A review petition challenging a judgment in a cheque bounce case was dismissed. The court found that alleged clerical errors regarding vehicle ownership and the purpose of an excavator would not affect the petitioner and no review was necessary.
Review petition regarding alleged mistakes in facts in judgment dated 22.5.2014 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936
RP.No. 394 of 2014 (A)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12606/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT , DATED 22-05-2014
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
JAYAKUMAR V.M, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, VADHYARPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENDAMANGALAM.P.O., PARAVUR DESOM, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (HIRER OF EXCAVATOR HITACHI (JCB) AND LORRY (TEMPO) BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-10-D-9045).
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
A.M.Shaffique, J.
====================================
R.P.No.394 of 2014
in W.P.(C)No.12606 of 2014
==================================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2014.
ORDER
there are some mistakes in the facts stated in the judgment dated 22.5.2014.
there is any necessity to review the judgment as it will not affect the petitioner in any manner.
R.P.No.394 of 2014 in W.P.(C)No.12606 of 2014 -:2:-
area, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Hence, there is no necessity to review the first sentence in the judgment. The
second contention is with reference to the word stated in the third sentence of the judgment that the excavator was used for filling a thodu. According to him, it was used only for cleaning a pond. The said statement of fact also may not affect the petitioner in any manner. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, clarifying the aforesaid facts, this review petition is dismissed.
A.M.Shaffique, Judge.
sl.
Jayakumar V.M
The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkekkara Police Station, Ernakulam District
The District Collector, Ernakulam District
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
