Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766 - 828]C. Alavi v The State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766T. N. Mukundan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 767Motorsigns India v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 768Nizar v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 769Aravindakshan P. R. v Assistant Director, ED and Another, 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766 - 828]
C. Alavi v The State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
T. N. Mukundan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 767
Motorsigns India v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 768
Nizar v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 769
Aravindakshan P. R. v Assistant Director, ED and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 770
M/S Inkel Ltd V The Federal Bank Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 771
Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 772
The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V The State Chief Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 773
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 774
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 775
The Kerala Public Service Commission V Aboobacker Mattayi, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 776
Ismail Valumathige v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 777
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kochi v. M/s Dewa Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 778
Braddock Infotech Private Limited v. Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 779
Ameen Akbarali. U V Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 780
Aneesh K. Thankachan v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 781
Manoj George v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 782
Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783
DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784
M Shammy Kumar v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 785
Nishad Padinjare Peediyekkal V Hyderiyya Masjid Mahall Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 786
State Bank of India v Sham PS & Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 787
Abraham Mathai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 788
Maya M. T. and Others v Nadukkandy P. C. Ashraf, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789
Riyas A @ Riyas Aboobakkar @ Abu Dujana v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 790
M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791
Joy v C K Manoj, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 792
XXX and Another v XXX and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 793
M K Nasar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 794
Mahesh C. and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 795
xxx v xxx, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 796
Sumith v Sebastian and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 797
State of Kerala v Haridasan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 798
Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 799
xxx v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 800
Balachandra Menon v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 801
Dr. Thahiya Thasleem V S & Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 802
A. K. Sreekumar v The Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 803
Sebastian Paul v P. R. Ashokan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 804
Vijith V. C. and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 805
Davy Varghese v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 806
Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni v Station House Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 807
Sadhoo Beedi Enterprises v The Controlling Authority and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 808
Rollymol v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 809
Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 810
Jamal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 811
Akhil Mohanan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 812
Abdul Muthalib T. and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 813
Aleema A V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 814
xxx v Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 815
Omar Abdul Wahab @ Omar Lulu v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 816
Nithin Gopi v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 817
Arshad v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 818
Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v State Medical Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 819
Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 820
M/s Fortune Service v. Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 821
N. Binoj v. Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 822
The Management Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another v The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 823
XXX v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 824
M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. v State of Kerala And Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 825
Chavakkad Service Cooperative Bank vs. ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 826
The Kerala State -Ex-Services League State Committee, Thiruvananthapuram v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Trivandrum, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 827
S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 828
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: C. Alavi v The State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate Court can take cognizance in case of custodial torture by police office, without prior sanction of the State Government under Section 197(1) of CrPC.
Justice K. Babu reasoned that a Police Officer torturing a man in a police station cannot be treated as part of official duty, thus not requiring sanction to prosecute.
Case Title: T. N. Mukundan v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 767
The Kerala High Court has ordered the State to remit the entire amount it collected as application fee for conversion of paddy land since the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to the Agricultural Promotion Funds (APF) in the next 12 months.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu ordered for this entire amount is to be transferred to the Agricultural Promotion Funds.
Case Title: Motorsigns India v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 768
The Kerala High Court has quashed the notification issued by the state government dated July 30, 2024, permitting Regional Transport Officers in the State to set up plants for the production of high-security registration number plates (HSRP) and to obtain Technical Approval Certificates (TAC) for the implementation of the HSRP scheme.
The government introduced the HSRP scheme, which provides standardised registration plates and chromium-based holograms to vehicles for enhanced security, facilitates their identification, and reduces motor vehicle-related offences.
The single bench of Justice D K Singh also rejected the permission to license plate manufacturers and their dealers, who have a Type Approval Certificate from the central agency, to affix HSRP plates without further approval or selection by the State Government since that would affect the integrity and object behind implementation of the HSRP scheme.
Case Title: Nizar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 769
The Kerala High Court has held that an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the IPC is attracted when the offender's action is such that it would be perceived as capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency.
In this case, the President of the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) of an upper primary school was accused of using obscene language and outraging the modesty of the school headmistress. It was alleged that during the PTA meeting, he grabbed both of her hands and pulled her towards his body.
Justice Muralee Krishna S. while quashing conviction under Section 354 of the IPC found that the revision petitioner might have acted in a heat of passion during the PTA meeting when he was being decided to be expelled out of the PTA.
Case Title: Aravindakshan P. R. v Assistant Director, ED and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 770
The Kerala High Court on Monday (December 2) granted bail to the former CPI(M) Municipal Councillor of Vadakkanchery Municipality Aravindakshan P. R. accused in the Karuvannur Bank Scam case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
Justice C. S. Dias also granted bail to the former Senior Accountant of the Bank, Jilise C. K. Both of them were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 4 (punishment for money laundering) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Case Title: M/S Inkel Ltd V The Federal Bank Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 771
The Kerala High Court has observed that it was not appropriate to proceed against the property of a guarantor who has not created mortgage over the property as collateral, merely because the guarantor had previously acted as a surety in another mortgage that has already been settled.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon directed the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the return of original title deeds.
Case Title: Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 772
The Kerala High Court has held that the pendency of maintenance proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of the CrPC would not affect the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal from ordering residence to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007.
Justice D. K. Singh observed that the 2007 Act was enacted to prevent the deprivation of senior citizens by their children and to safeguard their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Act, which stipulates that maintenance can be claimed either under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 12 of the Act but not under both, does not restrict the Tribunal's authority to grant residence to senior citizens.
