Kerala High Court Half Yearly Digest- January To June 2024 [Citations 1-396]
Nominal Index Citations [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 1-396]Union of India & Ors. v. P.K. Santhosh Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1P C Najeeb v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2George Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 3XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5X v Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 6Thazheveettil...
Nominal Index Citations [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 1-396]
Union of India & Ors. v. P.K. Santhosh Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
P C Najeeb v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
George Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
X v Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Thazheveettil Naushan and ors. v. Elizabeth Regive, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. and connected matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Sameerali v. Muhammed, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
Gangadharan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
Baby v. Chandramathy, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
Shaju Pachelil Pathrose Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Mathew Kunju Mathew v. K.V. Kuriakose & Anr. and connected matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
A H Sheriff v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
Ashiya Ummal v. S.N. Sathy & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
Prabhulla P v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
XXX v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Sreekumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
XX v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Kaliman Thozhilali Kshema Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangam Ltd. v District Geologist, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
Angels Nair v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
Suresh Gopi V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Premakumari R. v. O.K. Sivasankara Pillai & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Edwin Andrew Minihan v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Sabu George & Ors. v. James George & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Jins Francis V State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Rohith Giri v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
XXX v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Jaseer SM v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Central Board Of Trustees v Bake N Joy Hot Bakery 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
Narayanankutty K v Cochin Devaswom Board 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Hemalatha S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
State of Kerala v Dr Praveen Kumar T K 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Yadhu Krishnan and ors. v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
C Lajith and Ors. v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Manoj TK v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
Kaleshkumar KK v. State of Kerala & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
Sangha Erectors Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Cranes and Trailers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Thapas Berman v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
M/S. Professional Copier Services India (Pvt) Ltd Versus State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
XXX v State of Kerala 2024 Lilvelaw (Ker) 41
Sabu Varghese v. Viju P. Varghese & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
Dr. Annie Mareena Issac V Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
XXX & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Connected case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
Lekshmi M V Sudhamony Amma, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Anwer Hussain T v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Neyan Veettil Behsana V Local Registrar For Births And Deaths & Marriages, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
K Sekharan v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
Sasidharan A v Vijayan Unnithan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
Renjith Raj v State, Represented By CI of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Rajeswari v Omana Amma, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
Azharudheen v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Sivaprakashan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
T. Rema & Ors. v. AK Radhamani & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Mohammed Manath Ibrahim v Thrikkakara Municipality, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
Joseph A U v Princy P J, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
C. Surendranath v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
SJ v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
Poyil Salim V Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Sreejith R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
Davood v. State of Kerala & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
Suresh Kumar @ Sarath Nair v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
Dr M V Narayanan v Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Jhonny Alexander Duran Sola v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
Coach India v Superintendent of Central Tax And Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Venugopal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
Jollyamma v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Litty Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
Shine Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Nikson v. Samkutty, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
Sarojam L v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Jose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
Radhika v. Unnikrishnan 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Shinoj Singh & Ors. v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
Sreeranj v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
K. G. Mohandas v Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Sandeep v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Deekshit VR v. The State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Sanjay Oraon v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Joji Varghese v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
S. Manimekhala v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
Union of India v. Udayachandran P 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Bichitra Mohanty v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Noushid P A v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Ratheesh K R v Director, Akshaya Project & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Arun Joseph v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Jebin Joseph v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
Babu @Palraj v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
AD v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
Sanitha Saji v. Salimkumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
Chandini CK v. The State of Kerala and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
In Re Bruno v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
Padma Conductors Pvt Ltd. v MIRC Electronics, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
Maheswari S & ors v. State of Kerala & ors.,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
Meena v Joint Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
V K Sankarankutty v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
Romeo Victor & anr. v. Cheranaloor Grama Panchayath & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
Kumarthupady Shri Bhagavathy Temple v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Sreedevi M v State Of Kerala ,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
Teresa Mary George v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
PM Gopi v. Union of India and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
Noel Joseph v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Soby George v. State of Kerala & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v Central Film Certification Board 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Lini v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Arifa PK v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Kuttiyali v State of Kerala & Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd Versus State Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
T.D.Sreejakumari v Union Bank Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The State of Kerala & ors. v. K Aravindakshan Pillai 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Johny Kunnumpurath House V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
XXX v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Greeshma @ Sreekutty v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
KK Krishnan v. State of Kerala & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
MP Chothy v. Anilkumar & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
K Mohandas v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
State of Kerala v Sudheer Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
State of Kerala v. P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
State of Kerala v Kool Foam Pvt Ltd. & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Swapna Prabha Suresh v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Ramseena S v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Pradeep B v. The District Drug Disposal Committee and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Vishnunaryanan v The Secretary & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
National Cadet Corps v Hina Haneefa @ Muhammed Ashif Ali N 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Fr Edwin Pigarez V State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Ahammedkutty Bran v Sukumaran 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
B. v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Manuja Mythri v Advocate T K Ajan 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Dr.Navaneeth K.Unni v State Represented By Public Prosecutor 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
State of Kerala v. Kuniyil Shanoob and ors 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Manoj v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Firos C.A. Versus State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Johny Padikala V P C Hassan 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Binoy Kodiyeri v. The Assistant Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
Vaisakh v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
Bipin Sunny v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Shameera S v Secretary To Government 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
The Commissioner V Nithya R Warriar 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
T M Irshad v State of Kerala & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
Darsana v Sunil 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Ashish AS v. Union of India and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Khalid v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
Greeshma Viji v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Jayakumar and ors. v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
Isahack v. Mini and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Sreejith M B V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
Gokul Raj v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
Sebastian Jacob v The Transport Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Shamnad N and ors. v. The Corporation of Thrissur Through Secretary and anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Dr. M. Ganeshkumar v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Mary Mohan Chacko v. Inspector General 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
Satheeshkumar @ Kari Satheesh v CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
P V Nandakumar v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
NATAK v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Stephen v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Ajmal K V v Union Bank of India & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
Rahiya v. Jasna and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Suhaib @ Kullappi Kakka v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
Dr.Ruwise E.A V The Principal Govt. Medical College 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Navas PK v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
Santhosh @ Chandu v State 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
Sudha V Mohan v The Authorized Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
Jomet and ors. v. State of Kerala and anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
Dr. Laxmy Rajmohan and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
Anilkumar V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
N Prakash v P Jayarajan and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
Gware Margret Sebina v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
The Principal & Others v Dr. Ruwise E A & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
MD. Kamirul Islam v CBI, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
Vineeth V V v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
Case Title: Muhammed C K Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
Rajachandrasekharan @ Babu v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
Dr. Radhika Kapahtia v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
Rajesh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi and ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
PG Manu v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
Renjith Kumar V K v State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
YYY v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
K Venugopal Nair v Manager, Canara Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
Dr Abdul Rasheed V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
University of Calicut v Ameen Rashid K P 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
Dr. MV Narayanan v. The Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
Sheeba C K v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
Binu @ Kari Binu V State of Kerala & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
Rajini and anr. v. Seetha and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
P Sreenivasan v Babu Raj & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
Vimalakumari M K v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
Rkec Projects Limited Vs The Cochin Port Trust, The Office Of Chief Engineer And Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
Anoop v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
K M Habeeb Muhammed v The Managing Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
Sister Annamma Mathai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Aynikkal Plantations Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
Anil Kumar and ors. v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
Eby @ Philip Ninan v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
Manaf Ali Hassan Versus The National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
M/S Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational And Cultural Trust Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Shyju v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
State Bank of India v Jespin Raju, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Income Tax Officer Ward Versus Vazhakkulam Block Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
Anwar Sadique K v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
R. Krishnaprasad Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
Nilesh Ramachandra Japthap v. State of Kerala and ors.,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
St. Antony's Forane Church v District Police Chief (Rural), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
N. Swaminathan and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gracy Babu, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Maffiya MK v. Union of India and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
Dr Athulya Asok v The State Police Chief 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Kerala CBSE School Management Association (Regd) v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Shankara Narayanan P A v Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corporation Ltd & Connected cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
Jayaprakash T v Union Of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
N Prakash v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
Binnesh Babu@ Bineesh Babu v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
Shaji K v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
Adv. M. Swaraj V K. Babu 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Parthasarathi M v State of Kerala & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
Lukose. K.C. Versus Deputy Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
Prakash N v. GWLP School, Thevayoor South and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd V The Chief Election Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
Monson MC @ Monson Mavungal v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Leric Reeches v Income Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
Sreekumar v. SK Valsalan and anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
Syama M. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
Nimesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Faizal v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Syamkrishna KR and anr. v. State of Kerala and anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
B Anandan v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Suresh Kumar K R V District Magistrate (District Collector) & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw Ker 252
Cochin Devaswom Board V The Deputy Director 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
Anand Joseph v The District Collector 2024 LiveLaw Ker 254
Fazid v XXXXX 2024 LiveLaw Ker 255
Cherian Varkey Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 256
Jasmin K v State Bank of India 2024 LiveLaw Ker 257
Adv K Praveen Kumar v The Election Commission of India 2024 LiveLaw Ker 258
Jose Joseph and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 259
Thomas @ Manoj EJ v. Indu S 2024 LiveLaw Ker 260
Groupl Services Private Limited vs Dr. Sunil Vsudevan and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 261
Groupl Services Private Limited vs Dr. Sunil Vsudevan and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 262
Avani Bansal v The Election Commission of India 2024 LiveLaw Ker 263
Varkala Kahar v. The Election Commission of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 264
Dr. M. R. Saseendranath V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw Ker 265
State of Kerala v Narendra Kumar & Another 2024 LiveLaw Ker 266
Nijo Varghese v Transport Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw Ker 267
Cherplassery Co-Operative Hospital Ltd v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw Ker 268
Modern Food Enterprises Private Limited Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw Ker 269
P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. XXXX 2024 LiveLaw Ker 270
Annamanada Gramekshemam Nidhi Limited v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw Ker 271
Kallodi St. George Forane Church V K Mohandas 2024 LiveLaw Ker 272
M/s Punarnava Ayurveda Hospital Pvt Ltd v. The Arbitrator for NH-66 2024 LiveLaw Ker 273
Ajay Peter v Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw Ker 274
BS Jayakumar v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw Ker 275
M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276
Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277
The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278
Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279
K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280
Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
XXXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
Chekkutty v State of Kerala. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
Sindhu B S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
R Asokan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
State of Kerala v Azeez, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
Don Paul V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
State of Kerala v Nino Mathew & Connected Cases, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
Musthafa & Others v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 305
Dr Rema M v The Director Of Collegiate Education And Others & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 306
Sobhin Sunny v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 307
Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Abu @Abdulla v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 309
Dr Haritha H S v The State Police Chief, Joseph Chacko v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 310
P. A. JOSE Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
Lekha Komath V Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 313
Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 314
T Jacob Armory v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 315
Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 316
The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala ,2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 318
Pradeep @ Kannan v State of Kerala, Babu and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 319
Shyamala Bhasker v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 320
Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321
Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 322
Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder and Others v M. A. Anidas and Another, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 323
Union of India and Others v Sunny Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 324
C. Girishdas v Government of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Y. Sleebachan v State of Kerala and Another 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
Geetha v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v The Deputy Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 328
Prabhakaran P. V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 329
Suo Moto v Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 330
Jewel Roshan T v Union of India,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
Vignesh Kumar Balasundar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 332
Chandanapurath Rajeevan and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
Sunil N S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
Sijo Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
M/S.I.T.I.LTD Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
Chairman, PSM College of Dental Sciences & Research v Reshma Vinod and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
Shafeek v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 338
A J Stephen v Rosemariya, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
S. Kamaladharan v Kerala Shipping and Inland Corporation Ltd. And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
M/S M.Trade Links Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
Bindulal V. S. & Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
xxx v Director General of Police , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
Sathyabhama v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
Limjith K J v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
xxx v Superintendent of Police, CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Athul v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
N. Ansari v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 353
K K Joshwa v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Elsy Abraham v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 355
Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors, 2024 Live Law Ker 356
XXX v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
Darvin Dominic v State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
Shilpa v K K Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Joji Joseph v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Raju K. J. v Deepak T. V. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker)361
Sipahi Kumar v State of Kerala, Jaymangal Shah v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 362
Lakeshore Hospital And Research Centre Limited Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Balan Panicker Ramesh Kumar Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Jitha Sanjay v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
Equity Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Jitha Sanjay and Others v State of Kerala and Other, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 367
Usha Bagri Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
M/S. Sunny Jacob Jewellers Gold Hyper Market Versus CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Sujith T. V. v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Muhammed Sahir v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly known as Gospel for Asia) v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
State of Kerala v Muraleedharan K. V., 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 373
M/S. DLF Home Developers Limited Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Kakkoth Radha and Others v Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthafa and Another, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 375
Sebin Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
Ivin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
Amal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
Sakeer v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Smitha v Anil Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
P. Ummer Koya v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
State of Kerala v Ajayakumar V., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Jayasree v Indrapalan and Another, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 388
Rajesh K. The District Geologist and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
:JTPAC v Maradu Municipality, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
Reghunadan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
Murali @Muralidharan V State Of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
Hena Khatoon and Another v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Shalet v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
Judgements/orders
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. P.K. Santhosh Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Kerala High Court held that an employee without the requisite qualifications for Bosun (Certified) cannot claim promotion to the said post, and that ad hoc service rendered by such employee shall not qualify for fiancial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression ('ACP'), and the Modified Assured Career Progression ('MACP') Schemes.
"...we specifically note that the ACP Scheme itself stipulates that the employee must fulfil normal promotional norms. In such circumstances, without fulfilling the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Bosun (Certified), the applicant is not entitled to claim promotion to the post of Bosun (certified)" the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed.
Case Title: P C Najeeb v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that notary applications of advocates cannot be summarily rejected under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 without giving germane and valid reasons.
Justice Devan Ramachandran held that notary applications cannot be rejected summarily stating that the number of applicants was higher than the number of vacancies.
“Even when the Government has the right to reject an application under Rule 8(1)(c), it has to be done for germane and legal reasons. The factum of the number of applicants being much higher than the vacancies, cannot be the sole reason to summarily reject it, except if it is established that there are others, who are found to be more eligible in the process. (See for support – Abdul Kareem M.T.P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 666]).”
Case Title: George Mathew v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
The Kerala High Court clarified the position on inter se exchange regarding vacancies in quota reserved for persons with disabilities.
The single judge bench reiterated that if any vacancy reserved for a particular category of benchmark disability cannot be filled due to the unavailability of a suitable candidate with that specific benchmark disability or for any other valid reason, such a vacancy must be carried forward as a 'backlog reserved vacancy' to the subsequent recruitment year.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan added that the 'backlog reserved vacancy' should be treated as reserved for the category of Disability as it was originally reserved in the initial year of recruitment. However, if a suitable candidate with that benchmark disability is still unavailable in the subsequent year, the vacancy may be filled through interchange among the categories of benchmark disabilities designated for reservation.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
The Kerala High Court has refused permission to medically terminate the pregnancy of a 12-year-old minor girl who was allegedly in an incestual relationship with her minor brother. It held that medical termination of pregnancy was not an option as the foetus had already reached 34 weeks of gestation and was now fully developed.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed the minor girl to be in the custody and care of the petitioners/parents. The Court has also directed the competent authorities and parents to ensure that the brother against whom allegations were made was not allowed anywhere near the girl.
Case Title: Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Kerala High Court upheld the decision taken by the State Government in filling the vacancies to the post of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-II) as per the unamended Special Rules applicable in the Water Resources Department ('Special Rules'), by underscoring the right of the Government in deciding the applicable rules governing promotion.
"...no employee has a vested right for consideration for promotion. The right of employees for promotion is based on extant rule as on the date of consideration for promotion. The Government has every right to take a decision as to the applicability of the rule which would govern the promotion. If the Government takes a conscious decision that the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules will have to be filled in accordance with the unamended rules, the Court cannot sit on judicial review to overturn the wisdom of the Government," the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed in this regard.
Case title: X v Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that subjecting a wife to sexual perversions against her will and consent would amount to physical and mental cruelty. It also clarified that perceptions of people vary on sexual perversion and if consenting adults engage in sexual acts out of their free will and consent, it would be their choice and the Courts would not intervene.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha observed thus:
“When two consenting adults engage in coitus in the privacy of their bedroom, it is their choice as to how and in what manner they should act. But if one of the party objects to the conduct or acts of the other party on the ground that it is against normal course of human conduct or normal sexual activity, and still he/she is compelled to do the same, then it can only be termed as cruelty both physical and mental. If the conduct and character of a party causes misery and agony to the other spouse, the said conduct would certainly be an act of cruelty to the spouse justifying the grant of divorce. Subjecting the wife to sexual perversions against her will and consent is certainly an act of mental as well as physical cruelty.”
Case Title: Thazheveettil Naushan and ors. v. Elizabeth Regive
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (7)
The Kerala High Court has clarified that a tenant cannot contest an eviction application filed by the landlord under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 unless the admitted arrears of rent are cleared.
A two-judge bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John said the tenant has to pay or deposit with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit.
Case Title: Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Kerala High Court has laid down that an employee who had chosen to be promoted under the Diploma qualification Quota would be ineligible for further promotion under the Degree Quota.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was thus of the considered opinion that the inclusion of such persons in the Seniority List would be illegal.
"Respondents 1 to 4 earned their Engineering Degrees while working as Draftsmen. Therefore, they could invoke the Note to Rule 2 of Ext.P4 Special Rules, seeking direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers in the 6% quota reserved for them or promotion under the Diploma quota. However, for obvious reasons, they chose promotion under the Diploma quota and are thus ineligible for further promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer under the Degree quota, as per the governing rules," the Court observed.
Case Title: Sameerali v. Muhammed
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (9)
The Kerala High Court clarified that “mere receipt of rent by the landlord, after receipt of quit notice by the tenant, would not be tantamount to waiver of the quit notice, contemplated under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.”
Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act says a quit notice is waived with the tenant's consent, by any act of the landlord showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.
As such, Justice Badharudeen clarified that “in view of the settled law, the status of the defendant herein is that of a tenant at sufferance…(and) the quit notice would not waive, and the status of the tenant is a `tenant at sufferance' and not beyond that”.
Therefore, the court stated that the defendant was bound to vacate the building. Additionally, the court held that “mere receipt of rent by the landlord, after receipt of quit notice by the tenant, would not be tantamount to waiver of the quit notice, contemplated under Section 113 of the T.P Act”.
Case title: Gangadharan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that an Abkari Officer already appointed under the Abkari Act will not lose his authority to act as an Abkari Officer upon redeployment to a Special Squad.
Justice Sophy Thomas however added that upon redeployment, the officer is expected to act within the bounds defined for the squad.
The Special Squad in this case was constituted to prevent and detect offences under the Abkari Act and the NDPS Act which were rampantly affecting the younger generations in the society.
“When an Abkari Officer already notified under Section 4 of the Abkari Act as per SRO 234/67 is redeployed to a Special Squad, he need not be again notified as an Abkari Officer to perform the duties and functions as a member of the Special Squad, because by such redeployment, he will not lose his authority as an Abkari Officer. But when he is redeployed to the Special Squad, he has to act within the parameters of the duties and functions, assigned to the Squad, and he cannot cross the borders.”
Appellate Court May Reject, Not Dismiss An Appeal For Non-Payment Of Court Fee: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Baby v. Chandramathy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (11)
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate court may only reject and not dismiss an appeal for non-payment of court fee by the party.
A single judge bench of Justice Badharudeen was dealing with a second appeal, filed as a consequence of first appellate court's order dismissing the appeal as “balance court fee not paid".
The Court said, "the proper procedure to strike down an appeal due to failure on the part of the appellant to pay balance court fee is rejection of the appeal and the said rejection of appeal is decree, as defined under Section 2(2) of CPC."
Assessee Can't Indefinitely Seek Time In Response To SCN: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Shaju Pachelil Pathrose Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
The Kerala High Court has held that the assessee cannot indefinitely seek time in response to a show cause notice.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that petitioners cannot go on asking for a time one after another in response to the show cause notice issued one after another. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Mathew Kunju Mathew v. K.V. Kuriakose & Anr. and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
The Kerala High Court held that when a competent civil court finds that a dishonoured cheque, which was the subject matter for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') was not supported by valid consideration, the conviction and sentence of the criminal court for the offence would not legally sustain.
"The presumption under Sections 118 ('Presumptions as to negotiable instruments') and 139 ('Presumption in favour of holder') of the NI Act is of no avail, when the cheques are proved to be not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt," Justice Sophy Thomas observed.
Case title: A H Sheriff v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court stated that persons have no vested right to seek 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for granting of lease for mining minerals. It held that in the absence of vested rights, the application seeking NOC had to be considered based on the existing rules.
In this case, the application for NOC was filed in 2019 and it was rejected after a delay of four years by relying upon 2021 guidelines issued by the government. The Court held that even though the application was pending and there was a delay, it could not grant NOC without considering the guidelines in the absence of any express provisions.
By relying upon the Apex Court decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others (1981) and State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023), Justice Murali Purushothaman dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Ashiya Ummal v. S.N. Sathy & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Kerala High Court laid down that a person who did not sign a compromise which led to passing of a compromise decree, but subsequently acted upon the same, could not thereafter avoid the decree merely on the ground that he/she had not put his/her signature on it.
"In law, nobody is allowed to approbate and reprobate. To put it differently, a person, who enjoys the benefit of a compromise, he did not sign, after filing an affidavit acting upon the same and obtained the money in terms of the compromise, cannot deviate from the said compromise on the ground that he or she did not sign the same after acting upon the same," the Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed.
Case Title: Prabhulla P v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (16)
The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant interpretation surrounding preventive detention under Section 12 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and the 2014 amendment which expanded the maximum period of detention.
Section 12, prior to the amendment stipulated the maximum period of detention as 6 months. With the 2014 Amendment, the 'first detention' can last a maximum period of 6 months but the 'subsequent detention' can be of upto one year.
A division bench of Justices Muhammed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen has now clarified that if a preventive detention order was passed prior to the 2014 Amendment, such an order will not constitute 'first detention'. In other words, detention order passed prior to 31.12.2014, cannot be taken into account for passing a subsequent detention order for a maximum period of one year.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
The Kerala High Court granted emergency leave to a murder convict for attending his daughter's wedding. It also stated that the parties being Muslim, it was essential for the father to attend the daughter's wedding.
While granting emergency leave, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that on earlier occasions, when the petitioner's father was given emergency leave or ordinary leave, he had never overstayed and instead returned without any default.
Case title: Sreekumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court yesterday ordered the acquittal of a husband who was accused of causing the suicidal death of his wife since the prosecution was unable to prove that suicide was committed due to cruelty or harassment.
The Court acquitted the husband by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt and made a significant observation that every type of harassment or cruelty would not establish an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
While setting aside the conviction, Justice Johnson John stated that minor quarrels between spouses due to differences of opinion or sporadic instances of ill-treatment would not establish an offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Case Title: XX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State authorities regarding the handling of minor victims of sexual abuse, the provision of treatment including psycho therapy for prisoners accused of committing offences under the POCSO Act, and sex therapy for the victims/survivors of sexual assault.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Gopinath P. issued the directions taking note of the report by the Project Co-Ordinator of the Victim Rights Centre (VRC) Advocate A. Parvathi Menon, whose intervention had been sought by the Court in a bail plea by a 19 year old alleged to have sexually abused his minor sister.
[Minor Mineral Rules] Traditional Pottery Artisans Don't Need NOC For Extracting Ordinary Clay Upto 50 Tonnes In A Year: Kerala High Court
Case title: Kaliman Thozhilali Kshema Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangam Ltd. v District Geologist
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has recently made it clear that traditional artisans doing clay and pottery works cannot be insisted upon to produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for extraction of ordinary clay up to 50 tonnes in a calendar year.
On perusing Rule 106 (5) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015, Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that traditional artisans can be granted special transit passes for extraction of ordinary clay up to 50 tonnes on the production of their identity cards.
Case title: Angels Nair v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court made it clear that forest officials have to follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 while handling wild animals straying in human habitats.
The SOP provides the suggested field actions to be followed by forest officials in dealing with wild carnivores like the tiger and leopard.
Case title: Suresh Gopi V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by actor and politician Suresh Gopi, in connection with a case for alleged misbehaviour with a female reporter in front of the public and media.
A crime was registered against him under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of women) and Section 119 (punishment for atrocities against women) of the Kerala Police Act.
Case Title: Premakumari R. v. O.K. Sivasankara Pillai & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court categorically laid down that allegations of fraud, undue influence and coercion cannot be made in a 'sweeping manner' merely on the ground of suspicion or conjecture, to dispute the genuineness of a Will.
It thus underscored that suspicion regarding an individual factor could not act as a circumstance to doubt the genuineness of a Will.
Case title: Edwin Andrew Minihan v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Kerala High Court has permitted an Irish citizen to travel back to his home country to visit his ill mother despite the contention that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) would be preferred against his honourable acquittal.
The petitioner, an Irish citizen whose acquittal by Magistrate Court was confirmed by the High Court had sought liberty to go back to his country to visit his ill mother.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Irish citizen cannot be detained in India for the sole reason that the authorities intend to prefer an SLP before the Apex Court against his honourable acquittal.
Case Title: Sabu George & Ors. v. James George & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Kerala High Court held that an order passed by a Subordinate Judge's Court acting as a Commercial Court under a Government notification, would be appealable only before the concerned Commercial Appellate Court as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, and not before the High Court, as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996).
The Court in this case was seized of an appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Court under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. Section 9 of the Act states interim measures to be taken by the Court
Case title: Jins Francis V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail application filed by a 37-year-old man accused of assaulting a female doctor and staff nurses who examined and treated him at the hospital.
A crime was registered against him under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
Case title: Rohith Giri v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court held that the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked seeking blanket general directions against the police for the prevention of registration of crimes.
“Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to issue blanket directions against registration of a crime. Time and again, the Supreme Court as well as this Court have deprecated the practice of issuing general directions, especially with respect to investigation and registration of FIRs. Each FIR will have to be appreciated on the basis of the allegations therein” , stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court upheld the order passed by a single judge in the writ petition stating that a Magistrate cannot be prosecuted under 228-A IPC on an inadvertent omission to anonymize the name and details of the victims.
Dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and V.G. Arun observed that an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Magistrate cannot lead to prosecution under Section 228A IPC.
