Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Kalladikkattil Mohammed Jamal vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2016

P.T.Joy vs K.V.Sivasankaran on 17 March, 2020

In Kalladikkattil Mohammed Jamal's case, the observation of the learned magistrate was that the order permitting the accused to file proof affidavit cannot be recalled, since it was barred under section 362 Cr.P.C, was held to be improper. It was held that, the order permitting the accused to file proof affidavit itself was wrong and it was not a judicial order and it was only proceedings of the trial court which has to be treated as non est and ultra vires and the court below ought to have recalled the earlier order. It would not be hit by section 362 Cr.P.C, it was held.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

Shoukkathali vs Sanu Varghese on 1 July, 2025

That is against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in M/s.Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd's case (supra) and also the principle laid down by this Court in Kalladikkattil Mohammed Jamal's case (supra). On that short point, I think the impugned judgments can be set aside and the case can be remanded to the trial court. The revision petitioner and the 1st respondent can raise all the contentions before the trial court. But I make it clear that no denovo trial is necessary and the case can be continued from the stage of defence evidence. If the revision petitioner intends to be examined as a witness, he can adduce evidence. I also make it clear that the question regarding the withdrawal from the joint compounding petition also can be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P V Kunhikrishnan - Full Document
1