Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.52 seconds)

Thomas Mathew vs Kerala State Industries Development ... on 16 December, 2016

5. Apart from the above, it is to be noticed that the period of one year for making the declaration under Section 6 does not commence from the date of the Gazette Notification. In terms of section 6 read with Section 4(1), the period commences from the last date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification, which could even be the last date of giving public notice in the locality. Therefore, the date of the last public notice is the relevant date for commencement of running of time (See Nanappan Konthi v. District Collector - 1989 [1] KLT 582, Padmadas v. State of Kerala - 1991 [2] KLT 636, Rosy Augustine v. State of Kerala - 1998 (1) KLT 679 and Syed Mohammed v. State of Kerala - 1995 (2) KLT 857 ). So also, the relevant date regarding Section 6 declaration is not the date of publication of the same in the R.P. No.574 of 2017 in W.A. No.977 of 2016 & R.P. No.580 of 2017 in W.A. No.1327 of 2016
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Ninan - Full Document

Muraleekrishnan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 22 July, 2011

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urging that the words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and, further, this was a case foisted as a counterblast to an earlier crime registered at the instance of the petitioner as the de facto complainant, and as such, the present case should have been referred as a fake case following the principles laid down in "Augustine v State of Kerala" (1982 KLT 351(F.B)) . Learned counsel also took serious exception to the 'satisfaction' expressed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order that the records tendered by the prosecution 'prima facie established the offences imputed', which according to the counsel' amounted to prejudging before trial, and, then, causing prejudice to the accused.
1