether date of decree is to be excluded or the period of 12 years is to be computed inclusive of the date of decree. This is the question to be resolved in the revision petition.2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent the decree holder in O.S. 856/1993 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. A decree for realisation of money was passed on 30.6.1994. E.P. No. 223/2006 for execution of the decree was filed on 30.6.2006. Case of the judgment debtor is that the period of limitation expired on 29.6.2006 and therefore the execution is barred by time. Case of the respondent decree holder is that as the date of the decree is to be excluded while computing the period and so the execution petition is within time. Executing court as per the impugned order found that date of the decree is to be excluded and if so, the execution peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-21-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3480; 2008(3)KLT150
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No. 5437 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Kodungallur, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 292(2) (a) and (b) I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 22-09-1996 at about 5.15 p.m. in the shop run under the name and style of 'Ikkas Gents Corner', 'Ikkas Videos and Audios' bearing building No. 54/53 (B) of Methala Panchayat in T.K.S. Puram Desom within the limits of Kodungallur Police Station, the accused was found in possession for sale/hire/distribution of obscene blue film video cassette depicting a man and woman in a completely nude posture indulging in carnal intercourse appealing to the prurient interests of the viewers and arousing corrupt and sexual feelings of persons who chanced to view the video cassette....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-25-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ147
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The main relief sought for in all these writ petitions is for a direction to the first respondent, Special Tahsildar, to refer the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'the Act') to the Subordinate Judge's Court for re-determining the compensation.2. The land owned by the petitioners in all these cases were acquired for the purpose of establishing Naval Academy, at Ezhimala in Kannur District. In some cases, claimants did not file petitions under Section 18 of the Act. But some other persons whose lands were acquired for the very same purpose filed petitions under Section 18(1) of the Act and those cases were referred to the Sub Court. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, petitioners filed Section 28A applications for re-determining the compensation, on the ground that the court awarded enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-16-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2277; 2008(1)KLJ512
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Commodore Commanding Officer, INS Venduruthy, Naval Base, Kochi and who was the applicant in CMP No. 231/2007 before the J.F.C.M.-I. Ernakulam in a petition filed under Section 475 Cr.P.C, challenges the order dated 14-1 -08, dismissing the said petition which originated in the form of a letter dated 14-1-08 addressed to the learned Magistrate.2. Three of the accused persons in Crime No. 39/2008 of Harbour Police Station are serving officers of the Indian Navy and it was in respect of those three officers, that the above request was made before the learned Magistrate.VERSION OF THE STATE POLICE3. The case of the prosecution in Crime No. 39/2008 of Harbour Police Station can be summarised as follows:On 10-01 -08, at about 11 p.m., 100 persons including the three Naval Officers formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the compound of the Harbour Police Station and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they committ...
Tag this Judgment!