LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The petitioner was criminally intimidated for giving his property

Esheta Lunkad ,
  14 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
Petition dismissed due to lack of evidence by petitioner.
Citation :
Petitioner: James Joseph Respondent: State of Kerala Citation: B.A. No 4509 of 2017,Crime No 203/2017

Bench:

Sunil Thomas, J.

Issue:

Was there criminal intimidation to take property?

Facts:

  • Petitioner filed a complaint that the respondent had tried to remove the lateral support of his property.
  • Petitioner went forward against the respondent as a defaulter of Abkari dues.
  • Petitioner though, has not produced any proof of his allegation.
  • Allegations were also made against the Director of a Medical College and priests.
  • On this application, orders were requested from the Commissioner of Excise.
  • There was clarification required on the amount payable by the petitioner.

Appellant’s contentions:

  • Petitioner said that he had been criminally intimidated by the opposite party.
  • Petitioner seeks consideration of complaint.
  • He does not seek any relief against the property, but only wants the benefit of Amnesty scheme 2008.
  • He alleges that a local committee of a political party supports his view.
  • He raised many contentions against the liability brought to him by writ petitions and appeals and also special leave petitions.
  • Petitioner stated that he had made two remittances of Rs 4,50,000 and Rs 3,00,000/- each as ordered in the interim directions.

Respondent contentions:

  • Respondent contended that he did not intimidate the opposite party of his property.
  • The 2nd respondent considered the claim and issued ex parte order.

Final judgement:

  • Petition dismissed due to lack of evidence by petitioner.
  • Petitioner, being the one who had defaulted, has in fact, made his application during the period of limitation and the petitioner is entitled to benefit from the Amnesty scheme.
  • Thus, in view of that, the second respondent should pass the orders on the appellant’s application for his benefit.
  • The petitioner would pay Rs 4,50,000/- &Rs 3,00,000/- each when his application is granted.
  • Also the payment should be adjusted and if any excess amount taken by respondent, should be returned.
 

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

 
"Loved reading this piece by Esheta Lunkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 170




Comments




LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query