Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Cardamom Marketing Corporation VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for State of Tamil Nadu VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Indira Sawhney VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for Indian Timber And Plywood Corporation LTD. VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for P. V. Hemalatha VS Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda...
Checking relevance for Bagawati Tea Estates LTD. VS Government Of India...
Checking relevance for Raveendran, S/o. Podiyan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor...
Checking relevance for Somarajan, S/O. Raghavan VS Gopalakrishnan, (Died) Legal Representatives...
Checking relevance for Malathy Ravi, W/o. Ravi VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government Secretariat...
Malathy Ravi, W/o. Ravi VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government Secretariat - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 650 : In the case of Vineeth @ Kunji v. State of Kerala, the detention order under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, was confirmed by the Government under Section 10(4) of the Act on 14.07.2023, continuing the preventive detention for six months with effect from 06.04.2023. The Advisory Board filed its report, which was confirmed by the Government more than two months later, clearly beyond the three-month period stipulated under Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India. Despite this delay, the court held that a pre-arrest/pre-detention delay in executing the detention order does not prejudice the detenu. The court noted that the order of detention was executed and the confirmation was issued after the statutory period, but did not invalidate the confirmation on that ground alone.Checking relevance for Combi S/o Pannakkattil Nanjan VS K. S. Ramachandran @ K. S. R. Chandran...
Checking relevance for Jerin Joy S/o Joy VS State of Kerala...
Jerin Joy S/o Joy VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 438 : In Vineeth Somarajan v State of Kerala (2022 KHC Online 8065 : 2022 KHC 8065 : 2022 KER 71422 : 2022 Live Law (Ker) 656 : 2023 (1) KLT 135 : 2022 (6) KLT Online 1052), the Kerala High Court held that the bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is not absolute, and in appropriate cases, the recall of a child witness is legally permissible if necessary for the just decision of the case. The Court emphasized that recalling a witness is permissible when it is essential for a fair and just determination of the matter, such as when the accused has a right to contradict the witness with a 164 statement that was not available during the initial examination. The Court further clarified that the recall should not be used to fill lacunae in evidence or to rectify omissions at the instance of counsel for the accused after the trial has concluded.Checking relevance for Jerin Joy S/o Joy VS State of Kerala...
Jerin Joy S/o Joy VS State of Kerala - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 491 : In Vineeth Somarajan v. State of Kerala (2022 KHC Online 8065 : 2022 KHC 8065 : 2022 KER 71422 : 2022 Live Law (Ker) 656 : 2023 (1) KLT 135 : 2022 (6) KLT Online 1052), the Kerala High Court held that the bar under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is not absolute, and in appropriate cases, a child witness can be recalled if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. The Court emphasized that recalling a witness is permissible when it serves the ends of justice, such as when the accused has a right to contradict the witness with a 164 statement that was not available during the original examination. The Court further clarified that such recall is not allowed merely to fill gaps in evidence or to rectify omissions at the instance of the accused''''s counsel after the trial has concluded.Checking relevance for Vipin Singh VS State of H. P. ...
Vipin Singh VS State of H. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 176 : The case of Vineeth v. State of Kerala (MANU/KE/1797/2015: 2015 (5) KHC 224) was cited in the judgment as establishing that successive bail applications without showing any change in the fact situation or circumstance requiring the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can only be regarded as an abuse of the process of the court. The judgment emphasized that a second or subsequent application for pre-arrest bail can only be entertained if there is a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. It further clarified that the accused cannot re-urge the same grounds from the earlier application or contend that the court failed to consider any particular aspect or material on record during the first hearing.Checking relevance for STATE OF KERALA VS K. PRASAD...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala: M. Saleena VS T. P. Roshana: State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for R. Balakrishna Pillai VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for PARISONS AGROTECH (P) LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for Indian Nut Products: Kerala Nut Foods Company VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala VS Maharashtra Distilleries LTD. ...
Checking relevance for M. D. Padmakumar VS State of Kerala...
M. D. Padmakumar VS State of Kerala - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011) : In Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambady v. State of Kerala, it was held that where a non-bailable warrant is issued by the court on account of the non-appearance of the accused, the person against whom the warrant is issued must approach the court that issued the warrant to recall the warrant and seek bail. The accused cannot, normally, directly approach the High Court by filing a bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also emphasized that when such a bail application is filed, the learned Magistrate must dispose of it in light of the principles laid down in Biju v. State of Kerala.