Case Title: Jaseer SM v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
In a judgement denying bail to two accused under the NDPS Act, the Kerala High Court clarified that “Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not lay down any stipulation that the accused in entitled to be released on bail if the trial does not commence within a particular period and additionally, the accused has to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 in addition to Section 439 of the Code to be released on bail.”
Case title: Central Board Of Trustees v Bake N Joy Hot Bakery
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of a Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court (Tribunal) which reduced the amount of damages from 100% to 50% stating that Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (EPF) Act does not mandatorily prescribe that 100% amount of damages has to be imposed as penalty.
Case title: Narayanankutty K v Cochin Devaswom Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to file a Devsawom Board Appeal (DBA) seeking specific directions regarding solid waste management in connection with the disposal of plastic, biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste that will be generated during the Thrissur Pooram in 2024
Case Title: Hemalatha S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a subsequent overruling judgment cannot disturb the conclusiveness of an inter parte order that has attained finality.
Justice K. Babu made the above observation in a writ petition filed by the complainant seeking further investigation of her case. Significant to note that her application for further investigation was dismissed by the Magistrate in 2014 and the revision petition against it was also dismissed by the High Court in 2018. At the time, Supreme Court's decision in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. (2017) held field as per which, after Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences, a further investigation can be done only on application of the Investigating Officer.
Case title: State of Kerala v Dr Praveen Kumar T K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Kerala High Court considered the maintainability of a second appeal filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The issue before the Court was, “whether second appeal is provided from the appellate decree and judgment passed by a Commercial Appellate Court?”
Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissing the second appeal as not maintainable observed thus:
“..If so, Commercial Courts Act does not provide second appeal. Therefore, it has to be held that the present second appeal filed, challenging the decree and judgment of the Commercial Appellate Court, is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal.”
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Students Accused Of Obstructing Governor Arif Khan's Convoy
Case Title: Yadhu Krishnan and ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to 7 students who were accused of obstructing Governor Arif Khan's convoy.
A single judge bench of Justice CS Dias heard the matter. The incident occurred on December 11th, 2023, when the governor's convoy was impeded in Palayam by the accused who disobeyed orders of the police, and detained the Governor whilst shouting slogans, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 76, 357/- to the public exchequer.
Case Title: C Lajith and Ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
In a judgment regarding the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR), the Kerala High Court directed the state to “actively consider the laying down of a procedure for hearing as contemplated in Section 15 of the Act, which stipulates 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary inspection under Section 11, for submission of objections.
The court maintained that the 2013 Act provides for a “humane, participative, informed, and transparent process" for land acquisition, as the preamble to the new Act suggested.
Case Title: Manoj TK v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
In a decision by the Kerala High Court, a single judge bench of Justice Gopinath clarified that “evidence of witnesses can be recorded in the presence of the counsel for the accused even in situations where the court grants exemption from personal appearance to the accused even of a day”.
Case Title: Kaleshkumar KK v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
In a recent decision by the Kerala High Court, a single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that “the term 'residential area designated as per local laws' cannot be interpreted to mean a 'residential house'.
The Court was seized of pleas challenging the permission granted for establishing a Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. petroleum retail outlet, which were dismissed for want of merit.
Case Title: Sangha Erectors Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Cranes and Trailers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court held that a unilateral affirmation by a party to a contract, without being specifically accepted by the other party, doesn't confer exclusive jurisdiction, since the ouster of jurisdiction of courts cannot be lightly assumed or presumed.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun found that a unilateral affirmation by one of the parties to the contract, without the same being specifically accepted by the other party, will not confer exclusive jurisdiction on any court by overlooking the conferment of jurisdiction as stipulated in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Case Title: Thapas Berman v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The Kerala High Court held that variations in the evidence only due to normal errors of observation and memory due to the lapse of time will always be there and the same cannot be accepted as material discrepancies touching the core of the case.
A division bench of Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John was hearing the case.
Case Title: M/S. Professional Copier Services India (Pvt) Ltd Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Kerala High Court has quashed the penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act and held that re-sellers of machines have not wilfully classified machines under the wrong head and have adopted the same classification as the seller.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that penalty proceedings have to be initiated when there is a willful or contumacious act on the part of the assessee to evade payment of the correct tax. The petitioners had reason to adopt the classification as 'Digital Multifunctional Devices', as they being re-sellers could not have classified the machines to a different classification.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Kerala High Court quashed a sexual assault and rape complaint filed by a minor daughter under various provisions of the IPC & POCSO Act against her father on finding that it was a false complaint.
The Court found that the daughter had raised false allegations against her father since he objected to her relationship with a boy.
Justice Gopinath P quashed the criminal proceedings against the father by relying upon the mother's affidavit and a report submitted by the Victim Rights Centre that it was a false complaint.
Case Title: Sabu Varghese v. Viju P. Varghese & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Kerala High Court upheld a Single Bench order that set aside the promotion of an employee due to a break in his service, after the expiry of his authorized leave, which was treated as unauthorized and non-duty for all purposes other than pension.
Perusing Fundamental Rule 17A and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule 27, the Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha, observed, "On juxtaposing of the aforementioned Rules, interruption or break in service has been clarified in Rule 27 in respect of employees who had remained absent after the expiry of authorized leave whereas Fundamental Rule 17A deals with absence out of nowhere and that absence has also been considered to be a break and interruption".
Case Title: Dr. Annie Mareena Issac V Employees State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Kerala High Court has asked employers to exhibit open-mindedness and empathy when issuing transfer orders to 'working women'.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that working women play major roles in taking care of their children and aged parents and thus, they may find it difficult to maintain a work-life balance in an unfamiliar environment.
Case Title: XXX & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Connected case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
The Kerala High Court directed the Inspector General of Registration, to consider the validity of the registration of an NGO 'Youth Enrichment Society' accused of making remarks with the intent to cause harm against the transgender community
The plea was before a bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran. The petitioners had filed the writ petition seeking cancellation of registration of the 6th respondent NGO for making remarks against the transgender community with the intent to cause them harm.
Case title: Lekshmi M V Sudhamony Amma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Kerala High Court has referred the decision of a single judge in Natarajan T.K. v. T.K.Raman Achari (2023) for the consideration of a Division Bench in which it was held that Courts in Kerala have no jurisdiction for granting and revoking probates or letters of administration unless there is a notification issued by the State Government.
Justice Sathish Ninan by relying upon Sections 57 and 264 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 observed that no notification was needed for granting and revoking probates or letters of administration when the wills and codicils were made on or after 01.01.1927 by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain.
Case Title: Anwer Hussain T v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
In a matter regarding POCSO allegations against a soldier under Sections 12, 11(iv), 18, 6 and 5b(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Kerala High Court has observed that “allegations [against a soldier] has to be viewed more seriously. He is supposed to guard the nation, and the dignity and integrity of its citizens.”
A single bench of Justice Sophy Thomas accordingly denied the soldier/petitioner's bail plea.
Case title: Neyan Veettil Behsana V Local Registrar For Births And Deaths & Marriages
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Kerala High Court has observed that there is a lacuna in the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 since it does not provide a provision to register divorce when divorce was obtained under personal law.
A divorced Muslim woman had approached the Court seeking to 'record the fact of divorce' in the Marriage Register after her marriage was dissolved on pronouncing Talaq.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the authority which has the power to register the marriage will also have the authority to record the fact of divorce. It further observed that a divorced wife who has registered marriage under the 2008 Rules on obtaining a divorce under personal law shall not be insisted for obtaining an order from the Court.
Case Title: K Sekharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
The Kerala High Court has clarified that no quarrying activities can be done on lands assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act.
A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham made these observations in a plea challenging quarrying activities near Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary undertaken by the respondent.
Case title: Sasidharan A v Vijayan Unnithan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Kerala High Court has upheld the acquittal order issued by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on finding that there was no evidence to prove that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the order of the Trial Court if it has been reasonably formed.
Case title: Renjith Raj v State, Represented By CI of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Kerala High Court has held that when trial courts frame charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, they should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar relying upon Apex Court decisions, stated that no prejudice was caused to the appellant and that a mere defect in the language, narration or form of charges would not render the conviction unsustainable.
Furthermore, Justice Ajithkumar stated that when the Courts were framing charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, it should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.
Case title: Rajeswari v Omana Amma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Kerala High Court stated that when proof of will has to be given, the Court has to take a separate and lenient consideration in examining a witness immediately by invoking the jurisdiction under Order 18 Rule 16 of CPC, which provides the power to examine the witness immediately.
“….this Court is of the opinion that the petition under Order XVIII, Rule 16 C.P.C, in the context of proof of a 'Will', will have to receive a separate and lenient consideration, in as much as, it is imperative, going by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as also, by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, to examine at least one of the attesting witnesses, in proof of the 'Will'”, Stated Justice C Jayachandran.
Case Title: Azharudheen v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
In a matter before the Kerala High Court, a single judge bench of Justice CS Dias held that an oral application made by the petitioner, who was accused under the NDPS Act ("Act") would be sufficient to release him on statutory bail due to the failure of the Investigation Officer to file the final report on time.
If Land Acquired For Public Purpose By Paying Compensation, Delay In Utilisation Doesn't Entitle Owner To Seek Re-Conveyance: Kerala High Court
Case title: Sivaprakashan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that once a land is acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose and compensation is paid, the landowner has no right to seek re-conveyance of the property citing delay in utilisation of such land.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed,“Admittedly, the land is going to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired. Simply because there is a delay in using the land for the purpose for which it is acquired, the acquisition proceedings can not be set aside. In such a situation, the refusal to reconvey the property is not illegal.”
Case Title: T. Rema & Ors. v. AK Radhamani & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court observed that while it is well settled that continuous cohabitation for several years may raise the presumption of marriage, it will not acquire the character of a valid marriage, if it is during the subsistence of another marriage by either party.
The matter came up before the division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar.
Case title: Mohammed Manath Ibrahim v Thrikkakara Municipality
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Kerala High Court has held that the municipality has the primary responsibility to deal with the municipal waste even if it was illegally dumped on private property.
“It is the primary duty of the Municipality to deal with municipal waste. The fact that such municipal waste has been illegally dumped in private property (here the property of the Kochi Metro) cannot absolve the Municipality from the liability of removing the waste for proper treatment as is done in the case of other municipal waste being collected and processed by the Municipality," stated Justice Gopinath P.
Special Marriage Act | Even Parties To A Void Marriage Can Approach Family Court For Redressal Of Grievances: Kerala High Court
Case title: Joseph A U v Princy P J
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court on interpreting the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Special Marriage Act, 1954 observed that a dispute between parties to a void marriage could be determined by a Family Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar observed that even parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for the redressal of their grievances.
“Therefore, from a conjoined reading of Section 24 (1)(i) of Special Marriage Act and Explanation (a) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, it is evident that a marriage which is void, as defined under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, will remain valid for all practical purposes, unless it is annulled in a suit or proceedings before the Family Court. In other words, from the above provisions, it can also be safely concluded that even the parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for redressing their grievance and as such this point is liable to be answered in the negative.”
Case title: C. Surendranath v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Kerala High Court has held that 'dishonest intention' is the crux for constituting an offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for proving criminal misconduct by public servants.
“Dishonest intention is sine qua non to attract the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant”, stated Justice K Babu.
Kerala High Court Permits Murder Convict To Join LLB Course Despite Objection By College
Case title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Kerala High Court has permitted a murder convict to pursue a three-year LLB Course in online mode, despite objections from the college where he has secured a seat. It stated that education would enable the convict to reform and rehabilitate back into society.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the stance taken by the college in opposing the admission of a convict to pursue his education would not be tolerated.
“The education of a convict can bring hope and aspirations for a better life in the future. Thus, when the prisoner expresses his willingness to undergo a course of study and has even gained admission after a competitive examination, the objection raised by the college cannot be countenanced and on the other hand, is to be deprecated.”
Case title: Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application moved by Laila Bhagawal Singh, one of the accused in the Human Sacrifice Case.
The case pertains to the abduction, murder, and burial of two women lottery vendors as part of a ritualistic sacrifice by the three accused persons, namely, Muhammed Shafi alias Rasheed, Bhagaval Singh and his wife Laila.
Justice Sophy Thomas while dismissing the bail plea stated that the crime has shattered the conscience of the society. It also stated that if the allegations against the accused Laila prove to be true, it would be a blow to the rich cultural heritage and literacy rate of God's Own Country, Kerala.
Case Title: PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
In an revisional appeal against a previous order, the court dismissed it by stating that “the revisional power of the court is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law...the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction”
Justice K Babu stated this in a revision plea by the petitioners/accused who faced charges under Section 13 (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case title: SJ v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
In a matter where a headmistress was arrested under SC/ST Act for cutting tribal student's hair, Justice K Babu stated that there was no mens rea established against the appellant-headmistress and that she was only trying to enforce disciplinary control over the victim and at most "exceeded in the corporal punishment". Further, it stated that the alleged acts would not attract offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
He stated that “On an analysis of the facts placed before this Court, I am of the view that the mens rea of the appellant in the commission of the alleged acts is doubtful. At the most, it could be seen that the appellant being a school teacher having disciplinary control over the victim exceeded in the corporal punishment on the victim. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no prima facie material to attract the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.”
Case title: E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
Justice K Babu observed that in case of obtainment under Section 7 of the PC Act, a public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver on accepting the demand offers to pay illegal gratification.
“ To attract the offence under Section 7(a) the prosecution has to establish that the public servant obtained or accepted or attempted to obtain from any person an undue advantage. In order to attract the offence under Section 7(a), the prosecution has to establish that the petitioner voluntarily accepted money, knowing it to be bribe. If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is definitely a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act, even in the absence of prior demand. On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.”
The Court further stated that in case of acceptance, the prosecution need not prove demand but in the case of obtainment, the prosecution has to prove prior demand.
Section 100 CPC | Second Appeal Doesn't Lie On Equitable Grounds: Kerala High Court
Case title: Poyil Salim V Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the term 'substantial' means having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It stated that 'substantial question of law' for preferring a second appeal shall not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance.
“It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with – technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as S.109 of the Code or Art.133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. As such, second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds and the conditions mentioned in Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. must be complied to admit and maintain a second appeal.”
Kerala High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Of 21-Yr-Old, Appoints Advocate As His 'Mentor'
Case title: Sreejith R v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Kerala High Court released a 21-year old boy, who was implicated in seven crimes for allegedly causing obstruction to police officer in performing official duties and under the NDPS Act, from detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, considering the age of the detenu, also appointed an Advocate as his 'Mentor'.
Case Title: Davood v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
A passport cannot be seized or retained by the investigating agencies in the absence of any crime committed or suspected to have been committed with the said document, the Kerala High Court has held.
A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas thus allowed the petition moved by an accused booked under the NDPS Act, seeking release of his passport, his mobile phone and Bahraini identity card which was seized by the Intelligence Officer of NCB. It observed,
"The passport of an individual is an important document and is issued under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. In the absence of any crime committed or suspected to have been committed with the said document, a passport cannot be seized or retained by the investigating agencies. The seizure of a document, if it can be treated as a property, has to be under section 102 of the Cr.P.C and the conditions stipulated therein ought to be satisfied. A document is generally subjected to impounding under section 104 Cr.P.C and this can only be done by the Court."
The bench further clarified that a passport cannot be impounded even by the Court despite Section 104 of CrPC, as the said provision will enable the court to impound any document or thing, other than a passport. Power to impound the passport is only with the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, it held.
Case title: Suresh Kumar @ Sarath Nair v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
The Kerala High Court yesterday granted bail to the appellant who was in judicial custody for allegedly making abusive and casteist remarks against the Minister for Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and Devaswom, K. Radhakrishnan in Facebook in connection with his visit to Sabarimala Ayyapa Temple.
The crime was registered under Section 153A of IPC (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 120(o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 3 (punishment for offences atrocities) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case title: Dr M V Narayanan v Chancellor & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Kerala High Court has directed the Chancellor to consider the legality and jurisdiction of the show cause notices issued to the Vice Chancellors of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, University of Calicut, Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology and Sree Narayana Open University based on the UGC Regulations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr Rajasree M.S. and others (2022).
The show cause notice was issued by the Chancellor requiring the Vice Chancellors to show their legal right to hold the post of Vice Chancellor and why their appointment should not be declared illegal and void ab initio.
Case title: Jhonny Alexander Duran Sola v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Kerala High Court has permitted an Advocate to collect the personal articles belonging to the Foreign National on his behalf since he was placed in a transit centre and could not move around anywhere in India and was awaiting deportation.
The foreign national approached the High Court seeking the release of his articles including documents like passport, certificate of vaccination, driving license, and currency notes which were seized at the time of arrest and were retained with the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the father who was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences of sexually assaulting and raping his minor daughter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John upheld the conviction stating that “merely for the reason that the family of the victim consisting of several members was residing in a small hut, it cannot be said that the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not possible especially in the light of the explanation offered by the victim in her evidence that the sexual assaults were committed by the accused when her mother was away for work and her siblings had gone out for playing”.
Case title: Coach India v Superintendent of Central Tax And Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the writ jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, citing his inability to comply with the provisions of 'SUBKA VISHWAS' [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules which is a complete code in itself.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh stated that the scheme was a complete code in itself which has detailed provisions. The Court observed thus:
“Once the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the scheme, which is a complete code in itself, his court would not like to extend the limitation for making the payment under the scheme in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Kerala High Court Permits Murder Convict To Join LLB Course Despite Objection By College
Case title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Kerala High Court has permitted a murder convict to pursue a three-year LLB Course in online mode, despite objections from the college where he has secured a seat. It stated that education would enable the convict to reform and rehabilitate back into society.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the stance taken by the college in opposing the admission of a convict to pursue his education would not be tolerated.
Case title: Venugopal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently stated that the law does not insist that separate sureties have to be produced for different cases to obtain bail.
The petitioner who is an accused in as many as 1726 crimes before different police stations in different districts of Kerala has approached the Court since he was unable to produce different sureties for bail. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases would make the concept of bail illusionary.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the law does prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases if such surety was solvent and inspires the confidence of the Court since the purpose of sureties was only to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.
Case Title: Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Kerala High Court has allowed the refund of additional fees paid towards the Legal Aid Benefit fund under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1949.
It said: Section 69A covers the additional court fee levied under Section 76(1) of the Act. If such refund is to be refused for the purpose of constitution of the fund, then, every other court fee levied also has a purpose, wherefore refund becomes impossible in respect of the same as well, which logic defies the mandate of Section 69A and renders it otiose. The nature and character of the additional fee levied, though for constituting the legal benefit fund, is nothing, but that of a court-fee.
A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran heard the matter.
Case Title: Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court has held that KITCO (Kerala Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation) qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that large majority of shares of the company are held by instrumentalities of the Central Government. Even the State government has a "decisive representation" in the Board, it noted.
"It is clear from a reading of the Articles of Association and the documents produced in the writ petition and in this writ appeal that the State and Central Governments themselves specifically consider the 1st respondent [KITCO] as a Central Government company. It is also discernible that the accounts of the 1st respondent are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India treating it as a deemed Government company. It is recognised as an accredited Government agency for the purpose of public works in the State," the bench added.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
The Kerala High Court today allowed a bail petition filed by a drawing teacher accused of assaulting six of his students, stating it is doubtful that the incident took place on the same day.
In allowing the petition, Justice Sophy Thomas stated that “it is true that there is a delay of six days in making the complaint by the victim girls. Moreover, the allegation that on the same day, the petitioner sexually assaulted six girl students of the same class also seems doubtful. The petitioner is in judicial custody from December 20, 2023 and the investigation has progressed substantially. So this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail”.
Case Title: Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a petition arguing for employment assistance by a married daughter on account of her husband losing his job.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that “dependency is a de facto situation, rather than be a de jure doctrine. As such, the appellant had no dependency on her father, since her husband was earning well, it is rather untenable to imagine that her dependency on her father stood 'restored' on her husband allegedly losing his job abroad.”
Case Title: Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a pre-arrest bail application by the second accused in the health department job fraud case, referring to their criminal antecedents in its order.
A single judge bench of Justice CS Dias stated that “particularly taking note of the financial transaction between the victim and the petitioner, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the first accused, that the investigation of the case is only at its preliminary stage, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail”.
Case title: Jollyamma v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Kerala High Court today for the second time dismissed the bail applications filed by Jolly Joseph, the first accused in the infamous Koodathayi murders.
Justice C S Dias stated that if the allegations raised against Jolly were true, then she had committed pre-mediated, gruesome, cold-blooded murders without any contrition. It further stated that there were intelligence reports regarding public outrage and potential revolt against Jolly for committing familicide and her release would have a deleterious impact on society.
Case Title: Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the process for securing presence of an accused, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI. is mandatory and an exception from the approach, where accused has not cooperated in the investigation, is available only after the Magistrate ascertains the factum of accused's absence independently.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the SC directions cannot be avoided by a mere statement in the final report that the accused had not co-operated with the investigation or had absconded.
"Even in such cases, the Magistrates are bestowed with the duty to ascertain whether the accused had intentionally kept himself aloof from the proceedings," the bench added.
Case title: Litty Thomas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that before proceeding to frame charges against the accused, the judge has to form an opinion that there was grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offences alleged against him. It stated that if there were no sufficient grounds, then the judge shall discharge the accused by recording specific reasons for discharge as per Section 227 CrPC. Further, it stated that if the Court was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds, then the judge shall frame charges against the accused under Section 228 CrPC.
Case Title: Shine Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Kerala High Court has allowed an appeal where the accused had taken a plea of insanity as a defence in the case of the murder of his parents.
A division judge bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John allowed the appeal, stating that the “prosecution has not established the motive of the accused to cause the death of his parents. Similarly, the accused has not made any attempt to run away from the scene after causing the death of his parents”.
Case Title: Nikson v. Samkutty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea on a land dispute matter on the premise that the petitioner was yet to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order.
The court added that the parties can seek an order under Article 227 of the Constitution, directing the Execution Court to issue a certified copy of the impugned order and grant an order of injunction in their favour to enable the tenant to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
While allowing a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recently observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'.
NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case title: Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The Kerala High Court has held that though the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a substitute to the remedy of bail under Section 438 or 439 of CrPC, the same may be invoked in exceptional cases for securing liberty.
Justice K Babu observed, “While seeking a relief of bail in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has to exercise its power conscious of the fact that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and in exceptional cases like this a party can seek relief to secure his liberty in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a 59-year-old lady who was alleged to be the close accomplice of the prime accused in the BSNL Co-Operative Society scam.
Justice C.S. Dias was of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail considering that the investigation is in progress and that her custodial interrogation is necessary.
Case title: Sarojam L v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Kerala High Court has taken a humanitarian stand and permitted an 85-year-old abandoned woman to construct a residential house on her only property of waterlogged land.
“Can this Court dismiss such an application stating that the reclamation of a small bit of land out of the 81 cents of land owned by the petitioner will adversely affect the ecological condition and cultivation in the adjoining paddy land?”, it asked while allowing the plea.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that the Constitutional Court has to step in to fulfil the dream of an 85-year-old lady, to make her believe that she was not an orphan and that the Court and every citizen were with her.
Case Title: Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
The Kerala High Court acquitted a husband who was accused of abetting his wife's suicide and stated that mens rea was an essential ingredient for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. On the other hand, while upholding his conviction for cruelty, it stated that proof of cruelty for sustaining a conviction under Section 498A IPC would depend upon the conduct which was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.
The appellant who was convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Justice P G Atjithkumar set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC on finding that the prosecution was unable to establish mens rea required for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide. While upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC, the Court stated that the wife committed suicide unbearable of the acts of the husband, amounting to cruelty.
Case Title: Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Kerala High Court has held that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper lies with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumar has held the decision in Brenda Barbara Francis v. Adrian Miranda 'Halcyon' Pakkattuvila, Kunnukuzhi (2016) to be per incuriam, observing that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper is with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
While allowing a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recently observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'.
NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case Title: Shinoj Singh & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted five RSS/BJP activists alleged of assaulting a CPI (M) worker due to political rivalry, on noting the absence of evidence to prove the identity of such persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
The conviction of respondent no 1 was, however, upheld.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar relied upon the Apex Court decision in Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002), which laid down that the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the accused.
Case title: Sreeranj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that groundwater is an essential component of groundwater resources and a special type of mineral wealth and its uncontrolled usage can even affect ecosystems.
“Being so, ground water is vulnerable and limited, despite its replenishable nature and vast reserves, impelling unexpendable regulations in most parts of the world; especially since uncontrolled exploitation of aquifers by even small water users can affect the ecosystems,” stated the Court.
It further stated that regulations on the usage of groundwater resources should not be dealt casually and as a mere formality.
“This preface is to remind the statutory Regulators that when enforcing the Regulations qua ground water use, their focus ought to be on rationality, control, safety, sustainability and care for future generations,” added the Court.
Case title: K. G. Mohandas v Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr Vandana's parents seeking transfer of probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Dr. Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by an injured man who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police. The young house surgeon was stabbed sixteen times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that Dr Vandana's parents have not raised allegations stating the police officers have any motive or criminal intent.
[Dr Vandana Das Murder Case] Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Application Moved By Accused Sandeep
Case Title: Sandeep v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Kerala High Court today rejected the bail application moved by accused Sandeep in Dr Vandana Das murder case.
Dr. Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by an injured man who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police. The young house surgeon was stabbed sixteen times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors
While dismissing the bail application, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated thus:
“Accused is known to have a history of alcohol abuse disorder and was separated from his wife and children as he had attempted to kill her in a fit of rage. He is stated to have an anti-social personality disorder too”
Case Title: Deekshit VR v. The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held: “it is the duty of the State Election Commission to ask the petitioner whether he intends to cross examine the Secretary who gave the statement. A perusal of the statement recorded by the State Election Commission would not show that any such question was put by the Election Commission regarding the right of the petitioner to cross examine the Secretary. Relying on an uncontroverted statement of one party without giving an opportunity to the other side to cross examine cannot be relied on.
The petitioner had contested in the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat elections in the seat for the scheduled caste candidates. Petitioner belongs to Mogar Caste, and submitted that his mother tongue is Kannada, he does not know how to read or write in Malayalam.
Case title: Sanjay Oraon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Kerala High Court has emphasized the importance of scientific evidence in criminal cases and observed that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) cannot delay scientific reports stating a dearth of staff and lack of infrastructure.
The petitioner, a native of West Bengal, with no roots in Kerala, was an accused in a murder case and has approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail due to a delay in commencing the trial. The Court found that the trial had not commenced due to the delay on the part of the FSL in submitting the scientific reports on material objects.
Case title: Joji Varghese v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Justice Devan Ramachandran however criticised the “intolerance to cultural and artistic expressions" in a civilized nation like ours and said that if any scene in a film is in fact uncharitable, it is for the statutory authorities to decide.
The petitioner had approached the Court stating that a scene in the film depicts a firearm hidden inside the Bible, which hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian community.
The Central Board Of Film Certification (CBFC) stated that the scene was a fleeting one, without any reference to any particular scripture. It submitted that the competent Committee did not feel the scene to be contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups; and that during the review screening, the members of the Committee did not even notice the Bible.
Case Title: S. Manimekhala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
The Kerala High Court has laid down that mere procedural violations in appointment of a person to a post cannot always lead to the inference that the appointee and the appointing authority had a dishonest intention in making such appointment.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu made the observation while dismissing the plea challenging the Special Court's dismissal of the complaint alleging irregularity in the appointment of MLA Anoop Jacob's wife to the post of Assistant Director of the Kerala Bhasha Institute.
"In the present case, the complaint is silent as to whether the person benefitted and the person who effected the appointment are part of a vicious link. There may be cases of misfeasance or, wrong administration. In all cases of malfeasance or, misfeasance or wrong administration, a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be initiated," Justice Babu observed.
Case Title: Union of India v. Udayachandran P
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a candidate cannot be denied employment merely by stating that he has a disease without finding that it would impact his capacity to perform functional duties or responsibilities.
The applicant, an ex-serviceman was denied employment to the post of Ticket Examiner in the Indian Railway since he was unfit by the medical board due to diabetes.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated thus:
“Merely citing a disease one cannot be denied employment unless it is found that such a disease would have impact on his functional duties or responsibilities. Thus we dismiss this original petition."
Case Title: Bichitra Mohanty v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that if an accused pleads guilty to a particular offence, the plea of guilt cannot extend to new offences invoked upon alteration of charge.
A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that in this case the Petitioner, involved in a motor accident, had pleaded guilty to the offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC and not under section 304A IPC. However, if the plea of guilt remains, the petitioner's defence could be prejudiced since the charge had been altered to section 304A IPC.
“The plea of guilt and the consequent conviction is not an empty formality, and the procedure has to be strictly followed...In the instant case, it is evident that the plea of guilt made by the accused was not for the offence under section 304A IPC. When the accused pleaded guilty, the offence was only under sections 279 and 338 IPC. The situation would have been different had the accused been informed that the offence included section 304A IPC as well.”
Case title: Noushid P A v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Justice K Babu stated that there was no hard and fast rule in granting or refusing bail and each case had to be considered on its own merits. However, it stated that the Court cannot shut its eyes when the offences alleged were atrocious.
“In serious offences, the courts should not lightly entertain the bail application when there is a prima facie case. Where the offence complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of the public, bail shall not be granted. Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception, but the accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous, fall within the exception and not the rule,” he said.
Case title: Ratheesh K R v Director, Akshaya Project & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Kerala High Court has stated that authorities should step in and take action if any person uses Akshaya Centres to enter into illicit financial transactions and create unauthorized wealth and illegal gains, contrary to public interest.
The petitioners had approached the Court challenging the orders issued by the District Collector and the Director of the Akshaya Project for the cancellation of the licence of Akshaya Centre alleging illegal financial transactions.
“…..when the existing licensee acts illegally and enters into proscribed financial transactions with another qua the 'Akshaya Centre', the Authorities are under an inviolable duty to step in and take action, as is mandated in law. If this is not done, it would be a premium for others to deal with 'Akshaya Centres', as a manner of creating unauthorized wealth and illegal gains, which can never be permitted, since it would tantamount to being flagrantly contrary to public interest, for which alone, such Centres are designed and established”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran
Case title: Arun Joseph v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that the students could not dictate the manner in which the curriculum of the course had to be formulated and that these were matters within the policy realm to be decided by experts.
“I am persuaded to the afore view also because, the course in question is conceded to be a full time one; and hence, no student, normally and without specific permission, is entitled to either study another course, or engage in any other activity. When this factum remains uncontested, one fails to understand how the petitioner can seek that Saturdays be made a holiday”, stated the Court.
The petitioner has approached the Court claiming that if only five days were working in a week, students could do other permissible courses along with ITI to get better job opportunities.
Case Name: Jebin Jospeh v State OF Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Kerala High Court today permitted a queer man to attend his deceased live-in partner's last rites, given that the said partner's bereaved family does not object to it.
“This court certainly has little doubt that the constitutionally protected and guaranteed right of every individual to dignity and fair treatment specially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be construed to cease with death; but continues much beyond, or at least as such time as the mortal remains are dealt with the respect it commands.”
The petitioner had approached the Court stating that his partner passed away on February 3 after falling from his flat. The mortal remains were however being maintained by Aster Medicity hospital, allegedly over failure to clear the medical bills. Petitioner was also told that he is not recognized to have any right qua the deceased under any legislative or customary laws.
Case title: Babu @Palraj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
The Kerala High Court bench comprising of Justice CS Dias has granted bail to the relative of Arjun, who was acquitted in the rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old minor girl at Vandiperiyar town in the Idukki district in 2021, accused of attacking the victim's family.
The petitioner in this case was accused of crimes registered under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) , 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons) and 294 (b) (obscene act and songs) of IPC at the Vandiperiyar Police Station, Idukki.
Case title: AD v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
The Kerala High Court has refused dissolution of marriage in a matrimonial appeal preferred by the husband on grounds of alleged cruelty, desertion and non-fulfilment of marital obligations by the wife, stating that a wife cannot be expected to tolerate husband's acts of cruelty by sacrificing her physical and mental health.
The appellant (husband) had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Family Court by which he was denied dissolution of marriage after the respondent (wife) raised allegations of matrimonial cruelty, including physical and mental abuse.
Case Title: Sanitha Saji v. Salimkumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
The Kerala High Court has held that if an election petition filed before the Election Commission within statutory period is withdrawn, the same will be sufficient cause for another person to seek condonation of delay in moving the subsequent election petition.
"Once an original petition is filed before the Election Commission alleging defection within a statutory period and suppose the party or the person who filed the Election Petition is influenced by the elected person and he was able to withdraw the defection petition, the Election Commission is not helpless in such situation," Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed.
Case Title: Chandini CK v. The State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
The Kerala High Court rejected a plea for 'non-creamy layer' certification on the ground that the petitioner wouldn't qualify for the categorization as it only applies to individuals engaged in their hereditary occupation.
A single judge bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a matter where the petitioner was denied a non-creamy layer certificate by the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector.
Case Name: In Re Bruno v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
The Kerala High Court has urged the State governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, which share forest covered borders, to act in tandem against the rising issue of man-animal conflict,
The bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P was dealing with a suo motu case on the issue when an incident was brought to its notice whereby a Wayanad resident was attacked within the precincts of his home, by an elephant apparently collared by forest authorities in Karnataka. It thus called for a "purposive co-operation" among the states to fulfil the constitutional guarantees afforded to the citizens, irrespective of where they reside.
Case number: Padma Conductors Pvt Ltd. v MIRC Electronics
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
The Kerala High Court has stated that the prosecution has to examine a witness who had direct knowledge regarding the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque to prove dishonour of the cheque.
The appellants approached the High Court with a criminal revision petition against the conviction in a cheque dishonor matter under Section 138 NI Act where the cheque was dishonoured for want of funds.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the examination of a witness who had no direct knowledge regarding the transaction or issuance of the cheque would be insufficient to discharge the initial burden cast upon the complainant to prove their case.
Case Title: Maheswari S & ors v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
The Kerala High Court has ordered Thrissur Corporation to pay Rs. 50,000 damages to a woman whose deceased husband's licensed bunk shop was demolished despite interim protection orders passed by the Court.
A single judge bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque said it cannot overlook the "high handed action" of the authority but awarded only nominal damages considering that an alternative shop was subsequently allotted to the woman.
Pending Financial Liabilities, Non-Payment Of E-Challans Won't Prohibit Transfer Of Vehicle's Ownership To Wife After Husband's Death: Kerala HC
Case title: Meena v Joint Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
The Kerala High Court has permitted the transfer of ownership of the vehicles to the successor wife after the death of her husband stating that pendency of financial liability due to the financier and non-payment of amounts due under the e-challans would not stand in the way of the ownership being transferred to the successor.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun observed thus: “We allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the authority as well as the learned Single Judge. The authority is hereby directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicles in the name of the present appellant, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to say that the appellant, after getting the ownership changed, is bound to pay off the dues against the vehicles.”
[Kerala Apartment Ownership Act 1983] High-Level Committee Constituted ToRecommend Modifications Based On Stakeholder Inputs: Govt Tells High Court
Case title: V K Sankarankutty v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
The Kerala High Court has been informed that interested persons can submit their versions, including suggestions in written form before the High-Level Committee constituted by the state government in connection with the Kerala Apartment Ownership Act, 1983.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the Committee after deliberations shall submit a final report with their recommendations before the government within three months from February 22, 2024. It also stated that on receiving the recommendations, the government shall take a final decision on it without delay.
Case Title: Romeo Victor & anr. v. Cheranaloor Grama Panchayath & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a Registrar's power to call for information regarding birth or death under Section 21 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not extend to order DNA test of a newborn and its parents.
Justice VG Arun criticised the Registrar of Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat for refusing to issue birth certificate to the female child born to the petitioners and asking them to prove their paternity by undergoing DNA tests.
Case title: Kumarthupady Shri Bhagavathy Temple v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Kerala High Court has permitted a Temple in Alappuzha district to use the Public Address System till 11 PM, i.e. till one hour after the 10 pm deadline for use of loudspeakers, on the last two days of their annual festival.
The petitioner is the President of the Temple and had approached the Court seeking permission to use the Public Address System from 10 PM to 12 PM on main two last days of their annual festival.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said the permission is subject to temple authorities' undertaking that the sound decibels would be reduced to such a level that it would not go beyond the premises of the Temple.
Case title: Sreedevi M v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Kerala High Court has stated that insurance clauses cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious if they intend to avoid claims on account of self-injury or disablement on consumption of alcohol.
The petitioner is a widow who has approached the Court seeking insurance for the death of her husband by drowning after accidentally tripping into a well. She was denied insurance on the allegation that the husband was under the influence of alcohol at the time of death.
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Execution Of Decree: Kerala High Court
Case title: Teresa Mary George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the execution of a decree when there is an alternative effective remedy to approach a competent civil court by filing an execution petition.
The petitioner had approached the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for fixation of survey marks on the boundaries of a property allegedly in dispute.
Case Title: PM Gopi v. Union of India and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Kerala High Court today closed a petition which sought the revocation of the certification of the upcoming Mammootty starrer 'Bramayugam' on the ground of alleged defamatory portrayal of a real-life person.
Justice Devan Ramachandran heard the matter.
The plea was closed following the film makers' submission that the name of the lead character had been changed to address the petitioner's concerns. The counsel for the respondents submitted that they have applied to the Central Board of Film to change the name of the lead character to 'Kodumon Potty' from "Kunjumon Potty."
Case title: Noel Joseph v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Kerala High Court has stated that there is no absolute prohibition for a police officer who recorded/registered an FIR to investigate/enquire into an offence committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
It held that a police officer, irrespective of their jurisdiction has the competence to record information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. It stated that once an investigation is initiated, it cannot be called into question before the Court alleging a lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Soby George v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Actor Soby George has approached the Kerala High Court challenging his conviction under Section 193 IPC in a matter connected to the death of musician Balabhaskar.
A single judge bench of Justice P Somarajan allowed the plea, stating that “the embargo under Section 162 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that a statement recorded cannot be used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence except for the purpose of contradiction and to contradict any witness in the manner” The court emphasised that the main ingredient which would constitute the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC is the tendering or fabrication of false 'evidence' to be used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
Case title: Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v Central Film Certification Board
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the writ petition was filed anticipating an action over the title of the movie, but the CBFC has not granted final certification for the movie yet.
“That said, when the Censor Board undertakes before this Court that they will verify the cinematographic movie, to ensure that all statutory requirements are fully complied with, it can only imply that the objections raised by the writ petitioner in this writ petition will also seize their mind appropriately”, stated the Court.
The Court was hearing a plea relating to a new movie starring actor Dileep titled Thankamani which is based on a real-life incident that occurred in Thankamany village in Idukki district, in October 1986.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Case title: K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court has today confirmed the conviction of the accused in the murder of T P Chandrasekharan under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) . It also sets aside the acquittal of the 10th and 12thaccused and convicted them also under Sections 120B read with Section 302 IPC. The Court has directed the production of the accused before the Court for sentencing on February 26, 2024, at 10.15 am. The acquittal of other accused was also confirmed today.
T P Chandrasekharan, who was a member of the Communist Party of India, Marxist, [CPI (M)] formed a new political party called the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). According to the prosecution case, to wreck vengeance for the loss of the C.P.I (M) candidate at the Vatakara constituency in the Lok Sabha election, he was hacked to death on a public road on May 4, 2012.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Case title: Lini v State of Kerala
Justice Sophy Thomas granted custody of the baby to the father for the time being since the mother was still undergoing psychiatric treatment post-delivery due to mental strain. The custody of the child was given to the father based on a report submitted by the Child Welfare Committee.
“The custody of the child will be with the de facto complainant/father and his relatives for the time being. Child Welfare Committee, Palakkad has to supervise the welfare of the child while in the custody of the de facto complainant/father and his relatives and shall file periodic report to the jurisdictional court, once in two months”, stated the Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Case Title: Arifa PK v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to disburse the eligible amount under National Family Benefit Scheme to a woman nearing 60 years age, stating that it is the State's fundamental duty to ensure that citizens are granted their benefits without any delay.
“I am persuaded to issue this direction because, it is conceded unequivocally that the sanction for the said payment has already been authorised,” a single judge bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran said.
The petitioner submitted the plea after failing to receive the amount under the scheme.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Case title: Kuttiyali v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court has directed the government to constitute a High Level Committee, chaired by the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department, along with experts from the fields of Geology, Hydrology, Agriculture and Disaster Management to make recommendations and offer relief to the victims of the Kavalappara landslide. The Court stated that the High Level Committee would be constituted within two months.
The residents of Kavalappara village approached the High Court seeking restoration of their land to its original position for resuming agricultural operations or seeking compensation for agriculture losses due to the landslide in 2019.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that residents of the village would be heard by the High Level Committee and they would make a recommendation to the government regarding the restoration of lands or disbursement of adequate compensation.
Yoga And Meditation Charges Are Subjected To Tax Under Kerala Tax On Luxuries Act: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
Case Title: Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd Versus State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court has held that yoga and meditation charges are subjected to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath has upheld the tribunal's ruling in which the tribunal differentiated between the incomes, allowing certain deductions for the cost of medicines and professional charges related to ayurvedic treatments while including yoga and meditation charges and miscellaneous income in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal's ruling was primarily based on the definitions and exclusions specified under Section 4(2)(e) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Case title: T.D.Sreejakumari v Union Bank Of India
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan remarked that Kerala has the highest literacy rate and that most youngsters in Kerala in the new generation would at least have the qualification of 10th standard. The bench also found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before concluding that she was guilty of charges alleged against her.
Relying upon the Apex Court decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderbad and others v. B. Karunakar and others (1993), the Court stated that it was illegal to deny an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to deny the charges levelled against her.
“From the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding recorded in the enquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defense against the charges and it is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right. The law laid down in this regard should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non Government, Public or private. This will be the case even if there are rules governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject”, stated the Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Case Title: The State of Kerala & ors. v. K Aravindakshan Pillai
The Kerala High Court has recently criticized the conduct of government officials in conducting litigation on time, and requested the government to consider the enactment of legislation to prevent delays in litigation due to the same.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen noted the consequences of delays on the part of state officials in conducting litigations in a timely manner.
The court criticized the negligent attitude of the authorities and stated that“there should be some effective mechanism to realize the loss caused to the Government due to inaction and dereliction by the officials.”
"Such instances noted with extreme displeasure, utmost anxiety and seriousness and there should be some effective mechanism to realize the loss caused to the Government due to inaction and dereliction by the officials. Therefore, the appropriate Governments are hereby requested to consider enactment of an exhaustive legislation to deal with this menace", it held.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
Case title: Johny Kunnumpurath House V State of Kerala
Justice G Girish relying upon various Apex Court decisions stated thus:
“Though it would be unsafe and improper to decide an issue regarding disputed handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, etc., solely on the basis of the conclusions arrived by the court, by resorting to a comparison of the records on its own accord invoking Section 73 of the Evidence Act, in cases where there are other supportive evidence pointing to such conclusions it is well within the ambit of power of the court to decide the case on the basis of the exercise undertaken by it in that regard as well.”
The petitioner's wife was a captain in the Indian Army who met with an unnatural death. The allegation against the petitioner was that he forged a succession certificate and documents to obtain the insurance amount and other benefits of the deceased wife.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
The minor was found lying unconscious in the bathroom of her house in the police quarters on March 29, 2023. While undergoing treatment, she died on May 1, 2023. The FIR No. 344/2023 was registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 174 CrPC. Upon post-mortem, it was found that death was due to intracranial haemorrhage. However, it also revealed that the victim was subjected to continuous sexual abuse through vaginal and anal penetrations.
Based on the post-mortem report, another Crime No.377 of 2023 was registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 376DA (punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age), 376E (punishment for repeat offenders) and 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC and POCSO Act. Considering the heinous nature of the offences, the investigation was carried out later on by the District Crime Branch.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Case title: Greeshma @ Sreekutty v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.
The Kerala High Court stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch heading a special investigating team that was specifically entrusted with the investigation of a crime is competent to file the final report under Section 173 CrPC.
The issue before the Court was whether the head of a Special Investigation Team, constituted to investigate a crime, not being the officer-in-charge of the police station could file a final report under section 173 CrPC.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the District Crime Branch was a specialized district-level investigative wing that aids with investigating crimes of a sensational nature at the district level. Relying upon the Apex Court decision in State of Bihar and Another v. Lalu Singh (2014), the Court stated thus:
“…it is evident that the head of the investigation team, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the District Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural and who was specifically entrusted to conduct the investigation and to ensure the filing of the final report by the District Police Chief was competent to file the final report, being an officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
Case Title: KK Krishnan v. State of Kerala & ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that prosecution for perjury can be maintained against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, adding that as offences enumerated under Section 195 CrPC are intricately connected with the administration of justice, it is imperative that they be determined by the courts itself.
Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
Case Title: MP Chothy v. Anilkumar & anr.
The Kerala High Court recently rejected a plea under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, stating that unless the obstruction or annoyance was committed by the accused while the petitioner was exercising any right that accrues to him because of the abolition of untouchability, section 7(1)(b) of the Act would not be attracted.
“A mere obstruction or annoyance to a person cannot give rise to the said offence” stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
The court was hearing a plea where the petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was challenging the refusal of the Magistrate to take cognizance of certain offences that were part of the complaint before the magistrate.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
Case title: K Mohandas v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has stated that encroachers of government land are not entitled to any equity and there is no public interest to assign a property when there is an admitted encroachment. It stated that even if the encroachment was decades back, the state should work to repossess the land unless there is any legal impediment to it.
The petitioners are social workers from the landless tribal community in Wayanad district and have approached the Court seeking direction to the government for facilitating the allocation of residential and agricultural lands to tribal families of Wayanad.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Case title: State of Kerala v Sudheer Kumar
The Kerala High Court had upheld the decree of compensation granted to a man who got injured in an explosive attack before the Sub Jail. It observed that the State has a reasonable duty to take necessary precautions when notorious criminals involved in gang rivalry are brought into or taken out of jail.
The State had preferred an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court granting five lakh rupees as compensation to the plaintiff who suffered fifty per cent disability in an explosion at the Attakulangara Sub Jail.
[Actor Assault Case] Kerala High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Dileep's Bail
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Case Title: State of Kerala v. P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep
The Kerala High Court has rejected a plea by the Crime Branch seeking to cancel the bail granted to actor Dileep who is an accused in the abduction and sexual assault case of an actress.
A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas stated that the “trial court has made some observations and findings in their order which may tend to appear that the learned judges made up their mind as to the destruction of evidence and influencing, threatening the witnesses etc. alleged by prosecution”.
“It is clarified that the findings and observations made in the trial court in their order as only for the purpose of disposal of criminal appeal and it shall not affect appreciation of evidence in SC 118/2018 (main case)” added the court.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Case Title: Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper lies with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumarhas held the decision in Brenda Barbara Francis v. Adrian Miranda 'Halcyon' Pakkattuvila, Kunnukuzhi (2016) to be per incuriam, observing that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper is with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
The bench also noted that the appellate court shall retain the original final decree that is engrossed on the stamp paper which shall form part of the records and only copies shall be provided to the parties.
“The dictum laid down in Brenda Barbara Francis that the original of the final decree shall be given to such person on his making an application is in direct conflict with the provision of Rule 237 of the Civil Rules Practice” said the court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Case title: Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that mere negligence unaccompanied by moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner during the profession would not amount to professional misconduct warranting conviction.
While setting aside the order of the Special Judge and allowing the discharge, Justice K Babu stated thus:
“While considering the question of negligence on the part of a lawyer while giving legal opinion in a case where an offence under Section 109 read with Section 420 of IPC was charged against the lawyer in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao (supra) the Supreme Court following P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, [(1984) 2 SCC 556] held that there is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct. The Supreme Court added that at the most, the lawyer may be liable for negligence if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offences under Sections 420 and 109 IPC.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Case title: State of Kerala v Kool Foam Pvt Ltd. & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court has stated that the maximum time period for filing an appeal against an award as per Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) is 120 days.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen while declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal after the maximum time period referred to an order passed by the Karnataka High Court and stated thus:
“Beyond 120 days, no appeal is entertainable by the High Court and there is no power to condone delay.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Case title: Swapna Prabha Suresh v State of Kerala
Justice Viju Abraham closed the bail pleas after recording the submission of Public Prosecutor that investigations are going on and there is no intention to arrest Swapna Suresh. She is however required to cooperate in the investigation.
The Counsel for the petitioner-Swapna submitted that she was ready to duly co-operate with the investigation.
Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the infamous gold smuggling case, had alleged that several persons in the administrative higher-ups, including the Chief Minister, his wife, his daughter, K.T Jaleel and many others, were linked to smuggling activities.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Case title: Ramseena S v State of Kerala
A second habeas corpus writ was filed by the petitioner-wife of detenu before the High Court challenging the very same detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 stating that there was no bar in filing successive habeas on fresh grounds.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated thus:
“...in habeas of simpliciter, the successive writ petition is possible, and judicial practice only discourages fresh writ petitions being brought before the Court as more as a vexatious attempt to redo what the Court already refused. However, relief of habeas sought based on the challenge against detention order stands differently. The essential challenge in that process is against the detention order though ultimate relief is granted, by way of habeas corpus. If the substantial challenge is against the detention order, the very same Court cannot entertain writ petition, even if new grounds have been raised as the Court is precluded from reopening its judgment challenging the validity of detention order which has become final.”
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Case Title: Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Travancore Dewaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayali Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi(chief priest) of Sabarimala-Malikappuram temples.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar rejected the petitioners' argument that the conditions stipulated in the notification would not amount to "untouchability" and violated Article 17 of the Constitution.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Case Title: Pradeep B v. The District Drug Disposal Committee and ors.
The Kerala High Court has stated that a Special Court under the NDPS Act can grant interim custody under Section 457 of the CrPC of vehicles that have been seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
“Leaving the seized vehicle idle and exposed to sun, rain and the vagaries of nature till the completion of the legal formalities, will only result in deterioration of the vehicle and its value” observed the court.
A bench constituting of Justices A Muhammed Mustaque, Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen was reviewing the decision in Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and Others (2019), in which a Division Bench of this Court had held that a Special Court does not have the power to consider grant of release of vehicles under the NDPS Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Case title: Vishnunaryanan v The Secretary & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the notification issued by the Devaswom Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2017-18, 2021-22 for appointment of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom. The challenge was against the eligibility criteria given in the notifications that the applicant shall only be a 'Malayala Brahmin'.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar relying upon the Apex Court decision in Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1985), Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) stated that Archakas are temple priests who perform essential poojas or ceremonies (Agamas) and it was considered as integral and essential religious practise protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Case Title: National Cadet Corps v Hina Haneefa @ Muhammed Ashif Ali N
The Kerala High Court has permitted a transgender woman student to participate in the selection for enrollment to the National Cadet Corp, in the female category.
Section 6 of The National Cadet Crops Act, 1948 only permits enrollment in the male and female category and does not extend to the transgender community.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha stated that they are hopeful and confident that the Central Government would amend Section 6 of the NCC Act to include transgender community since the Constitutional Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a law.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Case title: Fr Edwin Pigarez V State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a vicar for rape and sexual assault of a minor girl in his parish but has reduced the sentence imposed upon him by the Special Court from life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to rigorous imprisonment of twenty years without remission.
“No doubt, rape is a crime which has a severe effect on women and the society...It is an infringement of a person's right to live a dignified life. At the same time, the court cannot ignore the basic principle of sentencing viz, that the sentence imposed should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances...we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence imposed on the first accused for the offence of rape, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years, instead of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life imposed by the Special Court”, stated the Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Case title: Fr Edwin Pigarez V State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a vicar for rape and sexual assault of a minor girl in his parish but has reduced the sentence imposed upon him by the Special Court from life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to rigorous imprisonment of twenty years without remission.
“No doubt, rape is a crime which has a severe effect on women and the society...It is an infringement of a person's right to live a dignified life. At the same time, the court cannot ignore the basic principle of sentencing viz, that the sentence imposed should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances...we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence imposed on the first accused for the offence of rape, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years, instead of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life imposed by the Special Court”, stated the Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Case title: Ahammedkutty Bran v Sukumaran
The Kerala High Court has recently decided a question on whether a buyer is entitled to a charged decree on the plaint schedule property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act when both the plaintiff (buyer) and defendant (seller) have failed to perform the agreement for the sale of a property after the buyer already paying advance sale consideration.
Section 55 of the TP Act describes the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller. The charge was provided under Section 55(6)(b) which reads: “The buyer is entitled— unless he has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property, to a charge on the property, as against the seller and all persons claiming under him, to the extent of the seller's interest in the property, for the amount of any purchase- money properly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the delivery and for interest on such amount; and, when he properly declines to accept the delivery, also for the earnest (if any) and for the costs (if any) awarded to him of a suit to compel specific performance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Case title: B. v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has upheld the punishment imposed by the Special Court on a stepfather for brutally raping his minor daughter and later threatening and intimidating her by attempting to pour acid in her mouth.
It stated that the minor girl who belonged to a socially and economically backward tribal community who was raped by her stepfather should be adequately compensated under the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme. The Court thus directed the Kerala Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) to pay an amount of rupees five lakh as compensation to the minor victim.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath while upholding the punishment imposed by the Special Court stated thus:
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Case title: Manuja Mythri v Advocate T K Ajan
Justice Sophy Thomas while setting aside the summons stated that criminal courts have to be careful in taking cognizance and issuing summons since criminal proceedings could be used as a weapon of harassment or retaliation.
“Taking cognizance and issuing summons to a person as accused in a criminal case is a serious matter affecting his dignity, self respect and image in the society. So, criminal courts have to be careful while taking cognizance and issuing summons to an accused, as we often see criminal proceedings are being resorted to as a weapon of harassment or retaliation.”
The respondent, an advocate filed a defamation case against the petitioner under Section 500 of the IPC. The petitioner has thus approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Karunagapally wherein a summons was issued to her under Section 204 CrPC.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
Case title: Dr.Navaneeth K.Unni v State Represented By Public Prosecutor
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC have to be used for quashing the complaint to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
“While considering the question whether the power under Section 482 should be exercised or not, the Court must always be guided by the principles laid down in the provision itself i.e, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, this Court is satisfied that both those parameters are satisfied. The complaint is required to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of Court and also to secure the ends of justice.”
The Court reached the above conclusion relying upon the decision in Priyanka Mishra v. State of Kerala (2023), wherein it was held that “accused should be protected against vexations and unwanted criminal prosecution and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Kuniyil Shanoob and ors
The Kerala High Court has acquitted all but one accused in CPM leader P Jayarajan's attempt to murder case. While the court did find the second accused to be guilty, the sentence was commuted.
A single judge bench of Justice P. Somarajan heard the matter.
"There is failure on the part of the prosecution to show and prove the involvement of accused No.1 and 3 to 9 in the alleged commission of offense,” stated the court while ordering the acquittal.
It observed that the recovery of the alleged weapon used in the commission of offense would not give any corroboration as to the involvement of accused No.1 and 3 to 9 simply on the reason that recovery was effected through accused No.2 and not through any other accused.
Citation Number: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Case Title: Manoj v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal challenging conviction under Section 20 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, (NDPS Act) for non-compliance with Section 52 of the Act, which requires police officers to certify the inventory of the seized substances by a magistrate.
A single judge bench of Justice K Babu remarked that “the intention of the legislature by incorporating Section 52A in the NDPS Act is to see that the process of drawing the sample has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate, and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct”.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Case Title: Firos C.A. Versus State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 39 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, empowers the taxing authorities to recover the tax dues from the directors of the private company if the company fails to make payment of the tax.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that when the taxing authorities could not recover the dues from the company, they issued notice for recovery of the said tax dues against the petitioners, who are the directors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Case title: Johny Padikala V P C Hassan
Justice Sathish Ninan stated that the owner could at best be expected to oversee that the business was conducted by the tenant in accordance with the licence deed but could not be made liable for damages to a third party.
“The owner of the premises could not be made liable for any damage that occurred to a third party consequent on the conduct of the business by the occupier of the premises-the second defendant. However, the position would have been different if the entrustment was for the conduct of a business which is not permitted under law.”
The first defendant (owner) is the appellant who was the owner of a building containing shop rooms. He had let out his shop room to the second defendant (tenant) for storing explosive substances.
Kerala High Court Directs Binoy Kodiyeri To File Income Tax Returns For Assessment Years 2015-22
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
Case Title: Binoy Kodiyeri v. The Assistant Commissioner
The Kerala High Court has disposed of the petition filed by Binoy Kodiyeri challenging the assessment orders issued to him by the Income Tax Department for a total of 7 assessment years from 2015-16 to 2021-22.
Binoy Kodiyeri, son of CPM politician Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, had moved a plea before the High Court alleging that the procedure adopted by the IT Department in issuing certain notices to him was illegal. He claimed the notices were issued in violation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act which provides for the re-opening of assessments for only six preceding years.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
Case title: Vaisakh v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail application of an accused whose crime was registered for allegedly possessing narcotics and psychotropic substances in commercial quantity.
In the facts of the case, the police officer searched and seized contraband in from two different zip lock bags from the petitioner and pillion rider, and without drawing a representative sample from both the covers, the contraband was mixed and put in a single cover without the permission of a Magistrate.
Justice C S Dias found that it was mandatory to follow the procedure laid down for drawal, storage, testing and disposal of samples seized as per Section 52 A (procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances) of the NDPS Act and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (seizure, storage, sampling and disposal) Rules, 2022.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Case title: Bipin Sunny v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has warned the imposition of cost to a person who approached the Court for a third time with an anticipatory bail application on the same set of facts.
Justice A Badharudeen stated that the petition was an abuse of the process of the Court and warned of imposition of cost.
“Therefore, the present petition is absolutely an abuse of process of court in the facts of the case discussed and which would deserve dismissal. In fact, imposition of cost also to be considered, but for the time being, I avoid imposition of cost.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
Case title: Shameera S v Secretary To Government
The Kerala High Court stated that ordinary leave granted to a prisoner under a government order could not be denied or withheld by prison authorities citing subsequent events or conduct of the convict.
“Therefore, the circumstances till the date of the said recommendation alone are noticed for the grant of leave. The said leave, once granted, by the Government, cannot be interfered with by the Superintendent of Prisons, that too based on a subsequent event. If such orders of the Government are permitted to be interfered with by subordinate officers, chances of misuse and abuse will occur” stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
Case title: The Commissioner V Nithya R Warriar
The Kerala High Court has observed that mothers can't be compelled to choose between motherhood and employment. It directed the State to take a compassionate approach towards the transfer of single mothers in order to respect the fundamental rights of the parent as well as of the child.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the rights of children who were affected by transfers of single parent or mother were dealt insensitively these days.
“State authorities concerned are bound to deal with the situation in a compassionate manner so as to respect the rights of not only the employee concerned but also that of the child in question in a case like this. If that be so, there may not be any necessity for the court to always urge or admonish the State authorities to behave in a proportionate and reasonable manner in matters affecting fundamental rights and it may be better in the interest of things that the State authorities themselves proactively adopt a compassionate perspective in a case of this nature.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
Case title: T M Irshad v State of Kerala & Connected Case
The Kerala High Court has addressed the issue of human-animal conflict in respect of stray dogs. It stated there was a section of people who demanded the killing of stray dogs and another section of people who were fighting to protect the stray dogs.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that bonafide dog lovers, instead of writing in print and visual media should come forward to help the local government institutions to protect them.
The Court stated that bonafide dog lovers could approach the local authorities with applications for obtaining licences to keep stray dogs in tune with the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules and Kerala Municipality Act.
Ordering 'Pittance Amount' As Maintenance Violates Child's Right To Decent Living: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Case title: Darsana v Sunil
The Kerala High Court has stated that ordering 'pittance' by way of maintenance amount violates the right of a child to a decent living. It stated that Courts while ordering maintenance for children should be more cautious to ensure that the amount ordered would be sufficient to meet both ends together.
Justice P. Somarajan observed that a child cannot be left at the mercy of the father and has a valuable and substantive right to get maintenance which would meet the educational, medical and other expenses.
“Right to get maintenance to a child born in the wedlock from the father is a substantive right, for which, the child cannot be termed as at the mercy of her father. But, it is her valuable right and the father is bound to maintain the child. It should reflect the amount required for the maintenance of the child inclusive of educational expenses, medical expenses and all other expenses connected with the livelihood”, stated the Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Case Title: Ashish AS v. Union of India and ors.
The Kerala High Court has closed a plea challenging the naming of a youth college festival to be held in the State as 'Intifiada.'
The plea challenging the naming of the youth festival has been closed in light of the direction of the Vice Chancellor to remove the word 'Intifada' from all banners, posters etc.
“In light of the above note, the prayers in the writ petition are infructuous”said Justice PV Kunhikrishnan.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
Case title: Khalid v State of Kerala
Justice Sophy Thomas stated that a plea of alibi can be used as a shield not as a sword.
“In a plea of alibi, it is the burden of the accused to prove with absolute certainty that the presence of the accused at the scene of crime at the time of occurrence was rather an impossibility. He has to adduce positive evidence to prove the plea of alibi, and that opportunity arises only when prosecution discharges its burden to prove the incident, and the participation of the accused in that incident. Plea of alibi is a defence available for the accused, when prosecution establishes the case against him. Hence it has to be used as a shield, and not as a sword. So a plea of alibi taken by the accused need not be entertained, till prosecution establishes its case satisfactorily. Therefore the plea of alibi cannot be entertained, before prosecution is given an opportunity to establish its case.”
The petitioner was the sole accused and was alleged that he sexually assaulted 11 year old minor girl who was his close relative and was facing charges under Sections 376AB (punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age), 376(2)(n) (punishment for committing rape repeatedly on same woman) of IPC and under the POCSO Act. He has approached the High Court to quash the final report and proceedings against him on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Pattambi.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Case Title: Greeshma Viji v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam
The Kerala High Court today observed that it ought to be considered an honour to be appointed as an advocate commissioner as opposed to merely being employed for monetary remuneration.
“Commissioner is not a job, it is not employment, it is a privilege given by the court” observed the court.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a plea moved by a lawyer practising in Kottayam whose name had been struck off the list of lawyers who could be appointed as commissioners merely because she asked for her allowance (batta) to be increased.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
Case Title: Jayakumar and ors. v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court has stated that Unit Run Canteens do not come within the definition of 'state' as provided under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
“Merely because the Unit Run Canteens works under the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) and the CSD are founded by the consolidated fund of India, it cannot be said that the Unit Run Canteens is directly controlled and financed by the Government of India, they have an independent stand and are working on separate SOPs, issued from time to time” observed Justice Basant Balaji.
The court was hearing a petition by the employees of a Unit Run Canteen functioning in Pangode Army Headquarters challenging an order to replace these employees with contract workers.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Case Title: Isahack v. Mini and ors.
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is not feasible to have documentary evidence in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, in a plea challenging the maintainability of a petition before the family court.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that “in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, especially when it occurred during the period in which they were in cordial terms and most probably at the time of marriage or immediately before the marriage, usually there will be no documents to prove the same”.
The petitioner had challenged an original petition filed by his daughter (1st respondent) on the ground that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The respondent had filed a plea before the family court to assign the scheduled property in her favor in lieu of the money and gold belonging to her that was entrusted to the petitioner.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
Case title: Sreejith M B V State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court directed the Aluva Municipality to provide an undertaking before the Court that the temporary amusement park at Aluva Shivaratri Manappuram shall be established and operated only in strict compliance with the law.
“There can be little doubt that any Amusement Park - be that temporary or permanent - will have to adhere to every requirement in law, particularly safety criteria, because if any mishap is to happen, it would have a cataclysmic effect, especially when it is common knowledge that large number of devotees and others would throng the festival.” stated Justice Devan Ramachandran
The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking Aluva Municipality to prohibit the operation of a temporary Amusement Park at Aluva Shivaratri Manappuram without required clearances, permissions, and approvals from competent officials.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
Case title: Gokul Raj v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has considered the extent to which an advocate has the right to seek an adjournment of trial at his or her convenience. Justice A. Badharudeen stated that due to unnecessary adjournment of cases, justice had been denied to real aggrieved persons. It further stated that time-bound disposal of cases was not taking place due to unnecessary adjournments.
“Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the Court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts”, stated the Court.
The Court added that judges were unable to distinguish between genuine requests made by lawyers who were really suffering from illnesses since some lawyers use illness as a ground to seek unnecessary adjournments even after the case was posted for final hearing.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Case title: Sebastian Jacob v The Transport Commissioner
The Kerala High Court stated that a person who wants to renew his driving licence after one year of its expiry has to undergo a mandatory test of competence to drive under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court reasoned that the Motor Vehicles Act underwent comprehensive amendments with effect from November 2019, adding that Section 15 (3) was amended to include the test of competency to drive for renewal of a driving licence if it was submitted after one year of expiry of the licence.
“Indeed there is certain incongruity between Clause (a)(i) to the proviso to Section 9(3) and the 2nd proviso to Section 15(4). But, as far as renewal of Driving Licences is concerned, we have to hold that if application for renewal of Driving Licence is made after one year of the period of previous licence, one has to undergo the test of competence to drive”, stated the Court.
The Court further stated two reasons for the petitioner to undergo the test of competence to drive. The first reason was that he applied for renewal of his driving license under Section 15 of the Act, so he should satisfy the requirement under proviso to Section 15 (4) which mandates a test of competence to drive after the expiry of one year of previous driving licence. The second reason was that as per the 2019 amendment, the legislature intended to include a test of competence to drive for renewal of the driving licence.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Case Title: Shamnad N and ors. v. The Corporation of Thrissur Through Secretary and anr.
The Kerala High Court has closed a plea challenging an eviction order of the Thrissur Corporation, holding that the petitioners would fall under the definition of 'street vendors' as per Section 2 of the Street Vendors Act 2014 and as such, they are empowered to make an application in writing to the committee constituted under Section 20.
The court stated that the petitioners may approach the committee constituted in the Thrissur Corporation for the redressal of their grievances.
“There is a specific grievance redressal mechanism under the Act. I will direct you to approach that mechanism, I will grant you some time” said Justice N Nagaresh.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Case Title: Dr. M. Ganeshkumar v. State of Kerala and ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that a nativity clause which disqualifies non-resident medical officers from applying under the service quota of the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post Graduate Courses Under Service Quota Act is invalid and unconstitutional, adding that the State cannot include any clause in the prospectus that prevents a medical officer under the Act from being considered under any service quota for admission to the Medical Post Graduate Degree Courses based on nativity alone.
“The nativity clause in the instant case discriminates between persons born in the state of Kerala and those born outside the State, and such discrimination falls foul of Article 15(1) of the Constitution” observed the Justice Mohammed Nias.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
Case title: Mary Mohan Chacko V Inspector General
The Kerala High Court has stated that the Registration Act grants power to the registration authorities to a will to cancel a registered deed only in case of false impersonation.
On analysing Section 83A of the Registration Act, Justice Viju Abraham stated that registered documents could be cancelled by registration authorities only on grounds of false impersonation for executing a will.
“Going by Section 83A, a registered document could be cancelled by the registration authorities, ie., Inspector General of Registration only on finding that someone has falsely personated another, and in such assumed character presented, admitted the execution and got registered any document by a registering officer and the existence of such a document is detrimental to the interest of another person”, stated the Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Case title: SATHEESHKUMAR @ KARI SATHEESH v CBI
The Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed upon the second accused -Satheeshkumar alias Kari Satheesh in the Paul Muthoot Murder case. The Court upheld his conviction under Section 302 IPC (punishment for murder) on the finding that it was the second accused who inflicted stab injuries causing the death of the deceased.
The second accused approached the High Court challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the second accused for offences punishable under Sections 144, 148 and 302 of the IPC and Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 506 Part II read with Section 149 IPC.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
Case title: P V Nandakumar v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has held that an employee can approach the High Court to claim interest on delayed payment of his Retirement benefits in cases where no adverse liability is fixed on him by the employer.
An employee of the Kerala Water Authority had approached the High Court in a writ appeal seeking interest on the delayed payment of his retirement benefits.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar stated that the writ petition of the appellant should not have been rejected by directing the appellant to approach other authorities or to file a suit for realisation of interest on delayed payment through a Civil Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Case title: NATAK v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court stated that intolerance was anathema in matters relating to creativity and artistic expression when different persons have different perceptions of creativity. It further stated that creative discretion and liberties will have to be judged from the angle of impact that it will have on the general public.
The petitioner's theatre organisation has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the order of a Sub Divisional Magistrate directing them to alter the name of their drama called as 'Governorum Thoppiyum' on the misunderstanding that it was made as a reference to the Governor of Kerala.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Case Title: Stephen v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court in a recent POCSO matter rejected the appeal of an accused who was convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his nine-year-old daughter.
The Court also rejected the argument of the accused that the sentence imposed of 5 years under the POCSO Act, and 1 year under the IPC, was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
A division bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and Johnson John reasoned that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as the accused was the biological father of the 9-year-old victim.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
Case title: Ajmal K V v Union Bank of India & Connected Case
The Kerala High Court has held that auction purchasers cannot say that banks cannot enter into a one-time settlement facility with the borrowers and cancel the auction sale until the sale was conformed in their favour.
Justice N Nagaresh stated that the auction purchasers do not acquire any right or interest over the mortgaged properties as long as the auction sale was confirmed and sale certificates were issued in their favour.
"It is true that the right of redemption is available to the borrowers will stand extinguished upon publication of notice of auction. However, that will not prevent the parties to a loan agreement from entering into a One Time Settlement. As long as the sale of the mortgaged assets is not confirmed in favour of the auction purchasers and as long as the Sale Certificates are not issued, the auction purchasers cannot be heard to contend that the Bank should not enter into a One Time Settlement with the borrowers"
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Case Title: Rahiya v. Jasna and ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that a complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot rely on the presumption that the holder of a negotiable instrument has paid consideration for it when his claim is inconsistent.
It upheld the acquittal of the accused upon noting that the complainant in the present case had failed to prove that the cheque had been issued in lieu of legally enforceable debt when called upon to do so by the trial court, due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the consideration for the negotiable instrument.
“The accused could discharge her initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was doubtful. The onus now shifted to the complainant, who is obliged to prove it as a matter of fact” observed Justice K Babu.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
Case Title: Suhaib @ Kullappi Kakka v. State of Kerala and ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that any person regardless of gender and age can be an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
It thus refused to quash the proceedings pending under the Act against a minor. The bench of Justice PG Ajithkumar however clarified that the minor cannot be tried in an ordinary criminal court but can only be dealt under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
“'Penetrative sexual assault' and 'sexual assault' and its aggravated forms are defined in Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the PoCSO Act. A reading of those definitions and the corresponding penal provisions indicate that any person irrespective of gender and age can be a person accused of such offences, of course, subject to the general exceptions in the IPC” observed .
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Case title: Dr.Ruwise E.A V The Principal Govt. Medical College
The Kerala High Court has permitted Dr Ruwais, who is booked for abetting the suicide of his girlfriend Dr Shahana by backing out of their marriage in demand of exorbitant dowry, to re-join his post-graduate studies.
Ruwais was charged with the offences under Section 306 IPC ('Abetment of Suicide') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('Penalty for demanding dowry'). When the incident came to light, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) suspended Ruwais' medical license. He is currently released on bail.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
Case Title: Navas PK v. State of Kerala and ors.
The Kerala High Court recently held that a look out notice under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 cannot be challenged without a challenge to the detention order
“We note that a look out notice is a part of consequential proceedings. It cannot be subject to challenge” observed Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen.
A look out notice was issued against the petitioner under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the notice without challenging the detention order.
Case Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
The Kerala High Court upheld the judgement passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the parties in a joint petition filed for divorce, even though the wife withdrew her consent for filing the divorce.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar stated that the Family Court dissolved the marriage by relying upon the decision in Benny v. Mini (2021) and the Bombay High Court judgment in Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari (2011). The Court stated that one party cannot unilaterally withdraw from the terms of settlement entered through a mediation agreement after the other party has performed their part of the settlement terms.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, the Court stated that,
“Several litigations are pending between the parties before various courts including petition for divorce, custody of child and patrimony. All those cases were settled in mediation and the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce, received part payment, disposed of the pending cases and thereafter at the final stage when the case was taken up for evidence to record the consent of the parties, the appellant withdrew her consent.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
Case title: Santhosh @ Chandu v State
The Kerala High Court has upheld a conviction order passed by the Trial Court despite the misjoinder of charges, stating there was no failure of justice.
Justice P G Ajithkumar said no prejudice was caused to the accused and separate evidence was brought before the Court to prove separate charges. It stated that the accused was given ample opportunity to challenge the evidence presented before the Court and there was no failure of justice, despite misjoinder of charges.
“From the nature of evidence let in by the prosecution, which is adverted to above, it is quite clear that separate evidence was brought in concerning each head of the charges. No occasion resulting in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the appellant is pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am convinced that there occurred no failure of justice on account of such a misjoinder of charge. The appellant obtained enough opportunity to challenge the evidence of each witness and there was no overlapping or mixing up of facts. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is quite legal; in spite of such a misjoinder of charges. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction.”
The appellant was the sole accused and was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 354 (assault or criminal force to assault modesty of woman) and 448 (punishment for house trespass) of the IPC.
Case title: The Manager v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
The Kerala High Court stated that there was no break in service merely because the initial appointment was made in leave vacancy followed by an appointment in regular vacancy.
The dispute in the writ appeal was in connection with the appointment of a teacher (5th respondent) as headmistress in an aided school.
Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen dismissed the appeal filed by the Manager of the school and other teachers who were appointed as headmistress stated that the 5th respondent was eligible to be appointed as headmistress since she served without any break for 12 years even though her initial appointment was made in a leave vacancy.
Case title: Sudha V Mohan v The Authorized Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
The Kerala High Court took a humanitarian approach by directing the bank officials to defer coercive proceedings against the petitioner's husband and his assets, who is now in a vegetative state.
The court has also directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer to decide to grant limited guardianship under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to the petitioner-wife for disposing of her husband's property for clearing his liabilities.
Justice N Nagaresh stated that a humanitarian approach has to be taken since the petitioner's husband is now in a comatose state under the care of his wife and children.
Prima Facie Offence Not Attracted: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail ToTwo Accused In Kerala University Arts Festival Bribery Scandal
Case Title: Jomet and ors. v. State of Kerala and anr.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
The Kerala High Court recently allowed the anticipatory bail application of the two accused in the cheating scandal at the Kerala University Arts Festival, stating that prima facie the offences alleged are not attracted against them.
“On an appreciation of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record and the findings rendered above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the offence attributed against the petitioners may not be attracted. Furthermore, I find that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is unnecessary,” observed Justice CS Dias while allowing the bail application.
Case Title: Dr. Laxmy Rajmohan and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition challenging clause 6 of the Kerala Medico-Legal Protocol for Examination of Survivors of Sexual Offences 2019 which mandates that gynaecologists be the sole specialists to conduct medical examination of survivors of sexual offence.
The court accepted the respondent's arguments and noted that the amendment applies to only one category of sexual assault survivors which is woman/child survivors of vaginal penetrative sexual assault.
"In the case of a woman or a girl, they're trying to give the best possible care" remarked Justice Devan Ramachandran orally.
Case title: Anilkumar V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
The Kerala High Court stated that a person cannot be convicted for an offence of house trespass if the 'property in question' was under his joint possession. It stated that the entry of the offender into a property which is in his joint possession cannot be termed unlawful and cannot be termed as criminal trespass.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath, partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused under Section 449 IPC and confirmed his murder conviction.
Case Title: N Prakash v P Jayarajan and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
The Kerala High Court today disposed of a plea filed over allegedly "derogatory" Facebook post made by CPI(M) Leader P Jayarajan in relation to the proceedings emanating from an attack on the leader in 1999.
Upset with the manner in which his case was dealt with by the single judge, Jayarajan purportedly said people should react against such "worms" in the judiciary.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said it is for the Registrar General to take action and a judicial order need not be issued. “There can be little doubt that the Registrar General is vested with certain powers under the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971 and this Court feels and finds no reason to believe that he would not exercise it as per law taking note of all relevant and germane aspects. In such perspective, I do not think that this court is to direct the Registrar General to act in a particular manner because it is up to him statutorily to take action as per the legislative scheme. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition, however, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to move before the Registrar General appropriately for which purpose all contentions are also left open.”
Case title: Gware Margret Sebina v Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
The Kerala High Court has permitted a Kenyan woman, who is jailed pending trial in Women's Jail and Correction Home at Viyyur, to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
Justice Devan Ramachandran relied upon the report submitted by a Medical Board to state that there was no difficulty in allowing medical termination of pregnancy when the pregnancy was only 14 weeks old and within the statutory limits prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
Case title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
The Kerala High Court has held that a woman can claim a 'change of circumstances' for seeking medical termination of pregnancy during pending divorce proceedings.
The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran reasoned that 'marital status' cannot be construed as merely de jure (a legal construction) in the context of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and it has to be seen de facto since there may be situations where a woman, though married, may effectively be without any benefits of marriage.
Case title: The Principal & Others v Dr. Ruwise E A & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
The Kerala High Court today set aside the interim order issued in favour of Dr Ruwais, accused of abetting the suicide of his girlfriend Dr Shahana by backing out of their marriage in demand of exorbitant dowry, which permitted him to re-join his post-graduate studies.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun set aside the interim order passed by the Single judge because the college authorities were not given sufficient time to produce documents and plead their case before the Court.
Bulk Possession Would Lead To Irresistible Conclusion Of Trafficking Counterfeit Currency Notes Punishable U/S 489B IPC: Kerala High Court
Case title: MD. Kamirul Islam v CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
The Kerala High Court has held that possession of a bulk quantity of counterfeit currency notes without an explanation would only lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused had an object of trafficking counterfeit currency notes and not merely using it.
“The appellants and their companion children were in possession of 139 notes of 1000 rupee and 168 notes of 500 rupee denominations. One among them was proved to have attempted to transact a 1000 rupee counterfeit note. The appellants came to Kerala and stayed in lodges and they are Hindi speaking persons. They did not offer any explanation for the possession of such a quantity of counterfeit currency notes. In such circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that they carried and possessed the counterfeit currency notes with the object of transacting the same amounting to trafficking of counterfeit currency notes, and not merely possession with intent to use”, stated Justice P G Ajithkumar.
Case title: Vineeth V V v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an inquiry report issued under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act and rules made thereunder against an Assistant Engineer who was working in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), citing violation of principles of natural justice.
Quashing the inquiry report, Justice Basant Balaji stated thus: “The entire proceedings shall be completed in accordance with law strictly following the principles of natural justice and Rule 7 of the POSH Rules after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as well, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Procedure U/S 148A Need Not Be Complied With Before Issuing Reassessment Notices: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muhammed C K Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
The Kerala High Court has held that the procedure contemplated by the provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, need not be complied with before issuing notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that when an item or cash, as in this case, is produced before a Criminal Court, then it is not open to the Income Tax Department to issue a notice under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act, to the Court in question. Once the item is produced before the Court in connection with any criminal case registered by the Police or any other law enforcement agency, an application for release of the same or for giving custody of the same to the Income Tax Department can only be in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and specifically Section 451 Cr.P.C. It does not take away from the fact that the department initiated proceedings under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to requisition the amount from the station house officer.
Case Title: Rajachandrasekharan @ Babu v. State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption under Section 8 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act regarding knowledge of accused about victim's caste or tribal identity is applicable, if the victim is the wife of the accused.
Section 8(c) says there is a presumption that the accused would be aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity if they were previously acquainted with the victim. “The victim herein is none other than the wife of the appellant...Hence, the presumption under Section 8 could very well be drawn” observed Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath.
Case name: Dr. Radhika Kapahtia v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
The Kerala High Court has held that ordinary quarrels in marital life without any overt act or instigation that would stimulate or prod the deceased to commit suicide would not attract an offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
Quashing the criminal proceedings against the wife, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that other than ordinary quarrels between the spouses, there was no instigation by the wife to commit suicide.
Case Title: Rajesh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi and ors
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
The Kerala High Court has stated that a burial in a stranger's property without their express consent can be construed as an abandonment of that body and thereby, the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial of Unclaimed Corpses and Carcasses) Rules, 1996 can be invoked in such cases.
“In my opinion, by his refusal to remove the corpse even after it becoming evident that the body was buried in a stranger's property, the son had virtually abandoned the body of his mother, making it akin to an unclaimed corpse” observed Justice V G Arun
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Former Government Pleader In Sexual Assault Case
Case Name: PG Manu v. State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to PG Manu, a former senior government pleader who practiced before the High Court and who was arrested on allegations of subjecting a client to rape.
However, Justice Sophy Thomas pointed to the seriousness of the offence alleged and observed, "The fact that the petitioner was a senior government pleader of this Court and that he sexually exploited a hapless lady who approached him to settle a case which was registered at her instance is a serious hing to be taken note of. The petitioner who was in a position to dominate the will of the victim sexually exploited her and committed rape and sent obscene videos to her continuously.”
Criminal Courts Not Recovery Courts, Quantum Of Bond Can't Depend On Amount Involved In Criminal Cases: Kerala High Court
Case title: Renjith Kumar V K v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
The Kerala High Court stated that the right to be enlarged on bail is an indefeasible part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied by imposing stringent or unreasonable conditions.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that excessive bond amounts cannot be imposed for denying bail since bail bonds only intend to secure the presence of the accused before the court. It stated that the amount fixed in bail bonds does not determine the sufficiency of surety and does not depend on the amount involved in criminal cases.
Case title: YYY v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
The Kerala High Court stated that an accused was not entitled to bail merely because the Trial Court failed to frame charges within a stipulated time. In the facts of the case, the High Court had dismissed the earlier bail application of the accused with a direction to the Trial Court to frame charges within one month and to dispose of the case within six months thereafter.
Justice Sophy Thomas stated that the accused was not entitled to bail since there were concurrent findings against him. It stated that the accused will have to face the trial as an under-trial prisoner due to the nature and gravity of the alleged offences against him.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
Case title: K Venugopal Nair v Manager, Canara Bank
The Kerala High Court directed the Trans Union CIBIL Ltd, a credit rating agency, to ensure that the requisite Credit Rating was given to the petitioner since he had no subsisting loans and the earlier loan account had been fully closed.
The petitioner approached the High Court to restore his Credit Rating despite no subsisting loans pending. His Credit Rating remained very low despite no subsisting loans.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed Trans Union Cibil Limited to consider the reports submitted by the Canara Bank regarding the closure of the loan account and to take a decision on the Credit Rating of the petitioner within three weeks. Further, the Court directed the Trans Union Cibil Limited to ensure the petitioner was given sufficient Credit Rating.
“The third respondent will ensure that the requisite “Credit Rating” is given to the petitioner and reflected in the online portal within the afore time frames", said the Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
Case title: Dr Abdul Rasheed V State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Vigilance Manual is not a statute and was not enacted by the legislature. Thus, it held that mere non-compliance with the Vigilance Manual's directions for investigating officers would not vitiate an investigation.
The petitioner was an Assistant Surgeon at Kerala Health Services and was alleged to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He alleged that the investigation was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) without complying with the directions of the Vigilance Manual.
Justice K Babu stated that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner due to non-compliance with Vigilance Manual directions.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
Case title: University of Calicut v Ameen Rashid K P
The Kerala High Court stated that a University cannot assume the role of the College Principal to cancel a student's admission on the allegation of lack of attendance. It stated that the role of the university was only supervisory.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed thus:
“As observed earlier, the University's role in private College is to the limited extent to ensure that University regulations are followed or not. The University cannot assume the role of Principal and direct the College Principal to act on their direction. Absolutely there is no merit in this writ appeal.”
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
Case Title: Dr. MV Narayanan v. The Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and ors.
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the appeal of Dr. M. V. Narayanan, Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit against an order of the single judge bench refusing to vacate the order passed by the Chancellor of the university removing the appellant as Vice Chancellor.
A division bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Kauser Edappagathstated that “we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge insofar as it is adverse to the appellant herein does not warrant any interference”.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nias CP had previously refused to grant a stay of operation, reasoning that as only one name had been forwarded by the selection committee, it is not only in violation of 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018 but also the ratio established in Rajasree's case.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
Case title: Sheeba C K v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has stated that a Scheduled Caste Community Certificate cannot be denied to a child born out of an inter-religious marriage merely because her father was a Christian and did not convert to the Hindu Community.
The mother of the child belonged to the Pulaya community and approached the High Court against the non-issuance of a community certificate to her minor daughter for educational purposes.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the indignities humilities and the social handicaps faced by a member of a particular community should be the determinative factor to grant or refuse the caste certificate of that community.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
Case title: Binu @ Kari Binu V State of Kerala & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court upheld rigorous life imprisonment imposed upon four accuseds 1 to 4 (Sijith alias Rajan, Arun alias Gabri, Vineeth alias Picha, Arun Mali alias Aneesh) for the offence of murder of CITU worker Sunil Babu due to gang rivalry.
The Court also set aside the conviction of rigorous life imprisonment imposed upon accuseds 5 to 8 (Binu alias Kari Binu, Saju alias Kallan Saju, Saji alias Pori Saji, Suresh alias Kopra Suresh) for criminal conspiracy to murder due to lack of evidence.
The accused persons allegedly murdered the deceased Sunil Babu on December 13, 2015, due to gang rivalry.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John set while upholding the conviction against accuseds 1 to 4 and setting aside the conviction against accused 5 to 8 stated thus:
“Therefore, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, the conviction and sentence passed against them for the offences under Sections 120B and 326 IPC are set aside. The conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos. 5 to 8 under Section 120B IPC is also set aside and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases.”
Case Title: Rajini and anr. v. Seetha and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
The Kerala High Court has stated that the final decree court in a suit for partition, has the jurisdiction to deal with the excess extent of land found in possession of parties, along with the extent specified in their title deed.
A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran clarified that “it is well-nigh within the powers of the final decree court to deal with the excess extent of land found in the possession of the parties, along with the extent covered by their title deed”.
Case title: P Sreenivasan v Babu Raj & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
The Kerala High Court has held that the Appellate Court has the statutory discretion to either order a deposit or waive the deposit of the fine or compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court clarified that since the Appellate Court would be exercising statutory discretion, it would be legally obliged to give reasons for either ordering a deposit or waiving the deposit of fine or compensation amount.
While hearing an appeal against conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138, the Appellate Court may under Section 148 direct the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation or fine amount as awarded by the Trial Court.
Case title: Vimalakumari M K v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court directed the disbursal of pensionary benefits to a woman who retired in 2013, stating that she had not committed any fraud even though issues regarding her caste status were pending before the Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated that the pension cannot be denied to the petitioner due to the delay on the part of the State in conducting an inquiry to ascertain whether she belonged to the Moger community or not.
“Pension is a savings of an employee, that can be deprived only in accordance with the procedure established by law or when it is shown that the employment itself has obtained by playing fraud. In the light of the factual situation as above, we cannot hold that any fraud has been committed by the petitioner, though her status as a member of moger community, is set to be retained by this Court.”
Case Title: Rkec Projects Limited Vs The Cochin Port Trust, The Office Of Chief Engineer And Another.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The matter pertained to an arbitral award for which the time allotted lapsed on 28.2.2022. However, the award was not rendered until 6.5.2023, without any formal extension of the tribunal's mandate.
The High Court held that the termination of the arbitrator's mandate does not strip the Court of its authority to consider applications for extension under Section 29A(3) and (4). Rather, the termination is contingent upon the Court's power to extend the mandate, as provided by the Arbitration Act. The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to extend the time for passing the award even after its issuance, provided there exist sufficient grounds for such an extension.
The High Court found that the circumstances surrounding the COVID period, as stated in the interlocutory applications, constituted sufficient cause to justify an extension of the time for passing the award until 6.5.2023. Thus, the High Court affirmed its authority to intervene and extend the time limit even after the issuance of the award.
Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Kerala High Court has directed the State to form a committee of experts to design a curriculum to impart age-appropriate prevention-oriented programmes on sexual abuse.
“At times the sexual acts are committed with the belief that the consent of both partners is sufficient to absolve them from the crime. By the time they realize their assumptions to be mistaken notions, it is too late in the day, and the situation becomes destructive, leading to very inconvenient results and beyond any remedial measures,” stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Case title: K M Habeeb Muhammed v The Managing Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court stated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to re-appreciate the evidence in a domestic enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authorities.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by a workman of the State Bank of Travancore who was removed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry for fraud committed on the bank.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied upon the Apex Court judgement in Union of India v. H C Goel (1964) to state that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to consider sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to arrive at a particular conclusion in an enquiry by the disciplinary authorities.
Case title: Sister Annamma Mathai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The manager of an unaided school functioning under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules thereunder with the name 'Little Flower Girls Higher Secondary School' approached the Kerala High Court against orders issued by authorities to remove the term 'Girls' from its name.
The order was issued by the Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the school was not heard before decisions were taken regarding changing its name. It stated that the school need not change its name based on the orders issued by the Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights since it would create confusion.
Case title: Aynikkal Plantations Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
The Kerala High Court has held that land utilized for the cultivation of cardamom should be retained for cardamom cultivation itself and any violation would result in resumption of land with the Government.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated that land utilized for cardamom cultivation under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLUO) 1967 shall not be used for cultivation of any food crop or any other purpose except under the written permission given by the Collector.
Case title: Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
The Kerala High Court has clarified that a lease deed for less than 12 months cannot be rejected for want of registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.
“A mere reading of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, will make it clear that the requirement of compulsory registration of lease deed is applicable only in respect of a lease from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly rent” observed Justices Anil K. Narendran and G. Girish.
Case Title: Anil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Legal Services Authority to conduct an Adalat to address the grievances of those affected by the Puthiyakavu Temple blast in Tripunithara.
Justice CS Dias was hearing a bail application of the accused in the Puthiyakavu Bhagavathy Temple fireworks explosion matter. The Court rejected the bail plea and said: “The investigation in the case is only at its nascent stage and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it would have a deleterious impact on the society and justice would be thwarted.”
Case Title: Eby @ Philip Ninan v. State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
The Kerala High Court has stated that a dying declaration provided by the victim can be the sole basis of conviction if made in fit state of mind, adding that it is for the court to determine whether the individual was in the fit state of mind from the evidence available on record.
“The other circumstances highlighted by the prosecution from the remaining part of the evidence of PW4 and also from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant on on analysing the said evidence noticing the principles that have to guide us in appreciating the circumstantial evidence” observed Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath.
Case Title: Manaf Ali Hassan Versus The National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
The Kerala High Court has held that the writ petition challenging orders of Tamil Nadu assessing authority is not maintainable merely for having a bank account in Kerala.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. has observed that merely because the appellant has a bank account within the State of Kerala, he cannot maintain a Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by an assessing authority who is situated in Tamilnadu, more so when the orders in question are issued in connection with the business carried out by the appellant in Tamilnadu.
Case Title: M/S Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational And Cultural Trust Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
The Kerala High Court has held that assessments can be reopened based on audit objections under a new reassessment regime.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that the provisions have been drastically changed with effect from April 1, 2022, and the audit objection is one of the reasons for re-opening the assessment. If the revenue audit raises an objection that the assessment was not completed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot be treated as a change of opinion because this is the statutory prescription and statutory ground for re-opening the assessment.
Case Title: Shyju v. State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Kerala High Court has stated that a document can be submitted as evidence under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was not procured during investigation nor produced along with the final report.
“The contention that the document was not seized earlier or that it was not part of the final report, is not a relevant consideration in a proceeding of this nature” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case title: State Bank of India v Jespin Raju
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Kerala High Court has held that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 being a central legislation will have primacy over the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act, 2008.
The Court was considering the validity of an order issued by the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission interdicting the powers of the State Bank Of India in initiating recovery proceedings under the Securitisation Act.
Justice Easwaran S. stated that the Securitisation Act enacted by the Parliament under Article 246 of the Constitution will predominate over the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act, 2008. It also stated that Section 35 of the Securitisation Act gave an overriding effect to it over other laws.
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer Ward Versus Vazhakkulam Block Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court has held that affording a personal hearing to the assessee is mandatory in an inquiry under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath has relied on the decision of the division bench in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, in which it was held that the express provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act contemplate that the assessee should be granted an opportunity of being heard, and the question arising in the appeal is only whether that opportunity to be effective must include a right to a personal hearing as well.
Case title: Anwar Sadique K v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
The Kerala High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 31 years old Malappuram resident booked for attacking an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court to carry out local investigation.
Justice A. Badharudeen remarked that an attack against courts and its officials cannot be taken lightly and should be dealt with seriously as it amounts to an attack against the judiciary.
Case Title: R. Krishnaprasad Versus Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
The Kerala High Court directed that the referral laboratory, namely the Central Fertilizer Quality Control Unit, Faridabad, shall ensure that the analysis of the urea sample is done expeditiously and that the report thereof reaches the Kochi Customs Authority within a month from the date of receipt of the sample at the said laboratory.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath has observed that the respondents/department shall, jointly with the appellant, draw samples from the consignment of the urea imported by the appellant, which is the subject matter of these proceedings, and after giving one sample to the appellant, send the other samples to the referral laboratory for analysis and for a test report on the biuret content in the said sample as to whether or not it conforms to the specifications for technical grade urea as per IS 1781:1975, RA 2021.
Case Title: Nilesh Ramachandra Japthap v. State of Kerala and ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings against the individual accused of impersonating a police officer to enter the residence of cricketer S Sreesanth.
A single bench consisting of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas heard the plea.
The court reasoned that mere impersonation does not qualify for an offence under Section 419 for cheating by personation, adding that the offence is only attracted when, along with the impersonation, the accused inflicts damage or harm to body, mind, reputation, or property.
Case title: St. Antony's Forane Church v District Police Chief (Rural)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court has stated that the Writ Court cannot intervene in the manner of conducting rituals in church under Article 226 of the Constitution especially when civil proceedings were pending between the parties.
“It is thus obvious that, on issues relating to the conduct of rituals in the Church, this Court cannot intervene, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the parties are already litigating it before the competent Civil Court”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran
Case Title: N. Swaminathan and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea requesting that the Kerala State Co-operative Employees' Pension Board be directed to not use the pension funds for any other purpose since it was likely to be transferred to the State Treasury. The court remarked that it was implausible for an investment of the 'Corpus Fund' to be transferred into the 'State Treasury'.
“Prima facie, I cannot find favour with the petitioners for another reason, namely that it is incomprehensible how an investment of the 'Corpus Fund' can be made by its transfer into the 'State Treasury', since this does not appear to be authorised by the Schemes; nor can it be normally seen to be 'investment', to obtain growth” observed Justice Devan Ramachandran.
[S. 202 CrPC] Evidence Of Complainant's Witnesses Can Be Taken On Affidavit, Absence Of Affidavit On Record May Vitiate Proceedings: Kerala HC
Case title: Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Kerala High Court quashed the summons and subsequent warrant issued against the accused who were staying outside the Court's jurisdiction since summons was issued without having the affidavit of the witnesses of the complainant on record.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the lack of conducting an enquiry under Section 202 would not vitiate the process but the lack of an affidavit on record would vitiate the process.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gracy Babu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
The Kerala High Court has held that consideration received by trustees for such relinquishment of trusteeship cannot be treated as a capital receipt for the purposes of assessing it under the head of capital gains; the consideration will have to be treated as the individual income of the assessees and assessed accordingly under the appropriate head.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar has observed that a perusal of the trust deed in the instant cases does not indicate that any power was conferred on the trustees to relinquish their position as trustees en banc. A person who is appointed as trustee is not bound to accept the trust, but having once entered upon the trust, he cannot renounce the duties and liabilities except with the permission of the court, with the consent of the beneficiaries, or by the authority of the trust deed itself.
Case Title: Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
The Kerala High Court has held that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes, which yielded agricultural income, which in turn was exempt from income tax under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that there is no material produced by the appellant that would clearly suggest that the loan amount availed by it during the assessment year in question had been used for purchasing an asset, which it had used for the purposes of its business as a provider of asset management services. The evidence that was available before the authorities below clearly pointed to the acquisition of agricultural land valued at Rs. 5,91,52,500 and the earning of agricultural income through the sale of tapioca to the tune of Rs. 1,93,540.
Case Title: Maffiya MK v. Union of India and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court has issued guidelines relating to the forwarding of representations of detainees. A division bench consisting of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice MA Abdul Hakhim clarified that the representations shall be forwarded by all jail superintendents in the following manner:
1. Jail superintendents shall forward e-mail copies both in the e-mail address of the detention authority as well as central government. The sponsoring authority immediate on detention order shall forward the relevant e-mail IDs of the concerned to the jail superintendent. Immediately on forwarding the e-mail copies physical copies also shall be forwarded all the authorities concerned.
2. The court directed that necessary instructions shall be issued by the DGP of the prison to all jail superintendent in the Jail. DGP shall direct that if any laches on the part of the jail superintendent in following the guidelines in the directions as above will entail in disciplinary actions against such officers.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by the wife of the detenu challenging his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974.
Case Title: Dr Athulya Asok v The State Police Chief
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court held that a minor child cannot be compelled to live with a parent totally unacceptable to the child while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother seeking custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice G Girishwhile permitting the child to live with his deceased father's relatives stated thus:
“If it is found that, in a given case, if an order directing the custody of a child with a parent is likely to be detrimental to the interest of that child, especially when the child is of advanced age, and having considerable maturity in mind to decide his future course of action, it is not possible for this Court to pass an order compelling that child to live with such parent who is totally unacceptable to him.”
Case title: Kerala CBSE School Management Association (Regd) v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court has permitted schools following CBSE, and ICSE Boards (non-KER Schools) to conduct vacation classes between 7.30 AM and 10.30 AM. It further stated that schools following Kerala Education Rules (KER) are bound by the KER Calendar and cannot conduct vacation classes.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M.A.Abdul Hakhim held thus:
"i. The State holds executive power to regulate summer vacation. However, this cannot be done based on the calendar prescribed in KER for non-KER schools. The State will have to balance academic interest of the child and their right to recreational activities in a delicate equilibrium.
ii. Taking note of the ensuing vacation, we permit all the schools other than the schools governed by KER calendar to hold vacation classes between 7.30 AM till 10.30 AM. Provided, this arrangement will be subject to future executive orders governing vacation classes.”
Case title: Shankara Narayanan P A v Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corporation Ltd & Connected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
Justice Basant Balaji held that Abkari workers and regular Corporation workers come under different classes since Abkari workers do not come under the definition of 'employee' under the Gratuity Act.
“As discussed earlier, when the Abkari workers form a separate class of workers, and the regular employees are separate ones, the Abkari workers who are getting gratuity from the Welfare Fund cannot claim gratuity under the Gratuity Act, over and above the amounts received under the KAWWF Act. If the argument of the petitioners is accepted, it will amount to double payment of gratuity, one under the Welfare Fund and the other under the Gratuity Act, which will be unlawful enrichment. Therefore, these Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed”, stated the Court.
The Court was considering whether Abkari workers employed with the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing And Marketing) Corporation were entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act when they were paid gratuity and provident fund under the KAWWF Act.
CBI Takes Over Investigation Into Veterinary Student's Death, Kerala High Court Closes Father's Plea
Case title: Jayaprakash T v Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the Union Government had issued a notification under section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act entrusting the investigation with the CBI.
“Since the central government has already issued the notification and the CBI has taken over the investigation, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition has become currently infructuous”, stated the Court while closing the plea.
The Court also directed the state government and state police to provide all assistance to the CBI for conducting the investigation.
The Special Prosecutor for CBI, Senior Advocate Dr K P Satheeshan submitted before the Court that the CBI took over the investigation and FIR was registered on April 05, 2024.
Case title: N Prakash v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court closed a public interest litigation filed seeking the issuance of hard copies of Registration Certificates and Driving Licences to applicants without delay relying upon a notification issued by the Transport Commissioner stating that printing and despatching of Registration Certificates and Driving Licences have been resumed.
“Today when the matter is called out, the learned Senior Government Pleader made available a communication dated 06.04.2024 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Motor Vehicles Department, by which it has been clarified that the printing work has resumed from 01.04.2024 and Registration Certificates as well as Driving Licences, which are printed, are being dispatched on the same day. The said communication is taken on record”, stated Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun
Case title: Binnesh Babu@ Bineesh Babu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court has stated that the government has the duty to act as a responsible welfare state to transform the lives of less fortunate citizens and turn them into responsible citizens rather than condemning or alienating them based on their unequal or diverse circumstances. It stated that their entry to public service should not be barred indefinitely based on mere involvement in some past crimes.
The petitioner, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community from the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category was denied advice to public service due to his involvement in nine criminal cases in the past.
Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen set aside the government order cancelling his advice to the post of Police Constable (Kerala Armed Police Battalion) and held thus:
“The State must raise its role as a responsible welfare State to secure social citizenship, instead of acting solely as an authority wielding power to enforce its will. If this tiny man is lost, a generation is lost. Our power corridors are built in a negative frame to find fault with a person rather than to soothe fears or instill a sense of responsibility to transform him into a responsible citizen. We all need to be reminded that every individual's struggle is against their past, and those who realize their past mistakes and are prepared to move towards the future are the ones who truly enhance the beauty of the world. Past achievements not necessarily determine one's future as bright. One who learns from his past and fears distrust of everyone in the future is truly valuable. In the realm of public employment, the past is relevant but not decisive. If sinners are not allowed to reform, we all will become sinners.”
Case title: Shaji K v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court has directed the Secretary of the Home Department to consider and take appropriate action on the representation submitted by Shaji K V, an RTI Activist and social worker.
The representation was filed seeking a proper enquiry by an external agency into allegations of liquor storage and sale contrary to the Abkari Act provisions in a building called, Joy Mathew Club in Aluva owned by MLA P V Anwer. It was alleged that no crime was registered against Anwer under the Abkari Act by the Excise Department due to his political influence.
While disposing of the petition, Justice K Babu stated thus: “Having considered the submissions on both sides, respondent No.2(Secretary, Home Department) is directed to consider Ext.P3 (representation) and take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner is given the liberty to approach this Court in respect of the subject matter, if he is advised so.”
Case title: Adv. M. Swaraj V K. Babu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar dismissed the petition moved by Swaraj alleging that the election was vitiated by corrupt practices under the Representation of People Act for allegedly making appeals in the name of Lord Sabarimala Ayyappa.
Justice PG Ajithkumar highlighted that the critical nature of election petitions requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and as such, there is a heavy onus to prove the allegations which rests on the petitioner.
"Just as in a criminal case, so in an election petition, the respondent against whom the charge of corrupt practice is leveled, is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. A grave and heavy onus therefore, rests on the accuser to establish each and every ingredient of the charge by clear, unequivocal and unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt” observed the court.
The petitioner, CPI(M) candidate M Swaraj, alleged that voter slips containing religious symbols were distributed by the respondent on the 4th of April 2021 for the election that was to be conducted on the 6th of April 2021.
Case title: Parthasarathi M v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
Justice K Babu held that it was not required to give evidence regarding strict proof of age for every model in child porn and stated that the Court could proceed based on the appearance of the model. The Court further held that in required cases, the expert opinion of a paediatrician or an expert in the field could be used to ascertain the age of the model.
“1. Child Pornography is punishable under Section 15 POCSO Act, Offence of Transmission or Publication of child pornography punishable under Section 67 -B Information Technology Act. These provisions to be interpreted emphasizing the viewpoint of the audience and society at large.
2. No need of strict proof of age regarding model in every case of child pornography. Relevance should be given if model appears as child.
3. Image of infant or toddler used, Court can take judicial notice and proceed by framing charges.
4. Age of child to be analysed on a case to case basis. If model appears like a child below 18 years, fact finder can conclude age without expert testimony. No need of strict proof regarding age.
5. If model appears closer to 18 years, expert opinion of paediatrician or an expert in the field to be used. If model depicts a boy or girl below 16 years, fact finder can decide based on his experience using his/her critical faculties in deciding the issue.
6. In cases of marginal nature, opinion of experts including paediatrician and forensic experts necessary to conclude on age.
7. When a party pleads special circumstances regarding age of model, the party who pleads it has the burden to prove the existence of special circumstances.
8. Prosecution need not always establish identity of model in child pornography. Insisting on identification of child and strict age proof is practically impossible to provide in all cases unlike other POCSO cases since it would defeat the intention of statute. The fact-finding on the age, being an integral part of the offence, the prosecution has to place the material before framing of charge.”
