High Court Kerala High Court

Jervas Christic Bai vs Central Bank Of India on 27 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jervas Christic Bai vs Central Bank Of India on 27 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

AS.No. 572 of 2002()


1. JERVAS CHRISTIC BAI, MANAGING PARTNER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. M/S.SAGARA SAMPATH COMPANY KUREEPUZHA,

3. JOHN JERVEAS FERNANDEZ,

4. RAJAN JERVEAS FERNANDEZ,

5. KALEEKAL NARAYANA PILLAI

6. RAYMOND HILLARIOUS,

7. MANAPPALLIL VARUGHESE ISSAC,

8. JERVEAS HERBERT FERNANDEZ,

9. A.THRESIA, VAYALAM MODIYIL,

10. STANCIE CHRISTIE, VAYALAN KODIYIL,

11. MARY HELEN JOSEPH, VALIYA VEEDU,

12. RAYMOND JOSEPH (R.JOSEPH),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR (RETD.JUDGE)
SHRI K.J.THOMAS STANLEY(RETD.ADDL.DIST.JUDGE)

 Dated :27/07/2009

 O R D E R
                 JUSTICE V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR
            (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
                                   &
                      SRI.K.J.THOMAS STANELY
                      (RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
         =============================
         A.S.Nos. 572 of 2002, 211 of 1993, 267 of 1996
                                   &
                         R.F.A.No.91 of 2003
        ==============================
                 Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009

                                AWARD

     Counsel for the appellants and respondents are present. The

matter has been settled and a compromise petition has been filed.

The Compromise petition will form part of the Award. No amount is

due to the respondent. The documents received from the lower court

and produced in A.S.572/2002 will be returned to the appellant's

counsel as early as possible.     All appeals were filed as indigent.

Therefore, in view of the fact that the matter is settled, no court fee is

payable in the light of the decision in A.S.222/1995 dated 4th August,

1995. It is agreed that R.F.A.91/2003 has become infructuous and

therefore, it is dismissed.

     An Award is passed accordingly.




                                 V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR
                         (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)




                                 K.J.THOMAS STANELY
                               (RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
dvs


? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+Crl.MC.No. 2385 of 2009()


#1. MELON LIBERA, W/O. JAMIL, AGED 36,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MILANI D'SILVA, W/O. DENNIS D SILVA,
3. DENNIS D'SILVA, S/O. JOHN D'SILVA,

                        Vs



$1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. RASHMI DELTON, W/O. DELTON, AGED 27,

!                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SHYAM

^                For Respondent  : No Appearance

*Coram
 The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

% Dated :23/07/2009

: O R D E R

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

————————–

Crl.M.C.No.2385 of 2009

————————–

ORDER

Petitioners are respondents in M.P.No.2086/2009

on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s

Court, Paravur filed by second respondent under

Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act. This petition is filed under Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the

proceedings as against the petitioners contending

that second respondent is not an aggrieved person

and her husband is not impleaded in the petition

before the Magistrate and second respondent is not

entitled to claim a residential order in respect of

the property of the petitioners and therefore, the

case as against them is to be quashed. Reliance

was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in

S.R.Batra v. Taruna Batra ((2007) 3 SCC 169) and

Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai

Patel (2008 (2) KHC 396).

CRMC 2385/09 2

2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no

reason to interfere with the proceedings pending

before the learned Magistrate in exercise of the

powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Petitioners are entitled to canvass all

the grounds agitated in this petition before the

Magistrate.

Petition is dismissed.

23rd July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv