Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)M.K. Abraham & Co vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 7 July, 2009
Whether in view of the dictum laid
down in the decision reported in Abraham v. State of Kerala
2000 (3) KLT 163, the earlier decisions of this Court reported
in State of Kerala v. Scariah (1966 KLT 780), Kunhikannan and
Others v. Asst.
Section 7 in Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Sunil Kumar & Others vs State Of Kerala And Others
But, this decision
has not been considered as by the subsequent decisions
rendered by this Court namely Sunil and Others v. State of
Kerala and Another 2014 (1) KHC 469. So under the
circumstances since there are conflicting views expressed by
two benches of this Court and considering the important
Crl.M.C. No. 3634 of 2012 5
question of law raised on the subject, this Court feels that it is
necessary that the correct principle of law has to be resolved by
a larger bench, since there are two contradictory decisions
rendered by two Single Benches of the same Court on the same
question of law involved. So the following question has to be
considered for reference.
State Of Kerala vs Scariah on 3 July, 2008
Whether in view of the dictum laid
down in the decision reported in Abraham v. State of Kerala
2000 (3) KLT 163, the earlier decisions of this Court reported
in State of Kerala v. Scariah (1966 KLT 780), Kunhikannan and
Others v. Asst.
Jagat Singh Kishor Singh Darbar Etc vs The State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 1979
Sub Inspector of Police (1985 KLT 484),
Anthumayi v. State of Kerala (1999 (1) KLT 149), Danykutty v.
State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 930) are not good in law in view
of the dictum laid down in the decisions reported in Jagat
Singh v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1979 SC 857).
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1