The Court was considering criminal miscellaneous cases where persons accused for offence committing child pornography had approached the Court seeking to quash the final report against them. The criminal revision petitions were filed challenging orders rejecting their applications seeking discharge. The petitioners in all these cases were allegedly accused of committing an offence under Section 15 (punishment for storage of pornographic material involving child) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 B (punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Lukose. K.C. Versus Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The Kerala High Court has held that the permission to effect over-the-counter sales of alcoholic liquor was a concession given to bar-attached hotel owners to permit them to carry on business and tide over the COVID lockdown period. The assessee cannot now contend that the tax on such transactions should not be levied on him because he did not originally have permission to effect such sales.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the appellant, having opted to pay tax on a compound basis in lieu of the regular basis of assessment, cannot turn around and contend that the formula provided for payment of tax on a compound basis does not apply to him.
Govt Should Close Schools Without Playgrounds, Sports & Games Part Of Curriculum : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Prakash N v. GWLP School, Thevayoor South and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
The Kerala High Court has directed the state government to formulate guidelines prescribing the extent of playground necessary in each category of schools and adjacent facilities as required.
“Right to education is a fundamental right of the children. The education includes play and other extra curricular activities. If there is no suitable playgrounds for games and sports in schools containing sufficient clear space for that purpose as provided in the Kerala Education Rules (KER), the government should take stringent action including closure of those schools” observed Justice PV Kunhikrishnan.
The court added that once the guidelines are issued, the educational authorities shall ensure compliance with these guidelines and also directed closure of schools that fail to comply despite being given sufficient time.
Case title: Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd V The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that Consumerfed was authorized to conduct Ramzan-Vishu Fairs through Primary Co-operative Societies and stated that it need not wait for the state government to give financial grants since the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force now.
“In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition to the limited extent of directing the Government to permit the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to authorise the 'Fairs' proposed by the petitioner 'Consumerfed', through the Primary Co-operative Societies mentioned in Ext.P3; however, making sure that there would be no publicity attached to this, as being a Government sponsored programme, or to be in a manner that to cause benefit to any particular section of the political arena.”
The Court also directed that the state government would not use the Consumerfed Fairs for election campaigning since this was not meant for propaganda or publicity.
Case Title: Monson MC @ Monson Mavungal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by Monson Mavunkal to suspend the execution of his life imprisonment sentence passed by the trial court in a sexual assault case.
“It is to be noted that the petitioner has been awarded the imprisonment for life on three different counts by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Suspending the sentence for life imprisonment can be resorted only in exceptional cases. The heinous nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner/accused cannot be ignored" observed Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice S Manu.
Case Title: Leric Reeches v Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
The Kerala High Court has quashed an assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act on finding that the assessee was not provided an effective hearing. In the facts of the case, the assessee was unable to log in through the link for video conferencing due to technical failure and did not get an opportunity for an effective hearing.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that the impugned assessment order was issued contrary to the principles of natural justice since there was no effective hearing. The bench said:
“Considering the above submissions and taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not given effective hearing and without providing the effective hearing the impugned assessment order has been passed, I am of the considered view that the order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same is set aside".
Case Title: Sreekumar v. SK Valsalan and anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the power under Section 256 of CrPC which allows for the acquittal of the accused in case of non-appearance or death of the complainant should not be indiscriminately exercised.
“It is well settled that the Magistrate can invoke the power under Section 256 Cr.P.C only after arriving at a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint and the said power is to be exercised judicially and that the same cannot be indiscriminately exercised whimsically and mechanically for the statistical purposes of disposal” observed Justice Johnson John while allowing the plea.
Case Title: Syama M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court has held that all departments undertaking infrastructural or developmental projects should implement the circular dated December 18, 2023 issued by the Kerala State Disaster Management Department (KSDMA) for standardization of the process of integrating measures for prevention of disaster and mitigation.
While disposing of the petition on the assurance of the government that the circular will reduce complaints qua future developmental projects undertaken by the Government, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed,
“I record the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, that the Government have issued the afore extracted circular dated 18.12.2023 and that its contents and directives therein will be implemented unreservedly with respect to every developmental project or action, which is to be initiated or pursued by them and its Agencies and Departments in future”, stated the Court
Case Title: Nimesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has rejected a petition to quash proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) holding that an affidavit by the relative of the victim could not be grounds for quashing if the materials placed on record indicate the commission of the offence.
“When the facts of the case placed on materials and other materials prima facie would suggest commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC by the accused persons, merely because the sister of the 1st accused filed an affidavit regarding settlement, shall not be a ground to quash the same” observed Justice A Badharudeen.
Case Title: Faizal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The Kerala High Court reiterated that the same court shall try cross cases. On analyzing judicial precedents pertaining to trial of cross cases, The Court laid down the following reasons to state that the same court shall try cross cases.
“The judicial precedents underline the reason for such a procedure as (a) it prevents the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court, (b) it deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts (c) in reality, the case and the counter-case are different or conflicting versions of one incident to all intents and purposes",stated Justice K Babu
Case Title: Syamkrishna KR and anr. v. State of Kerala and anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court has allowed an application for anticipatory bail in a matter relating to abetment of suicide, stating that there should be evidence to suggest, prima facie, that the accused intended by such acts to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
“The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide” observed Justice A Badharudheen.
The petitioners, who are the 1st and 2nd accused in a matter under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, moved this court with an application for anticipatory bail. The deceased, an assistant public prosecutor, had committed suicide on the 21st of January 2024. The suicide note revealed the 1st accused and the 2nd accused as the reason for the victim's death resulting in a crime being registered under Section 304 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: B Anandan v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court held that authorities cannot be expected to continuously offer appointments on compassionate grounds to the legal heirs of a deceased employee.
“It cannot be construed that the scheme of compassionate appointment permits the members of the family to raise repeated claims for appointment. One must remember that the compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment and is only intended to get over the penury caused to the family of deceased”, stated Justice Easwaran S.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar K R V District Magistrate (District Collector) & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 252
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the District Collector passed the prohibitory order to prevent any untoward incident and for public good since a lot of devotees and non-devotees will be gathering to watch the Thrissur Pooram. However, the Court stated that the closure of shops selling liquor, toddy etc for almost two days would cause huge losses to persons who pay huge license fees to run toddy and liquor shops.
Accordingly, the Court modified the timings in the prohibitory order and held thus:
“The prohibited time period stipulated in the impugned order passed by the District Collector as “from 2 am on 19.04.2024 to 2 pm on 20.04.2024” shall stand modified as “from 2 am on 19.04.2024 to 10 am on 20.04.2024”.”
Case title: Cochin Devaswom Board V The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
The Kerala High Court directed that no part of Sree Vadakkunnatha Kshetra Maidan should be used by the Cochin Devaswom Board or Thrissur Municipal Corporation for disposal of biodegradable or non-biodegradable waste generated during the Thrissur Pooram. Thrissur Pooram is celebrated this year on April 19 and 20, 2024; the festivities have already begun.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon held thus:
“In view of the directions contained in the orders of this Court dated 26.07. 2023 in DBP No.32 of 2023 and DBP No.35 of 2023, no part of Thekkinkadu Maidan (Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan) shall be used by Cochin Devaswom Board or Thrissur Municipal Corporation for the disposal of biodegradable or non-biodegradable waste generated during Thrissur Pooram Festival, exhibitions, etc."
The Court passed the above order in a Devaswom Board Appeal (DBA) filed seeking directions regarding solid waste management in the compound of Sree Vadakkunnathan Temple (Sree Vadakkunnatha Kshetra Maidan) during Thrissur Pooram of the year 1199 ME (2024).
Case Title: Anand Joseph v The District Collector
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 254
The Kerala High Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against the Ernakulam District Rifle Association which is a society registered under a society registered the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The Court stated that a writ petition is not maintainable against a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955.
Justice Easwaran S. relying upon Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) and Shabajit Tewary v Union of India (1975), held that a society need not necessarily come under 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
“….only if the control of the State over such body is deep and pervasive, the same would come within the definition of State. On the other hand, if the control is merely regulatory whether under the Statute or otherwise then it would not serve to make the body a State. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the affairs of the 3rd respondent is not maintainable”, stated the Court
Case Title: Fazid v XXXXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 255
The Kerala High Court held that the order of dismissal of discharge should be a reasoned order and not cryptic.
“As far as the legal position regarding the essentials of an order of discharge is well settled. While passing an order of discharge by allowing the same or dismissing the same the Courts must have to state reasons for passing such orders and an order without recording reasons in the form of cryptic and non-speaking stature would not sustain under the law” stated Justice A. Badharudeen
The Revision Petitioners were accused of committing offences alleged under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons), 294(b) (obscene act and songs), 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty of woman), 354-A(1) (punishment for sexual harassment)), 354-C (Voyeurism), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relative of husband) read with Section 34 (criminal intention) of IPC.
Case Title: Cherian Varkey Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 256
The Kerala High Court has rejected a petition challenging the government orders that grant preference to labour contract societies, stating that the “focus of the executive order, though ultimately related to the award of the contract, is essentially a focus to promote community interest consistent with the policies of the welfare State. Therefore, individual contractors cannot claim parity of treatment with co-operative entities".
The court went on to add that "in the absence of any fundamental right that can be claimed by the individual contractors, the rest is a matter of State policy and where no parity can be claimed as the object of differentiation is not in recognising individual interest but rather the larger community interest”.
A division bench consisting of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen heard the matter.
Case Title: Jasmin K v State Bank of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 257
The Kerala High Court has held that a secured creditor cannot proceed with recovery measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act after it chose to file a civil suit seeking recovery of dues, which got dismissed.
Justice Easwaran S. stated that the Bank cannot initiate recovery proceedings by ignoring the civil court's judgement that there was no legally recoverable debt.
“….once an adjudication by the civil court has taken place ending in dismissal of the suit finding that there is no debt due from her, necessarily, it has to be held that the secured creditor is disentitled from proceeding further with measures under the Securitisation Act, since there is no legally recoverable debt.”
In the facts of the case, the Court found the civil suit was adjudicated and dismissed on the finding that there were no pending dues.
Case Title: Adv K Praveen Kumar v The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 258
The Election Commission of India filed a statement dated April 18, 2024 as an undertaking before the Kerala High Court stating that all safety measures and steps have been taken to ensure a free and fair election in all the parliamentary constituencies in India, including Vadakara parliamentary constituency.
The statement was filed by the ECI in a writ petition filed by Advocate Praveen Kumar, the Chief Election Agent of Indian National Congress candidate Shafi Parambil alleging voter fraud at the instance of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), in the Vadakara parliamentary constituency. The writ petition was thus filed seeking video recording of the polling process and deployment of central forces in the Vadakara constituency, where the polling is set for the 26th of this month.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen disposed of the writ petition on the undertaking filed by the ECI and observed thus:
“Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of recording the statement dated 18.04.2024, the communication dated 18.04.2024 and the undertaking of the learned Standing Counsel that they will strictly follow the aforesaid arrangements, while conducting the election scheduled to be held on 26.04.2024.”
Case Title: Jose Joseph and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 259
The Kerala High Court has directed the screening committee to review their order directing for the surrender of arms which were issued to licensed holders under the Arms Act.
While allowing the petition, a single judge bench of Justice N. Nagaresh stated that “Unless the surrender of Arms is reasonably necessary in the light of the parameters provided by the Election Commission, there cannot be blanket directions to surrender Arms”.
The petitioners, who were issued a license under the Arms Act to hold arms, were challenging an order of the screening committee constituted for the surrender of arms due to the impending Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
Case Title: Thomas @ Manoj EJ v. Indu S
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 260
The Kerala High Court has upheld an order of the Family Court which stated that in child custody matters, it is open to the parties to approach the court and seek modification of the order if there is any change of circumstances. The Family Court added that the order passed initially cannot be said to be final, stating that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable in child custody matters.
While dismissing the petition challenging the Family Court order, a division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice PM Manoj reiterated that “the Courts have the authority to modify custody orders if there are changes in circumstances that affect the well-being of the child. Even when orders are based on agreement/understanding between parents, they can be revisited if the situation changes and it's deemed necessary for the welfare of the child”.
Case Title: Groupl Services Private Limited vs Dr. Sunil Vsudevan and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 261
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice G. Girish held that the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Government of Kerala violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Perkins Eastman case.
The court held that the Government of Kerala being the holder of 99.99% of the equity shares with voting rights of a company had an interest in the dispute. Consequently, it held that this inherent interest made the Government of Kerala disqualified under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act to appoint the sole arbitrator.
Case Title: Groupl Services Private Limited vs Dr. Sunil Vsudevan and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 262
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice G. Girish held that the exemption provided for under the proviso of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act applies only in cases where there is a waiver explicitly agreed upon in writing by the parties involved.
Section 12(5) provides that any person having a relationship with the parties, counsel, or subject matter of the dispute falling under the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
The court held that an appointment of the arbitrator in violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act itself is void ab initio and neither estoppel nor waiver given under any law applies against the party contesting the appointment.
Case Title: Avani Bansal v The Election Commission of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 263
Ahead of the upcoming General elections, the Kerala High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation alleging that no action has been taken on the complaint that a false affidavit has been filed along with the nomination paper by BJP leader and Union Minister Rajeev Chandrashekar.
The Bench comprising Justice V G Arun and Justice S. Manu refused to invoke the writ jurisdiction and said its hands are 'tied' as the election process has already commenced. It observed,
“We are of the opinion that whether Returning Officer should have considered the complaint and pass reasoned order cannot be considered at this stage. The remedy of the petitioners if they are aggrieved by the affidavit filed a candidate is to file an election petition.”
Case Title: Varkala Kahar v. The Election Commission of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 264
The Kerala High Court has disposed of the plea moved by the Chief Election Agent of MP Adoor Prakash alleging that the final voters' list in the Attingal Parliamentary Constituency contained double entries.
“In a constitutional democracy, the government is a government, of the people, by the people and for the people; and each of us have a participatory role in electing the government. On the day of election, the vote that each citizen casts, counts as of the same value. So, our constitution and our law provide for one citizen, one vote and one value. That is the great power of our nation as a constitutional democracy” observed Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen.
The plea was moved by the Chief Election Agent of Adoor Prakash, MP, who is the Congress-I candidate nominated to contest from the Attingal Parliamentary Constituency in the polling scheduled to be held on 26th April 2024. The petitioner submitted that the final voter's list prepared in the Attingal Parliamentary Constituency contains 1,61,237 double entries out of 13,93,134 voters.
Case title: Dr. M. R. Saseendranath V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 265
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. M. R. Saseendranath, Vice Chancellor of Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University, challenging the suspension order issued against him by the Chancellor pending inquiry.
Dr Saseendranath was suspended pending enquiry on grounds of dereliction of duty and lack of sincerity over the suicide of Sidharthan J S, a second-year Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry student at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pookode in Wayanad district. It is alleged that Sidharthan committed suicide on February 18, 2024, in the hostel room of his college because of ragging and brutal assault from a group of students in the college.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that this is a serious incident that allegedly took place inside the college campus in front of other students in an inhumane manner. The Court stated that officials who willfully or negligently did not take any measures to prevent the torture and death of Sidharthan should face legal consequences.
“….this is a serious incident which allegedly occurred inside a college campus in front of a large number of students and the deceased was allegedly subjected to inhumane torture for days together, which ultimately led to his suicide. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that, all the persons responsible for such incident and the officials who, either willfully or negligently, did not take any steps to prevent such torture, before it escalated into the death of a person, shall also be proceeded against. Therefore, I do not find it proper to interfere with the process of inquiry now in progress.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Narendra Kumar & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 266
The Kerala High Court has declined to impose death sentence upon Narendra Kumar, a native of Uttar Pradesh convicted for committing triple murders in Kottayam on May 17, 2015.
He was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to the death for the brutal murder of his employer Praveenlal and his parents Lalasan and Prasannakumari.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was dealing with Kumar's appeal and the Sessions court reference for confirmation of sentence. It held,
“While the facts and circumstances proved against the appellant before us clearly point to his involvement in a gruesome triple murder, we would not go so far as to categorise it as the “rarest of the rare” so as to impose the death sentence on him. This is especially so because this is a case where we have sustained the conviction of the accused for the various offences with which he was charged solely based on circumstantial evidence."
Case Title: Nijo Varghese v Transport Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 267
The Kerala High Court has held that registration authorities should not insist on fitting of sensors to pneumatic doors in buses used as stage carriages since it is not mandated under Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Chapter VI of the AIS-052 (Rev.1).
Rule 280 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules deals with the entrance and exit of stage carriages and Clause 6.5 of AIS-052 (Rev.1) deals with Power Operated Service Door.
Justice N Nagaresh directed the registering authority to register the petitioner's bus without insisting on fitting sensors in the pneumatic doors, provided the bus satisfies other requirements as per paragraph 6.5 of AIS-052 (Rev.1).
“A closer reading of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Chapter VI of the AIS-052 (Rev.1) would make it clear that neither the rules nor the authorities insisted for fitting of Sensors to Pneumatic Doors in a Stage Carriage. Therefore, as long as the vehicle of the petitioner satisfies the provisions contained in Chapter VI of AIS-052 (Rev.1) including the construction of tapered Test Bar as per the requirement in paragraph 6.5.1.3 and the closing force, peak force, effective force and clamping force as required in paragraph 6.5, the respondents will not be justified in insisting that the Stage Carriage of the petitioner will be registered only if the Pneumatic Doors of the Stage Carriage are fitted with Sensors.”
Case Title: Cherplassery Co-Operative Hospital Ltd v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 268
Justice Murali Purushothaman stated that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act deals with conditions of service of the employees within Society such as post creation, qualification for appointment, method of appointment, payment of salary, promotion and retirement. Meanwhile, labour legislation deals with welfare and social security measures not encompassed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.
“The employees of the Co-operative Societies are entitled to the benefits of the said labour legislations (Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Festival Holidays Act). The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules do not exclude the operation and applicability of the aforesaid labour laws to Co-operative Societies and the petitioner is bound to comply with the provisions of the said labour enactments.”
Malabar 'Parota' Is Akin To 'Bread', Exigible To 5% GST: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Modern Food Enterprises Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 269
The Kerala High Court has held that Malabar 'Parota' is akin to 'bread' and is exigible at the rate of 5% GST and not 18% GST.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that Malabar 'Parota' and Whole Wheat Malabar Parota are exigible at the rate of 5% GST and not 18% as held by the Advance Ruling Authority and Advance Ruling Appellate Authority.
The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing and supplying food products, namely Classic Malabar Parota and Whole Wheat Malabar Parota. The petitioner filed an application for advance ruling under Section 97 of the CGST/SGST Act for the classification and rate of tax on the two products. The petitioner sought an advance ruling seeking classification of its products and rate of GST on the understanding that the petitioner's products qualify as 'bread'.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. XXXX
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 270
Justice N. Nagaresh and Justice P.M. Manoj dismissed the appeal filed by Dileep today.
On April 12, 2024, the single judge of Justice K Babu directed the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge to give the survivor copies of statements of persons examined during the fact-finding inquiry in an interim application filed by the survivor. The single judge stated that it did not intend the fact-finding inquiry to be treated as confidential and held that the survivor has the right to get copies of statements of witnesses.
The Single judge had posted the matter to be heard on May 30, 2024, regarding the maintainability of the interim applications filed by the survivor.
This was appealed by the actor before the Court alleging that the survivor cannot file interim applications in a petition that was disposed of on December 07, 2023. Relying upon Apex Court judgments, it was argued that the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to entertain applications in a case that was already disposed of.
Case Title: Annamanada Gramekshemam Nidhi Limited v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 271
The Kerala High Court recently held that any financial activity ought to be regulated reasonably within the ambit of law, and it cannot glissade into a situation where its operations become impossible, or are defeated by oppressive or impossible restrictions and regulations.
The High Court held so while finding force in the apprehensions of the “Nidhi Companies” that amendment to Section 406 of the Companies Act, 2013 will authorise the Government to bring in changes to the Nidhi Rules, 2014, to en-draft Rules 3A and 23A thereby rendering their existence & operations impossible.
A Single Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that “in the case of any right vested to any individual or class of persons/entities, necessary regulatory mechanism and reasonable restrictions are desideratum, if not imperative, especially when public money is involved. Such cannot be challenged, if they are reasonable in nature and are within the constitutional perimeter”.
Case Title: Kallodi St. George Forane Church V K Mohandas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 272
The Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition stating that a litigant cannot take inconsistent pleas before the Court without being vigilant of his rights.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner has approached the High Court with a review petition against a judgment dated February 19, 2024, rendered in a writ petition of 2015 involving a property dispute. In review, he claims ownership over the disputed property using two additional documents as evidence.
The Court held that the petitioner for 70 years acknowledged that the ownership of the property remained with the government and disputed his rights based on possession. However, the Court noted that the petitioner adopted a different stance in the review petition by asserting title over the property using some additional documents.
Case Title: M/s Punarnava Ayurveda Hospital Pvt Ltd v. The Arbitrator for NH-66
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 273
The High Court of Kerala has held that a landowner dissatisfied with property categorization by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) can request an Expert Commissioner's appointment to ascertain the property's actual value.
The bench of Justice Viju Abraham held that an arbitrator cannot dismiss a landowner's application under Section 26 for an expert commissioner's appointment without considering their arguments, solely relying on the CALA report.
Case Title: Ajay Peter v Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 274
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) to grant permissions based on the 2011 CRZ notification.
The Court held that petitioners who were unable to complete constructions on their land due to a lack of the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) as per CRZ 2019 notification were entitled to claim compensation. It said, “Owners of various land falling in the prohibited area by virtue of the notifications, may not, in certain cases, be able to raise construction despite relaxation and exemption issued from time to time, and would certainly have a right to claim compensation as the said provision would be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”
Further, the Court stated that as of now 2011 CRZ notification is prevailing in Kerala and that the 2019 CRZ notification would come into force when the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) gets approved by the Central Government. It noted that even as per the 2019 CRZ notification, CRZ-III zones that permitted the construction within 200 metres have been reduced to 50 metres.
In the facts of the main writ petition, the Court found that the construction of a five-star hotel in Kundannur Canal was within 72 metres which was beyond the Coastal Regulation Zone as applicable to Kerala. It noted that the petitioner was issued with notice alleging violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone based on the CRZ 1991 notification when the CRZ 2011 notification had already come into force.
Case Title: BS Jayakumar v. State of Kerala, Mansoor J v. State of Kerala, A. Abdul Rasheed @ Dr. AR Babu v. State of Kerala and Sreelatha v. State of Kerala
Citation Number: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 275
The Kerala High Court has stated that a sanction to prosecute public servants issued after reconsideration of the evidence submitted cannot be rejected on the grounds that the previous sanction was refused by the competent authority.
“In the present case, the competent authority in the Government refused sanction to prosecute the public servant including accused No.2 which compelled the investigating agency to submit a refer report before the Trial Court. The Court returned the refer report with a direction to place the entire materials before the sanctioning authority to reconsider the same. The competent authority in the Government reconsidered the materials and found that the public servants had to be prosecuted and accordingly sanction was granted to prosecute them” observed Justice K Babu.
Case Title: M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276
The Kerala High Court was considering whether an executing court while enforcing an International arbitral award could direct payment of interest on the amount awarded from the date of the award till the date of payment, even when the award itself does not contemplate payment of any interest.
Justice T R Ravi held that the executing court cannot add or review the foreign award for providing payment of interest when the arbitral award itself does not mention anything about post-award interest.
Case Title: Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the provision for refund under Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 will only apply if the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for a vehicle.
“A reading of Section 6 of the 1976 Act indicates beyond doubt that the provision for refund will apply only when the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for the period specified and the vehicle is not intended to be used during the whole of that period or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month” observed a Single Judge bench of Justice Gopinath P.
Case Title: The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278
The Kerala High Court has held that extending benefits of better terms of gratuity has to be decided by the employer based on various factors and the employees cannot claim better terms of gratuity as a matter of right.
The Court was considering whether retired employees of Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd were entitled to get the benefit of the amendment dated 24.5.2010 to Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, increasing the ceiling limit from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs.
Justice M A Abdul Hakhim stated granting enhanced gratuity benefits was within the employer's discretion. It stated that the employer can decide whether to extend the better terms of gratuity to employees or not.
Case Title: Sulochana v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279
The Kerala High Court held that a person in jail is exempted from appearing in person at the registration office for registration of any document as per Section 38 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that the District Registrar is duty-bound to visit the jail where the convict is confined and examine him or issue a commission for his examination to complete the registration process.
Case Title: K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280
The Kerala High Court held that the investigating officer is not obliged to act exclusively based on the opinion of the 'District Level Expert Panel' and 'State Level Apex Body' for criminal investigation. Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the investigating office could take additional expert opinion from any other source if he wishes to do so to complete the investigation.
“ The Doctors cannot have any objection against the processes now put in place by the Government of Kerala through their various orders…..even going by the said order, it does not make it obliged on the Investigating Officer to act exclusively as per the views of the 'Expert Panel/Apex Body', but, on the contrary, enjoins him to continue the investigation using other expert opinion, if required, thus culminating it as per law, before the competent Court. It is eventually the Court which takes the final call either way because, even if the Investigating Officer is to refer the complaint against a Doctor, the the complainant would nevertheless obtain the right to file a 'private complaint' or 'protest complaint', as the case may be; thus leading the processes forward, which would then be completed without any reference to the opinion of the 'Expert Panel' or the 'Apex Body'”, ordered the Court.
Case Name: Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the employer was provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim before the authority ccannot approach the High Court alleging that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the claim.
The High Court underscored the welfare objectives of the Minimum Wages Act which aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for various employments. Section 20 of the Act outlines the adjudication process for claims, under which the respondent Inspector had filed the claim. The High Court held that the Petitioner was provided ample opportunity to contest the claim before the Authority but failed to avail herself of such opportunities. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: XXXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
The Kerala High Court has held that a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who sexually assaulted her. The Court thus permitted a sixteen-year-old rape victim, studying in standard 11th to medically terminate the pregnancy which reached 28 weeks of gestation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that denying permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would equate to imposing forced motherhood and deprivation of the right to life with dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
The Kerala High Court has permitted a married couple to undergo medical termination of pregnancy that reached 27 weeks of gestation due to substantial abnormalities of the foetus.
Justice Kauser Edappagath relying upon the report of the Medical Board observed that even though the foetus does not have a life-threatening condition, it has multiple major congenital abnormalities to the brain and spinal cord, indicating a high risk of neurodevelopment impairment, health complications and mortality.
“It is further opined that even though this is not a life-threatening condition, the child is likely to have permanent and significant neurological disabilities and handicaps. Hence, the Board recommended termination of pregnancy. It is a case squarely falling within the exception carved out by clause (2B) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 inasmuch as the Medical Board diagnosed substantial abnormalities in the foetus.”
Case Title: Chekkutty v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
The Kerala High Court held that an accused cannot be imposed with a lesser sentence merely because he appeared before the Court through his counsel and pleaded guilty. The Court stated that punishment imposed upon the accused should find a balance between the offence committed and the injury suffered by the victim.
Justice P Somarajan set aside the Trial Court's order by which a sentence of fine was imposed upon the accused. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter for ordering a substantive sentence.
Case Title: Sindhu B S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the India since it is a purely academic matter.
Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. t is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”
Case Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
A single judge bench of the Kerela High Court comprising of Justice G. Girish in the case of Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan has held that the right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by employer.
The court further observed since the ECA, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, its purpose cannot be defeated by circulars or internal orders passed by officers of the Appellant. The court further observed that there was no rationale to say that when an employee suffers an injury in the course of employment, they need to prefer the hospital on the panel of the Appellant instead of the hospital from which they could get the best medical care. The court observed that:
The right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by the officers of the appellant
Case Title: R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Courts should evaluate and decide regarding the acceptability of the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan before proceeding with the trial of the suit when a party to litigation moves an application challenging it.
Justice G. Girish observed that the Trial Courts should not wait to consider the challenge against the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan until the final stage of evidence in the suit since that would cause hardships to the parties, i
Case Title: R Asokan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
The Kerala High Court stated that landowners who surrendered their property for the 'Kottayam Development Corridor Project' would be paid adequate compensation by assessing the land value by initiating proceedings under the LARR Act by issuing gazette notification and not based on the property's market value as on the date of surrender of the property back in 2015.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that it would not be adequate compensation since the land value has increased now. It stated that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, citizens cannot be deprived of their land without sanction of law.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Azeez
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
The Kerala High Court has held that the power to alter or add charges in exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC remains with the Court and cannot be done based on the application of parties.
In the facts of the case, the Public Prosecutor applied to the Trial Court to alter the charge and add the offence of trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC against the accused. The Trial Court dismissed the application since the offence of trafficking of a person under Section 370 was incorporated in the IPC by Amendment Act, 2013 and the alleged offence took place in 2006.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the order of the Trial Court does not warrant interference since the charge cannot be altered at the instance of the parties.
Case Title: State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
The Kerala High Court held that only a provisional pension could be sanctioned to a retired member of the All India Services if he is undergoing departmental or judicial proceedings. It stated that disbursement of DCRG or Commutation of Pension is permissible only after the culmination of departmental or judicial proceedings and not during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M.A.Abdul Hakhim referred to Rule 6 of All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 that outlines the provision regarding the withholding of pension and gratuity for members of the All India Services on pending departmental or judicial proceedings.
Case Title: SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Kerala High Court has held that the notion that Government schools are merely collective property and could be used for other purposes is an outdated concept. It stated that in the modern era, government schools are achieving remarkable educational excellence, equipping students to become citizens of future.
The petitioner SNDP Yogam Sakha approached the Court seeking permission to use Open Air Auditorium of a Government High School for a religious function attached to a temple.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that schools are temples of learning and government schools cannot be used for any other activities other than for students' intellectual and overall development. “Government Schools are ones, normally, accessed by children of ordinary citizens and it is the collective responsibility of the community and the Government to ensure that they are raised to the highest levels of excellence possible. This can be done only if there is a commitment to education, ensuring every facility to each student, no matter what financial strata he/she belongs to. The feeling that Government Schools can be used for any purpose, since it is a collective property, is a thought of the past and cannot be countenanced in the modern era, particularly when, all over the world, such schools are now reaching the zeniths of educational excellence, preparing its students to be the citizens of future.”
Case Title: The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
The Kerala High Court has held that in terms of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) and Kerala Education Act, 1958 (KE Act), the Manager of an aided School cannot collect any charges or fees from students for providing toilet facilities, computer labs with internet facilities and transportation facilities.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed it is only the Headmaster, who can collect any fee from students in an aided school. Thus it held that the Manager of an aided School cannot interfere with academic matters and collection of fees by him for providing additional facilities is unsustainable in law.
Case title: Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
The Kerala High permitted the petitioner to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regarding his grievances against telecasting the Indian Reality Show- Big Boss Malayalam Season 6.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Adarsh S alleging that the show violates broadcasting regulations and advisories issued by the Union Government by telecasting scenes of physical assault on national television.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun permitted the petitioner to withdraw his petition and directed him to submit a representation for redressal of his grievances before the Broadcaster under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act.
Case Title: State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
The Kerala High Court today confirmed the death sentence imposed upon Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, a migrant labourer from Assam for committing the rape and murder of a law student in Perumbavoor on April 28, 2016.
The division bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Manu observed that the case was deeply disturbing and represented a severe violation of human dignity and sanctity of life since after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim was murdered horrendously. The Court found that the case has far-reaching consequences since it creates fear and also vulnerability amongst women.
The Court on applying the Crime Test, Criminal Test and Rarest of Rare Test, dismissed Ameer-Ul Islam's appeal and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Sessions court.
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation filed by State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly committing hawala money transactions to the tune of 3.5 crores for use in campaigns during the 2021 State Assembly elections.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the case as non-maintainable.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Case Title: K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against State Congress President, K Sudhakaran in CPM leader P Jayarajan's attempt to murder case.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings initiated against K Sudhakaran (1st accused) and Rajeev (3rd accused) based on FIR No. 148/1997 cannot be permitted to continue since it is a second FIR filed against the parties by E P Jayarajan raising the same allegations based on the same incident itself.
[NDPS Rules 2022] Accused Has Right To Seek Expeditious Testing Of Contraband Within Time Frame Stipulated Under Rule 14: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
The Kerala High Court has held that a delay in testing seized drugs/substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985 would cause prejudice to the accused. The Court further stated that the accused have a right to seek expeditious testing of seized drugs/substances under Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022.
Justice C.S. Dias issued the following directions and also directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to forward a copy of the judgment to Courts dealing with NDPS Cases.
Case Title: Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
The Kerala High Court quashed the nominations made by Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, who is the Chancellor of the Kerala University to the Senate in the category 'Other Members'.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. directed the Chancellor to make fresh nominations in the category of 'Other Members' as per law within six weeks. The Court said: “It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts.”
Kerala High Court Warns Its Officers Of Disciplinary Action On Failure To List Cases As Per Roster
Case Title: Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
The Kerala High Court has held that its officers are duty-bound to ensure that cases are listed before the appropriate bench as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. It stated that officers would face disciplinary action if they posted matters deviating from the roster.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun said, “...the Office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulty to the Hon'ble Judges or Advocates appearing in the matter, will invite disciplinary action against the officials concerned.”
Case Title: Don Paul V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
The Kerala High Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and other decisions stated that preconditions have to be satisfied to seek investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before a Magistrate.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Magistrate should be vigilant in accepting applications seeking investigation in cases relating to the fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal delay/laches.
Case Title: Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 3840 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
The Kerala High Court held that a child witness cannot be recalled for cross-examination by the accused to fill the lacuna or omission in their case as per Section 33 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
It is to be noted that Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act states that a child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that the bar under Section 33(5) is not absolute, but it stated that a child witness can be recalled only when it is absolutely necessary to make a just decision on the case.
Centre's Sanction U/S 188 CrPC Required Only When Entirety Of The Offence Is Committed Outside India: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Section 188 CrPC, which deals with prosecution of offences committed outside India, is attracted only when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India.
The provision requires prior sanction of the Central government to inquire or try such cases in India.
Single bench of Justice K. Babu held there is no need to get previous sanction from the Central Government when the entirety of the offence did not happen outside India. It followed the 3-bench decision of Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand and observed,
“A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321) held that if the offence was not committed on its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. In view of the settled law, the contention of the petitioner relying on Section 188 Cr.P.C. fails.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Nino Mathew, Anu Shanthi v State of Kerala, Nino Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Kerala High Court has declined to impose death sentence upon Nino Mathew for the double murder of his accomplice and lover Anu Shanthi's three year old daughter and mother-in-law. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John converted the death sentence imposed upon Nino Mathew to Life Imprisonment and ordered that he shall not be entitled to remission for a period of 25 years.
The Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Anu Shanthi and confirmed the life sentence imposed upon her by the Sessions Court.
Additional Income Can't Be Treated As Concealed Income: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
The Kerala High Court has held that additional income cannot be treated as concealed income for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that a satisfactory explanation has been offered by the assessee, well before the issuance of a notice to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the admission of additional income made by the assessee has been accepted by the department that that completed the assessment under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. On that basis, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the differential income has to be seen as accepted by the Revenue for the purposes of the explanation under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Musthafa & Others v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 305
Kerala High Court ordered that State of Kerala should not permit any request to cut and remove trees on the roadsides without sufficient reasons.
The Court directed the State to issue necessary orders to see that no trees on the roadsides of the State are cut and removed merely for the reason that it obstructs commercial activities or shade adjacent building.
Trees can be cut only if it is in a damaged condition and it's dangerous to life of people. This should be decided by the committee constituted by an earlier government order, Court said.
Kerala High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fmr Kasargod College Principal, Cites Extraneous One-Sided Inquiry & Indiscipline Of SFI Students
Case title: Dr Rema M v The Director Of Collegiate Education And Others & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 306
The Kerala High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr. Rema, the former Principal in charge of Government College, Kasargod against whom proceedings were initiated for allegedly misbehaving with students belonging to SFI Union.
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner alleging that she spoke about the immoral conduct of girls, drug use amongst students and illegal activities of students belonging to SFI Union in an interview given to Marunadan Malayali Channel. She received show cause notice from the Director of Collegiate Education alleging that her statements during the channel interview lowered the dignity and reputation of the college.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed the petitioner has not violated Government Servants' Conduct Rules because no allegations were made against the government nor about the relationship between government and people in the interview.
Violation Of Bail Conditions Akin To Abusing Liberty Granted By Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Order Cancelling Bail
Case Title: Sobhin Sunny v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 307
The Kerala High Court held that violation of bail condition by the accused was akin to misusing the liberty bestowed upon him by the court and was a ground for cancellation of the bail.
Referring to Apex Court decisions, Justice A. Badharudeen held that the Court granting bail after imposing conditions has the power to cancel the bail order if any of those bail conditions are violated.
One Accomplice Cannot Corroborate Another: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Case Title: Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation
The Kerala High Court has held that the court as a matter of practice requires corroboration in material particulars for conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice. The nature and extent of the corroboration required will vary with the circumstances of each case and particular circumstances of the offence alleged in each case.
The Court also deliberated on the requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15.The grant of sanction is not a mere formality but a solemn act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. All the relevant records and materials for the grant od sanction must be made available to the sanctioning authority, which must undertake complete and conscious scrutiny of those records and materials independently applying its mind before deciding whether to grant sanction or not.
Prosecution Must Establish Facts Indicating 'Special Knowledge' To Shift Burden Of Proof On Accused U/S 106 Evidence Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abu @Abdulla v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 309
Granting benefit of doubt, the Kerala High Court recently acquitted a man held guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court for the murder of his 7-year-old daughter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha found that all other persons residing in the house who were present at the time of the alleged incident had stated that the victim suffered injuries from a fall. Thus, it said there is no reverse burden on the father under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain the circumstances of the daughter's death.
Attacks Against Doctors & Hospital Staff Are Continuing: Kerala HC Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea By Accused For Allegedly Attacking Lady Doctor
Case Title: Dr Haritha H S v The State Police Chief, Joseph Chacko v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 310
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail application moved by an accused for allegedly attacking and outraging the modesty of a lady Ayurveda Doctor.
Dismissing the anticipatory bail application, Justice A. Badharudeen stated that a prima facie case was made out against the accused for attacking a healthcare professional. The Court further stated that there is a continuing trend of abusing, assaulting and manhandling doctors and hospital staff for flimsy reasons.
Opening And Closing Stock Of The Year Is To Be Valued By Applying Same Methodology: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. A. JOSE Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
The Kerala High Court has held that the stipulation under Clause 16 of the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for the adoption of first-in, first-out (FIFO) or weighted average cost for valuation of the stock or inventory cannot be applied in the Assessment Year 2017-2018 for the valuation of the opening stock, as the opening and closing stock of the year are to be valued by applying the same methodology.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that the substitution of Section 145A with retrospective effect from April 1, 2017 by the Finance Act, 2018 is to give relief to those assessees who had adopted the FIFO to value their stock in the Assessment Year 2017-18 and to save their returns from being declared incorrect or invalid. This retrospective operation has the same purpose and objective. However, if an assessee did not apply the FIFO to value its opening and closing stock, as it was not mandatory, requiring such an assessee to apply the FIFO to value their stocks for the assessment year 2017–18 would result in an uncalled-for outcome.
Expenditure Incurred By Way Of Addition To Buildings, Electrical Fittings On Leasehold Premises Is Capital Expenditure: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
The Kerala High Court has held that the expenditure that was incurred by the appellant/assessee by way of addition to buildings and electrical fittings on leasehold premises was in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar has observed that the assessing authority and the First Appellate Authority have clearly relied on the written submissions given by the assessee to find that the nature of the expenses incurred by the assessee was capital in nature. Neither in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority nor before the Tribunal was there any material produced by the assessee to show that the expenses incurred by them were revenue in nature. If the assessee had in fact a case that the expenditure incurred by it was revenue in nature, then it was for the assessee to produce materials that would clearly demonstrate that the expenditure was revenue in nature.
Child Must Receive Love And Support From Both Parents Unless Proven Conduct Has Made One Parent Unworthy Of Custody Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lekha Komath V Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 313
The Kerala High Court stated that unless there is proven conduct making one parent unworthy of custody rights, it is in the best interest of the child to receive love and support from both parents.
While hearing a matrimonial appeal preferred by the mother, the Court interacted with the minor child and found that she has no objection to spent time with father but expressed reluctance to stay with the father for longer periods including overnight custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.M. Manoj observed that Courts have to ascertain 'What is the wish/desire of the child', but it must consider 'What would be in the best interest of the child' while deciding custody arrangements. It thus stated that Courts must distinguish between child's wishes and what is genuinely in the best interest of the child.
Courts Not Expected To Form Baseless Apprehensions That Lawyer Will Act Illegally In Discharge Of His Profession: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 314
The Kerala High Court recently quashed a Special Court order directing a lawyer to file an affidavit stating that the copy of witness statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC will not be "misused" by him.
Justice K. Babu said that a lawyer is an officer of the court and Courts are not expected to form an apprehension, without any foundation, that the lawyer may do some illegal acts during the course of his profession. "He is always expected to discharge his duties and responsibilities legally," the bench remarked.
The observation was made in an appeal filed against the proceedings of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thrissur directing the petitioner to file an affidavit stating the copy of the statements of the victim will not be misused
[S. 17 Arms Act] Place Of Business Of Armory Shop Is Only A Condition Of Licence That Can Be Varied By Licensing Authority: Kerala High Court
Case Title: T Jacob Armory v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 315
The Kerala High held that place of business of Armory Shop is only a condition of licence which can be varied by the licensing authority suo moto or on the application of the holder of licence as per Section 17 of the Arms Act.
Section 17 pertains to variation, suspension and revocation of licences. As per Section 17 (1), the licensing authority may suo moto vary the conditions of licence and as per Section 17 (2), the licensing authority may vary the conditions of the licence based on an application submitted by the licensee.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea Upon Noting State Govt's Assurance Over Appointment Of Judicial Member To Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case Title: Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 316
The State Government has assured the Kerala High Court that a judicial member will be appointed to the State Real Estate Appellate Tribunal immediately after June O4, 2024.
The Division bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu disposed of the petition based on the assurance given by the state government that selection to the post is over and appointment will also be made after the Lok Sabha Polls.
No Illegal Religious Structures Should Be Allowed On Govt Lands, Encroachments By Religious Groups Would Lead To Disharmony: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
The Kerala High Court has held that the construction of illegal religious structures and buildings in government lands by Hindus, Christians, Muslims or any other religion cannot be permitted since that would lead to religious disharmony in the State.
The Court referred to the Preamble of the Constitution to state that religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean that citizens could encroach upon government land to construct religious structures and disrupt religious harmony.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan issued directions for the identification and eviction of unauthorized and illegal religious structures from government or public lands to uphold communal harmony and to strengthen the country as a 'SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
Office Attached To Residential House Of Advocate Cannot Be Exempted While Calculating Plinth Area For Computing Luxury Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 318
The Kerala High Court held that a room used by an advocate for study and office purposes attached to his residential house cannot be exempted while calculating the plinth area for computation of luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
It is to be noted that as per Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, a luxury tax is charged on a residential building if its plinth area exceeds 278.7 square meters. The plinth area of a residential building is calculated as per Section 6 of the Act. The proviso to Section 6 states that the plinth area of a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for storage of firewood or for any non-residential purpose shall not be calculated while determining the plinth area for the imposition of the luxury tax.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. applied the 'ejusdem generis' rule to state that the legislative intent was only to exclude non-residential rooms used for storage of firewood or garage while calculating plinth area for determination of luxury tax.
[Dying Declaration] Section 32(1) Of The Evidence Act Is In The Nature Of Exception, Circumstances Must Be Established By Party Wishing To Avail It: Kerala HC
Case Title: Pradeep @ Kannan v State of Kerala, Babu and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 319
The Kerala High Court while considering a Criminal Appeal observed that unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The admissibility of the statement depends on two conditions: either the statement should relate to the cause of the death or it should relate to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death.
The High Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to hold that unless the prosecution can prove that the death occurred due to the injuries sustained to the victim, the statement cannot be considered a dying declaration.
Certain Wives Levelling Vague Allegations To Haul Up In-Laws In Non-Bailable Offences: Kerala High Court Asks Courts To Be Careful
Case Title: Shyamala Bhasker v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 320
The Kerala High Court has remarked that many wives misuse Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes to wreak vengeance against the husband and parents, sisters, brothers and other relatives of the husband by raising vague and general allegations, without mentioning any specific instances of cruelty.
It further observed that Section 498 A is misused with an ulterior motive to initiate criminal proceedings and to malign and defame husband and relatives of husband in the society.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus stated that Courts have a duty to scrutinize the allegations raised against the in-laws to find out whether a prima facie case was made out to proceed with the trial or not. It held that if no prima facie case is made out from the allegations, then the Court should invoke its power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321
The Kerala High Court recently came across an "unusual" scenario where the daughter of an employee, insured under the Employee State Insurance Act was denied the "Ward of Insured Person Certificate" since her father owned the institution where her mother is employed.
The question before the Court was that since the ESI scheme is intended for the benefit of low paid employees, whether the daughter in this case will be entitled to such benefit when her father owns the institution.
[Veterinary Student Death] Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 19 Students Accused Of Abetment To Suicide, Assault & Criminal Conspiracy
Case Title: Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 322
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to 19 students accused of committing abetment to suicide, criminal conspiracy and assault of Sidharthan J S, a second-year Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry student at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pookode in Wayanad.
Sidharthan allegedly committed suicide on February 18, 2024, because of ragging and brutal assault from the college.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation as per the orders of the Court. After investigation, the CBI filed their final report before the Court naming 19 students as accused and stated that Sidharthan was subjected to brutal physical assault and public trial by some of his classmates and seniors. The CBI had concluded in their final report that 9 accused persons had committed offences punishable under Section 120B, 341, 323, 324, 355, 306, 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 and substantive offences thereof.
Justice C S Dias allowed the bail applications today and held that there is no prima facie material that indicates that the accused students have instigated Sidharthan to commit suicide. It stated that bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.
Only Co-Owners Can Claim Benefit Of Section 44 Of Transfer Of Property Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A. Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder and Others v M. A. Anidas and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 323
The Kerala High Court has held that only co-owners can claim the benefit of Section 44 of the Transfer Of Property Act.
A single bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that only co-owners of a property are entitled to the benefit of the second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act says that where the transferee of a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle him to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the house.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v Sunny Joseph
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 324
The Kerala High Court has held that changing the date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The division bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S. relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court to hold that the correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The issue came up in a petition where the Union of India challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing correction of respondent's date of birth in the service records observing that it would not cause any prejudice to the Department.
Case Title: C. Girishdas v Government of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 325
A public interest litigation was filed before the Kerala High Court to ban the use, transportation and cultivation of the Oleander plant (Arali) from the State. The petition was filed after the death of a nurse who died from a heart attack on April 28 allegedly caused by consuming Arali leaves. This matter has led to a discussion on whether Arali is safe to be used in pujas.
Surya Surendran was going to the UK to start her new job. She vomited and collapsed at the Cochin International Airport. Later while undergoing treatment, she died in a private hospital. The post-mortem report showed the presence of some toxic substances in her blood. Before the journey, she had chewed a leaf from an Arali plant near her house. She plucked the leaf and chewed it while talking on her phone. However she immediately spat it out. The doctors said that the juice of the leaves might have gone inside.
When Does An Appeal Lie To The Commercial Appellate Division Of The Court? Kerala High Court Discusses
Case Title: Y. Sleebachan v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala High Court in a recent order held that appeals will lie in the Commercial Appellate Division of High Court when the order is passed by Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge or by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon said, if the order is passed by a Commercial Court below the level of a District Court, it has to be challenged before the Commercial Appellate Court. Any Act passed by the State Government fixing pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Courts would not be tenable.
Case Title: Geetha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala High Court held that authorities are expected to act diligently in matters relating to preventive detention since that involves curtailment of the fundamental rights of citizens.
In the present case, the representation was submitted by the detenu to the government on February 15, 2024, against the detention order. It was considered only on April 08, 2024, after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board on March 19, 2024.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu held that lethargy, lapses, negligence, delay and callousness on the part of the authorities in considering representations in preventive detention cases violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v The Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 328
The Kerala High Court has held that the Writ Court has the power to grant instalments, extending beyond the instalments granted by the assessing authority for clearing tax dues under Rule 30 B of the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST), 1963.
As per Rule 30B of the KGST Rules, the assessing authority can permit payment of tax in not more than six monthly instalments based on the request of the dealer.
Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the writ court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has the power to grant instalment facilities extending beyond instalments granted by the assessing authority under Rule 30B of the KGST Rules.
Case Title: Prabhakaran P. V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 329
The Kerala High Court held that it is a common misconception that anticipatory bail could be granted if custodial interrogation was not required. The Court stated that custodial interrogation was just one factor to consider when deciding on an anticipatory bail application.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the Court has to consider if a prima facie case was made out against the accused, the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment while considering anticipatory bail applications.
Judge Not Initiating Summary Contempt Proceedings Doesn't Bar Court From Initiating Suo Moto Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Suo Moto v Yeshwanth Shenoy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 330
The Kerala High Court has held that if a Judge didn't initiate contempt proceedings in accordance with the procedure as laid down under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it does not bar the High Court from initiating suo moto contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish made this observation while deciding the challenge made by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy against the contempt proceedings initiated against him.
Case Title: Jewel Roshan T v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
The Kerala High Court has permitted a candidate who has 90 per cent permanent physical disability to attend the Kerala Engineering Architectural Medical Examination (KEAM), 2024 with the help of a scribe who has completed matriculation and had not completed 12th standard.
The KEAM, 2024 exam will begin today.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ordered thus:
“Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to attend the examination through the help of a scribe who has the qualification referred to above, i.e. a matriculate and had not completed 12th standard.”
[S.482 CrPC] Staying Investigation When FIR Read With FIS/Compliant Disclose Cognizable Offence Is Grave Injustice To Victim: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vignesh Kumar Balasundar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 332
The Kerala High Court has held that the power to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised by the Court with caution for ex debito justitiae, that is for the advancement of justice.
The Court stated that quashing FIR or dropping charges is not legally permissible if the FIR read along with FIS/complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It stated that the Court should dismiss the petition challenging the FIR so as to enable the investigating officer to continue with the investigation and to ascertain the truth by collecting evidence.
Justice A. Badharudeen said that staying FIR when the commission of the cognizable offence is disclosed would cause injustice to the aggrieved or victim. It stated that staying FIR would halt the investigation process and prevent the investigating officer from collecting further evidence thereby giving an opportunity to the accused to destroy material evidence and to escape from punishment.
S.145 Evidence Act | Witness Not Expected To Accurately Recall Sequence Of Rapid Events, Minor Errors In Testimony Not Contradiction: Kerala HC
Case Title: Chandanapurath Rajeevan and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables the accused to use the statement of a witness to contradict him in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act only. The second part of Section 145 says that when a statement is used to contradict a witness, his attention must be called to those parts which are used to contradict him.
The Court further observed that minor discrepancies in the statements does not amount to contradiction. Such discrepancies can occur due to normal errors of observations or normal errors of memory due to lapse of time. The Court added that such discrepancies will always be there, however honest and truthful the witness is. The witness is not expected to correctly recall the sequence of events in rapid succession or in a short span of time. Some variance with the former statement is not enough. Only if the former statement can discredit the later statement, the witness can be contradicted.
Case Title: Sunil N S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the 10th bail application filed by Sunil N.S., also known as 'Pulsar Suni', the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of rupees twenty-five thousand upon him for filing "bail application after bail application". While imposing the cost, the Court noted that the 10th bail application was filed within three days of dismissing his earlier bail application.
Case Title: Sijo Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
The Kerala High Court has declared that Rule 14 in the PSC Rules of Procedure empowers the Commission to fill vacancies notified as well as arising from the ranked list during its validity. Rule 14 says that the Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the rank lists are kept alive.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu observed that the notification clearly stated that the vacancies mentioned are provisional and subject to change according to the allotment of seats and due to rising of more vacancies. Therefore, the general principle that 'filling up of vacancies more than that has been notified is illegal' cannot be applied in the facts of the case at hand.
Case Title: M/S.I.T.I.LTD Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala High Court has held that a claim for exemption in respect of transit sales must be justified by showing the sale as having occurred in transit.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the petitioner/assessee cannot establish the transit sales by showing the sale as having occurred in transit since the E1 Forms relied on by the assessee have been accounted for only in a subsequent year, which could only be after the transportation of the goods and not while the goods were in transit.
Case Title: Chairman, PSM College of Dental Sciences & Research v Reshma Vinod and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
The Kerala High Court has held that the Maternity Benefit Act is not applicable to private educational institutions before 06.03.2020. The Court noted that the State Government issued a gazette notification under Section 2(b) of the Act making the Act applicable to private educational institutions only on 6th March 2020.
The matter came before Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in a Writ Petition. The plea was filed by a Dental College and Research Centre. The college was served with a notice from the inspector under the Maternity Benefit Act alleging non-payment of maternity benefits to Reshma Vinod. The petitioner submitted a reply to this. However, an order was passed by the Inspector directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 64,393.56 to Reshma as a maternity benefit and medical bonus. This order was appealed by the institution under S.17(3) of the Act which was dismissed.
Case Title: Shafeek v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 338
The Kerala High Court has held that mere participation in an offence would not be sufficient to attribute common intention unless it was proved that they shared a premeditated plan. The Court stated that common intention has to be proved through the conduct of the accused, surrounding circumstances or other incriminating evidence.
In the facts of the case, three accused have approached the Court aggrieved by their conviction of life imprisonment ordered by the Sessions Court for allegedly committing a murder.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha upheld the conviction of the first accused and set aside the conviction of the second and third accused on the finding that they did not possess a premeditated plan and common intention to cause the murder.
Case Title: A J Stephen v Rosemariya
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court has held that it is not permissible for a man to challenge the paternity of a child when his conduct proves otherwise.
The facts of the case were that in 2022, the petitioner approached the Family Court seeking DNA test stating that he reasonably suspects the minor child's paternity. The Family Court observed that the petitioner suppressed material fact that he had entered into an agreement with the child's mother wherein he accepted the paternity. It thus dismissed petitioner's prayer to undergo DNA test. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 seeking a declaration that he was not the father of the minor child.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj applied the principle of doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel by relying on by Pennsylvania Supreme Court in T.E.B. v. C.A.B. v. P.D.K. Jr. to state that if a man cannot be permitted to deny child's parentage if he has held out be a child's father through his conduct.
Case Title: S. Kamaladharan v Kerala Shipping and Inland Corporation Ltd. And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala High Court has held that the total gratuity payable to an employee has to be calculated based on the monthly salary last drawn by the employee immediately preceding his termination, irrespective of the deputation service of the employee.
In the Writ Petition, the question to be decided was how much amount the company should contribute towards the gratuity of its deputed employee. S. Kamaladharan retired from Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation on 30/11/2014. He worked for a period of 7 years and 10 months in Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) on deputation.
Case Title: M/S M.Trade Links Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala High Court has held that the time limit to avail ITC is November 30th in each financial year from the beginning of the GST regime.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that prior to the amendment in Section 39 by the Finance Act 2022, the date for furnishing the return under Section 39 was September 30th. Considering the difficulties in the initial stage of the implementation of the GST regime, the Legislature made the amendment and extended the time for filing the return from September to November 30th in each succeeding financial year. The amendment is only procedural to ease the difficulties initially faced by the dealers and taxpayers. Therefore, for the period from 01.07.2017 till 30.11.2022, if a dealer has filed the return after September 30 and the claim for ITC was made before November 30, the claim for ITC of such dealer should also be processed if he is otherwise entitled to claim the ITC.
S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act | Lack Of Sanction Not Bar When Constitutional Court Orders Enquiry Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Bindulal V. S. & Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when a Constitutional Court passes an order to conduct enquiry or investigation into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 17A of the Act does not operate as a bar.
The Court observed that prior approval under Section 17A is only required when the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his public duty. It referred to Shankara Bhat and Others v State of Kerala and Others which held that any offence, acts which on the face of it constitutes an offence or demand of illegal consideration cannot be treated as offence related to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant. The Court held that it cannot hold that the allegations are related to any recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant.
Case Title: xxx v Director General of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala High Court has held that it has to recognize the right of 'choice' of an adult woman and no fetters can be placed on her decision to live her life in the manner she desires. It stated that the court or family members cannot substitute their opinions and preferences for those of an adult.
The father of the woman in this case had filed a habeas corpus petition for her release from alleged unauthorized custody of the 5th and 6th respondent women.
As such, the Court stated that no restrictions could be imposed upon the daughter regarding her choice or the place where she should stay.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 77 of the Customs Act, which obliges every owner of a baggage to make a declaration of its contents to the customs officer for the purpose of clearing it, deals with the declaration of contents of not just baggage but also posts and couriers.
The Court stated that the respondents did not mention in the pass that the article they brought was Dexamethasone. It stated that Dexamethasone is a dutiable item as per the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. Thus, the Court held that respondents would have complied with Section 77 of the Customs Act if they had informed customs officer that they carried Dexamethasone.
Case Title: Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
“Parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married,” the Kerala High Court has observed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. M. Manoj made the observation while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman's partner.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgment, Shafin Jahan v Asokan K. M. and observed that the role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The choice of an individual should be conferred with the status that the Constitution guarantees, provided that the said choice does not transgress any valid framework, it added
Case Title: Sathyabhama v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application moved by Mohiniyattam Performer Kalamandalam Sathyabhama for making casteist remarks against fellow artist Dr. RLV Ramakrishnan.
Justice K Babu observed that the prosecution has prima facie established that Sathyabhama intentionally made such remarks to humiliate Ramakrishnan for belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community.
The allegation was that Sathyabhama intentionally made certain comments on the appearance and skin tone of Ramakrishnan, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, without explicitly taking his name in an interview given to a 'DNA You Tube' Channel.
The Court further stated that the SC/ST (POA) Act was enacted to uphold constitutionally guaranteed rights to all individuals, particularly aiming to bridge the disparities faced by those subjected to ostracism and discrimination. It stated that achieving a casteless society would remain elusive unless the provisions of the SC/ST Act were enforced strictly. The Court stated that exclusion based on caste identity should not be allowed to prevail in our democracy and that citizens must strive to achieve fraternity amongst all sections of society.
Case Title: Limjith K J v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala High Court has directed the Ministry of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry to consider the objections submitted by stakeholders while considering a writ petition challenging the circular dated March 12, 2024, issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of around 23 breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life. The writ petition was filed by certain dog lovers who were also owners of such breeds of dogs.
The Court noted that similar writ petitions were filed in Karnataka and Delhi alleging that the circular was issued without consulting or inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders. The Delhi High Court quashed the circular and held that all stakeholders would be heard for raising their objections before the issuance of a fresh circular. The Delhi High Court had stated that Central Government shall issue a public notice in a national newspaper as well as on the Ministry's official website inviting written objections to the proposed or draft notification to the rules since it would not be possible to give an oral hearing to every dog owner. A similar view was taken by the Karnataka High Court also.
Case Title: xxx v Superintendent of Police, CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
A 65-year-old mother has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court seeking protection from the probe of the CBI alleging that her son was involved in trafficking Indian nationals to Russia.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the petitioner can be summoned for investigation only by issuing a notice. The Court further stated that if later the petitioner is being arrayed as an accused, the authorities can proceed investigation as per law.
The specific allegation is that the petitioner's son along with the other accused was involved in the trafficking of Indian citizens to Russia on the pretext of getting better and high-paying jobs in the Russian Army. It is alleged that traffickers seize the passports of Indian nationals on reaching Russia and they are given training in combat roles and provided with the uniform of the Russian army. It is further alleged that the traffickers deploy Indian nationals at war front bases in the Russia-Ukraine war zone.
Case Name : Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice Murali Purushothaman, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, held that regulatory bodies cannot misinterpret judgments to wrongfully deny registration to the permanent employees.
The petitioners are headload workers employed by the traders in shops located at the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu. The Wholesale Market is administered by the Urban Wholesale Market Authority constituted by the Government of Kerala, with the District Collector, Ernakulam, serving as the Chairman. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (Scheme), was implemented in the Wholesale Market.
The petitioners submitted applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. However, their applications were rejected by the registering authority, citing various reasons, including the implementation of the 1983 Scheme and the engagement of pool workers for loading and unloading work in the market. The appellate authority also upheld the decision of registering authority, citing a judgment (Ext. P128(a)) concerning police protection for traders against pool workers.
The court further observed that unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration to attached workers, and their objections can only be raised when an attached worker seeks to join the scheme as a registered but unattached worker
Case Title: Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ petition of a 10-year-old minor girl who invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that she was entitled to have a pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple during the Mandala Pooja/Makaravilakku season of 1199 ME(2023-24) without insisting on upper age qualification.
The writ petition was filed through her father and legal guardian seeking a writ of mandamus to the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit the girl to have her pilgrimage since she has not attained puberty.
The Court stated that the petitioner would have to wait until the issues have been finally decided by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the Sabarimala Review Petition. It stated that one of the issues to be considered by the Larger Bench in Kantararu Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) was regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.
Case Title: Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala High Court reiterated that the power of alteration of charges under Section 216 of the CrPC is the vested power of the Court, and could be exercised at any time before judgment is pronounced.
In the facts of the case, the revision petitioner is challenging the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge that allowed an application for alteration of the charge moved by the Public Prosecutor. The Assistant Sessions Judge altered the charge against the revision petitioner from Section 304 of the IPC (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to an offence punishable under Section 302 (punishment for murder) of the IPC.
Case Title: Athul v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
The Kerala High Court has convicted four accused to rigorous imprisonment of 30 years under Section 376D of the IPC for committing the offence of gang rape on a migrant woman worker in 2015.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. relying upon the Apex Court decision in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), considered the intersectional identity and vulnerability of the victim who was a migrant worker on whom sexual assault was committed.
Case Title: N. Ansari v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala High Court has held that just because a person was charged and acquitted under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code for dowry death does not mean that he cannot be convicted under Section 498-A of the Act for marital cruelty.
The judgment was made by Justice Johnson John while deciding a Criminal Appeal against the decision of Sessions Judge where he found the appellant guilty of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court found the accused not guilty under Section 304B and abetment of suicide under Section 306.
Kerala High Court Directs Probe Against Former DGP For Allegedly Disclosing Identity Of Sooryanelli Rape Victim In His Book 'Nirbhayam'
Case Title: K K Joshwa v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court has directed the Station House Officer, Mannanthala Police Station to review the complaint lodged by the petitioner against former DGP and author Siby Mathews alleging the commission of an offence under Section 228 A of IPC. The Court directed the SHO to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether Siby Mathews has disclosed the details of the identity of the rape victim in the Sooryanelli case in his book 'Nirbhayam', potentially committing a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR.
Nirbhayam is a book written by former DGP of Kerala, Siby Mathews which entails details of his service as a police officer in Kerala. It was alleged that he disclosed the details of the identity of the minor rape victim who was raped by several accused persons during 1996 without specifically taking her name. It was alleged that the book contains a chapter captioning 'Sooryanelli case' and has used terms like 'peedippikkapetta penkutti' meaning sexual assault victim.
Case Title: Elsy Abraham v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 355
The Kerala High Court in a writ petition has decided on the balance of rights of travellers in the public pathway and that of private persons in adjoining property in relation to the construction of structures near public roads.
Justice M. A. Abdul Hakim held that constructions which are necessary for the maintenance of the users of the pathway can be made on public land, but, care should be taken to ensure that only minimum injury or inconvenience is caused to the affected private party.
Arbitration Clause Valid But Unilateral Appointment Part Is Invalid: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors
Citation : 2024 Live Law Ker 356
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice G. Girish has held that arbitration clauses with provisions for the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot be entirely rejected due to this defect. It held that the clauses are to be considered valid arbitration clauses except for those portions which confer the authority upon one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators.
The High Court held that the arbitration clauses in the agreements did not align with the legal provisions prohibiting unilateral appointments of arbitrators. Nevertheless, it held that these arbitration clauses should not be completely discarded due to this defect. The High Court held that these clauses remained valid as arbitration agreements, with the exception of the portions granting the applicant unilateral appointment authority.
[Walayar Rape-Death Case] Govt Should Consider Request Of Victim Or Victim's Representatives While Appointing Public Prosecutor: Kerala High Court
Case Title: XXX v Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court has held that the Government should consider the request of the victim or representatives of the victim while appointing a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the absolute power to appoint a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor is with the Government but that do not mean that it should completely negate the request of the victim or representatives of the victim while making such appointments.
Case Title: Darvin Dominic v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court has held the Trial Court should not proceed with criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC without previous sanction from the Central Government when an offence of marital cruelty was entirely committed outside India by an Indian National.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the husband under Section 498A IPC for want of previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC.
Case Title: Shilpa v K K Rajeevan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate whilst ordering maintenance to the daughter under Section 20 (1) (d) of the Domestic Violence Act should specify if the maintenance order is made under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
The Court stated that the Magistrate could order monthly maintenance to the daughter under Section 20 (1) (d) of the DV Act. It stated that the maintenance order under the DV Act could be ordered either under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Maintenance Act.
Further, the Court held that if a maintenance order was made under Section 125 CrPC, then the maintenance payment would cease when the daughter attained the age of majority. As per Section 125 CrPC, a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to maintenance unless she is suffering from physical or mental abnormality due to which she cannot maintain herself. It stated that Section 125 CrPC is secular and applicable to all so it cannot be assumed that maintenance would not be ordered under Section 125 CrPC
Case Title: Joji Joseph v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
The Kerala High Court has held that police officials cannot be prosecuted for an act done during the discharge of their official duty without taking sanction from the government under Section 197 CrPC.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar ordered that sanction would be necessary under Section 197 of CrPC if the alleged act was directly concerned with official duty or has reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, even if such alleged act involves manhandling or detaining persons illegally.
The Court further stated sanction would not be required if an offence was committed by the police officer entirely outside the scope of his duty as a police officer.
Case Title: Raju K. J. v Deepak T. V. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court, in an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, held that contributory negligence cannot be fixed based on the scene mahazar alone. It can be relied on if there is a police charge alleging contributory negligence or evidence to support the mahazar.
The court however referred to Jiju Kuruvila & Others v Kunjunjumma Mohan to hold that no inference of contributory negligence can be drawn from scene mahazar.
Case Title: Sipahi Kumar v State of Kerala, Jaymangal Shah v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 362
A single bench of Justice Mary Joseph of the Kerala High Court has held that before conducting the body search of a person, the person has to be informed of his right to have the presence of either the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to witness his body search.
The Court observed that unless he was informed of his right in the way he understands, the formalities under Section 50 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS Act) cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled.
Case Title: Lakeshore Hospital And Research Centre Limited Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order and notice of demand on the grounds that they were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that when the petitioner-assessee is at fault, as they did not update or change the email address with the Department, they cannot legitimately complain that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Balan Panicker Ramesh Kumar Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court has held that it is the prerogative of the government to fix the limit of income from the encashment of earned leave salary for the purposes of exemption from payment of income tax. Unless the government issues a notification fixing the limit of income for earned leave salary, an employee cannot claim exemption from payment of income tax on the encashment of earned leave for up to 300 days.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the last notification was issued on May 31, 2002, and the government did not thereafter issue a notification despite there having been three pay revisions. The latest notification is only in 2023, after which the upper limit has been fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs, taking the highest salary of the cabinet secretary, i.e., Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month.
Case Title: Jitha Sanjay v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court has held that while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into attending and overall circumstances above the averments made in the FIR or complaint to assess whether criminal proceedings were initiated maliciously.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that criminal proceedings initiated with ulterior and malafide motives to wreak vengeance due to personal or private grudges cannot be allowed to continue.
Delay In Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act Can't Be Condoned: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Equity Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court has held that the delay in approaching the revision authority under the Income Tax Act cannot be condoned.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that it was the same aspect of delay or limitation that prevented the Department from re-assessing the income of the appellant for the assessment years 2004–2005 and 2005–2006, respectively.
Case Title: Jitha Sanjay and Others v State of Kerala and Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 367
Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court has held that the Court can look beyond an FIR to quash the criminal proceedings when they are manifestly vexatious, frivolous or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The Court observed that when the complainant is motivated due to extraneous reasons, he can make sure that the FIR contains the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence.
“Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredient to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case and above averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read between the lines,” the Court said.
Kerala High Court Allows Dealer To Correct Copy Of Stock Inventory Uploaded Along With Returns
Case Title: Usha Bagri Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerala High Court has allowed the dealer to correct a copy of stock inventory uploaded along with returns.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the mistake on the part of the petitioner-dealer was that she uploaded the stock inventory as of May 28, 2015, instead of the stock inventory as of March 31, 2015. The provisions of sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 should be interpreted as permitting the dealer to also revise or correct any mistake in the documents uploaded along with returns under Rule 22 (1), as any other interpretation would mean that while the dealer is permitted to revise his return on detecting a mistake, he cannot correct a mistake in any of the documents uploaded along with the returns.
Case Title: M/S. Sunny Jacob Jewellers Gold Hyper Market Versus CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court has held that based on the material obtained during the search, the Assessing Officer, who gets the jurisdiction to re-open the assessments, can do so in respect of the individual assessment years comprised in the block period of six years only if the material obtained during the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, or any part thereof, relates to the assessment year in question.
Case Title: Sujith T. V. v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court has declared that an employee's messages in a private WhatsApp group regarding the safety of the company do not give rise to the charge of harming the reputation of the company. Justice Satish Ninan said that a charge to such effect infringes on the employee's right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner is an employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). It was submitted that he sent messages to a private WhatsApp group of the technicians of the company regarding the safety concerns related to ammonia handling.
Case Title: Muhammed Sahir v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Court's denial of issuing summons to defence witnesses, as requested by the accused during a criminal trial should be an exception and to be used sparingly.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the right of the accused to enter defence evidence and adduce witnesses is essential to ensure fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly known as Gospel for Asia) v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court has recorded the submissions made by the Advocate General on behalf of the State Government that it has proposed to withdraw the notifications issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the acquisition of Cheruvally Estate in Kottayam for construction and development of the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport.
Justice Viju Abraham also recorded the submission of the State Government that it has decided to conduct a Social Impact Assessment study through a different agency and fresh notifications will be issued in this regard by the Government under Section 4 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Muraleedharan K. V.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 373
The Kerala High Court recently criticised the "casual approach" of a Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act for wrongly making adverse observations against an IAS officer, then serving as the Additional Chief Secretary in the State's Revenue department.
Single bench of Justice K. Babu observed that “A special Judge functioning under the PC Act must be conscious of his responsibilities and obligations. Even an unnecessary preliminary enquiry may cause a blemish in the career of a public servant.”
Case Title: M/S. DLF Home Developers Limited Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court has held that the statutory scheme for determining the taxable turnover of a works contract under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) does not suffer from any defect so as to render it unworkable to effectuate the charge to tax on a works contract.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. has observed that it was incumbent upon the petitioner or assessee to declare the total turnover (contract receipts) pertaining solely to the works undertaken by them without including the component representing the value of the undivided share in the land. If the petitioner assessees choose not to do so, they have only themselves to blame for the predicament that they find themselves in.
Case Title: Kakkoth Radha and Others v Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthafa and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 375
The Kerala High Court held that when the registered deed of gift of immovable property mentions that the property was delivered to the donee, it is sufficient to establish acceptance.
The Court also observed that the Transfer of Property Act does not mention any one mode of acceptance.
Justice K. Babu observed:
“It is trite that no particular mode is prescribed under the law as to the requirement needed to prove acceptance. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift.”
Case Title: Sebin Thomas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
The Kerala High Court has held that automatic or accidental downloading of children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct is not an offence under Section 67B (b) of the Information Technology Act when the evidence shows that there was no specific intent to do so.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was alleged to have committed offences under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 B (b) of the Information Technology Act. The specific allegation was that the petitioner stored and possessed pornographic material involving child which was downloaded on his phone from Telegram.
The bench observed that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 B (b) of the IT Act and held thus: “In the present case, the materials collected during investigation would show that some pornographic messages, which would depict children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct were found in the devise of the accused. But there are no materials to show that the petitioner intentionally downloaded or browsed or recorded the same. More particularly there are no materials to show that the petitioner had either shared or transmitted or propagated or displayed or distributed the same in any manner.”
Case Title: Ivin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
The Kerala High Court held that settling serious and heinous offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity through quashing process by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC would seriously impact society and sans legal permissibility.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that even though the Court has the power to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable offences invoking its inherent powers upon settlement between parties, such powers should be exercised carefully. The Court cautioned that in cases involving serious offences that impact society, the Court must refrain from invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss proceedings based on compromises between the parties.
Case Title: Amal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of over 100 gms contraband, noting that the Investigating Officer had mixed the content found in three separate packets.
Justice C. S. Dias cited Section 52A of the Act which requires the Investigating Officer to draw separate samples from "each of the packets", that too in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate and then, send the representative samples from each packet for chemical analysis.
The bench said that an infraction of the statutory provision by the Investigating Officer had prejudiced the accused and therefore, the rigour on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted.
Case Title: Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that there is no fair process of enquiry if unexplained delay has occurred in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee, since it causes him significant prejudice.
The Court further stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, which should be ensured not only in criminal cases but also in all cases where procedures are required to indict an individual.
In the facts of the case, a charge memo was filed against an officer in 2022, alleging dereliction of duty in the investigation of a crime he had investigated in 2001, during which he wrongfully arrested innocent persons.
Case Title: Sakeer v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court has held that in exceptional cases, the High Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can even quash even criminal proceedings alleging the commission of an offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Special Court for the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children (POCSO).
In the present case, the Court found that there were financial dealings between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It also observed that a case was filed against the de facto complainant by the wife of the accused. The Court thus stated that criminal proceedings could be quashed when prosecution materials do not attract the offence alleged to be committed.
No Fundamental Right To Protest Anywhere The Agitator Pleases: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Bank filed a suit before the Munisff for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining it's employee union, its members and supporters from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank.
The Single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held that the right under Article 19 is not absolute and it must be exercised in a way as not to interfere with the right of the employer to carry on their lawful business. Court said freedom of speech and expression cannot interfere with the right of someone else to enjoy property or carry on business.
Case Title: Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court has held that the guardian of a minor or owner of a vehicle driven by a minor can be prosecuted for offence under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even in the absence of finding of guilt of the minor.
The provision prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.
Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said though commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is an essential ingredient of Section 199A, however, a finding regarding the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is not a sine qua non for initiating proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under the said section.
Case Title: S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
The Kerala High Court recently observed that families can often become sites of violence and control for LGBTIQA+ individuals who they need protection from rather than guardianship.
The Court observed that LGBTIQA+ persons face defiance in society and are subjected to stigma, violence and discrimination from an early age due to societal beliefs and cultural norms.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj made the observation while dealing with the plea filed by parents of a 23-year-old woman stating that their daughter was illegally detained and living in a 'toxic' relationship with a person of the same gender.
Case Title: Smitha v Anil Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has held that under Section 120 of the Evidence Act, a husband is permitted to testify in lieu of his wife and vice versa even without a written authority or power of attorney.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that the Trial Court had wrongly rejected the request for examining the plaintiff's husband for and on her behalf in the trial of a suit.
Case Title: P. Ummer Koya v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court has held that merely because a person had moved to Pakistan in search of a job does not make him an enemy under Rules 130 and 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 unless he was trading with an enemy.
Court thus quashed the proceedings initiated under the Enemy Property Act, against a property formerly held by the petitioner's father, who had worked at a hotel in Pakistan.
Case Title: Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court today held that while considering allegations of terrorism and related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Courts should not get carried away by confirmation bias that might creep in based on ideological biases and false narratives prevalent in the society.
The Court was considering the criminal appeals moved by 26 persons belonging to Popular Front Of India (PFI) who were accused of allegedly murdering RSS Leader Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Ajayakumar V
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has stated that Home Guards are appointed on a daily wage basis and their recruitment and selection process differed from that of a Civil Police Officer. The Court further observed that Apex Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2015) had not declared that Home Guards shall be treated at par with Civil Police Officers.
In this case, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in granting parity in pay to Home Guards with that of Police Constable, the State Government has approached the High Court with an appeal.
Case Title: Jayasree v Indrapalan and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment observed that a former wife, though divorced cannot be evicted from a shared household except through a procedure laid down by law.
The Court observed that even though a divorced woman had no right over the shared household, if she was staying there during or after divorce, she could be evicted only through a procedure established by law.
Case Title: Rajesh K. The District Geologist and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court declared that a person need not seek permission while extracting minerals on his property when the mineral is not transported outside the premises of the property. The Court said that he only needs to inform the concerned authorities and pay them a royalty fee for using the granite for construction.
Case Title: JTPAC v Maradu Municipality
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
The Kerala High Court directed the Municipality under whose jurisdiction a music concert was held to refund the entertainment tax levied on unsold tickets.
Justice Gopinath P. stated that entertainment tax could only be charged under Section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act, 1961 towards sold tickets and not on unsold tickets.
Case Title: Reghunadan v State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal as abated after the death of a man convicted for the murder of his wife.
Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. said that the man's children would not be interested in coming on record to continue the appeal since in a sense, they are also victims of the alleged crime.
Case Title: Murali @ Muralidharan V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court has held that a complaint filed before a lawful authority would not amount to instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, since filing such a complaint is not intended to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Case Title: P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court held that a property register maintained in a public office is not confidential or a record of proceedings to be protected from disclosure as per Rule 225 of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982.
The petitioner has approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of his application for obtaining a certified copy of a property register in relation to a property produced in a criminal trial in the Court. His application was dismissed stating that it is a register kept in the office of the court and is a confidential non-judicial record as per Rule 225.
Case Title: Hena Khatoon and Another v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court observed that a petition filed at a later point seeking a re-examination of a witness, an examination of a new witness or a summons of new documents can be allowed only to meet the ends of justice. It should not be used to fill the lacuna of evidence, to give advantage to one party or as a disguise for a re-trial, the court said.
Case Title: Shalet v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Police Chief to issue suitable instructions to ensure that citizens are not illegally arrested and detained based on the wrong identity.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was wrongly detained and arrested by the police in a case of mistaken identity.
Justice Gopinath P. ordered that the identity of persons should be clearly established before police officials arrest or detain citizens to prevent any illegal invasion into the life and liberty of innocent citizens.
Credit Available On Advance Tax Paid For Stock-Transferred: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner will be entitled to credit for the entire amount paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 for the goods in question, which were stock-transferred to its branch office in Pollachi.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that a combined reading of the provisions of Circular No. 50/2006 and the definition of input tax in Section 2(xxiii) of the KVAT Act indicates that the tax paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 cannot assume the character of input tax.