Case Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V The State Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 773
The Kerala High Court has said that if the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has access to the information requested by an applicant under the Right To Information Act, and if the information is not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Act, the official is obligated to provide that requested information to the applicant.
Referring to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, Justice D. K. Singh noted that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has wider powers in the functioning of the society and has access to the documents sought by the applicants which are not exempted from disclosure.
Petitioner: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 774
The Kerala High Court has held that the trauma and shock of a mother coming to know of her minor, unmarried daughter's pregnancy is a justifiable reason for delay in informing the POCSO offence to the police.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in one way the mother can also be considered the victim of the crime and thus, prosecuting her under Section 19 of the Act is like “putting chilly powder on the deep wound”.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 775
The Kerala High Court has observed that provisions of the POCSO Act were being misused by certain persons to wreak vengeance against their rivals with ulterior motives.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Court shall exercise its powers to quash false and frivolous litigations filed with ulterior motives at the threshold by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS.
Case Title: The Kerala Public Service Commission V Aboobacker Mattayi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 776
The Kerala High Court has stated that a candidate who underwent a degree course having two main subjects would get the advantage of two main degrees.
In the facts of the case, a candidate who has a BA in Arabic and Islamic History from Calicut University was stated to be not eligible to apply for a post advertised by the Public Service Commission requiring a degree in Arabic, due to his dual main degree.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that merely the inclusion of an additional subject in the main degree would not mean that the candidate lacks degree in BA Arabic.
Case Title: Ismail Valumathige v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 777
The Kerala High Court has said that Courts have to be liberal while considering issuing a No Objection of Certificate for passports when the case pending against the applicant is a matrimonial issue or a trivial/ simple offence.
In doing so the court said that if a liberal approach is not adopted in such cases, the applicant's right to go abroad to carry out their employment, without obstructing the trial, "would be in peril".
Justice A. Badharudeen held that the Court has to uphold the right of life of the accused. In the case before it, the high court noted that it was the petitioner's grievance was that the pendency of a criminal case is a matter which would negate the issuance/re-issuance of passport, unless No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court is produced
Loss In Derivatives Is Not A Speculative Transaction And Can Be Set Off Against Business Income Of Assessee: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kochi v. M/s Dewa Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 778
The Kerala High Court stated that loss in derivatives is not a speculative transaction and can be set off against business income of the assessee. Further, this is not a case where Section 73 of Income Tax Act is attracted since it deals with losses in speculation business.
The Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar observed that “……..a loss in the derivative business would consequently be a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, and a set off of such business loss would have to be permitted against profits and gains of business as computed in terms of the I.T. Act……..”
Case Title: Braddock Infotech Private Limited v. Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 779
The Kerala High Court stated that the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy cannot by itself authorise the levy of interest under Section 28AA of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, as such levy must be supported by plenary legislation.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. was considering a case where the assessee challenged the interest imposed upon him under the provisions of Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the amounts repaid by the assessee on the assessee being found ineligible for the benefit of the Scheme introduced by the Foreign Trade Policy.
Case Title: Ameen Akbarali. U V Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 780
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 5) quashed the order expelling the college students implicated as accused in the suicide of Sidharthan J S. The Court has also quashed the order debarring the students from taking admission to any other college for three years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while pronouncing the verdict ordered the Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving the students memo of charges outlining the specific allegations against them, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court has also permitted the students to continue their studies in the college, subject to the final outcome of the fresh enquiry to be conducted.
Case Title: Aneesh K. Thankachan v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 781
The Kerala High Court has held that YouTube, being an intermediary cannot be directed to remove an allegedly objectionable video without an order from the Court finding that the alleged video was defamatory in nature.
Justice T.R. Ravi reached the above conclusion by relying upon the landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India and perusing Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Mere Giving Of Hand Loans On One Or Two Occasions Is Not 'Money Lending Business': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Manoj George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 782
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the mere giving of hand loans on one or two occasions cannot be considered as engaging in money lending business, since that would discourage people from offering emergency hand loans due to fear of penal consequences under the Kerala Money-Lenders Act and Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.
In the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused of running money lending business and threatening the complainants for repayment.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that there is no evidence to even prima facie suggest that petitioners run a money-lending business. It stated that unless prosecution proves that petitioners have given loans to large numbers of persons on exorbitant interest, no offences can be made out.
Case Title: Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783
The Kerala stated that there is distinction between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court explained that the jurisdiction of a writ court is not generally invoked when there is an alternative remedy available, and in such cases, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. The Court stated that having an alternative remedy cannot be used as a ground to hold that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Here, writ appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of a writ petition as not maintainable.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu observed thus: “Even if alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner, that cannot be a ground to hold the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an administrative authority as “not maintainable”. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised even if there exists an alternate remedy, however, it is in restricted circumstances, within well defined parameters. As a matter of settled judicial practice, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available and in such circumstances, the writ court may decline to “entertain” the writ petition. There is, therefore, a difference between maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition.”
Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784
Elaborating on Zero FIR, the Kerala High Court said that the provision has been introduced in the BNSS to primarily ensure that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.
The court also said that under Section 173 BNSS police cannot refuse to register an FIR merely because a part of the offence has happened outside the limit of the local jurisdictional police station.
Justice Kauser Edappagath in his order said:
“The implementation of Section 173 of BNSS marks a significant shift in how the police handles information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Now, Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition by incorporating it in Section 173 of BNSS, which deals with registration of FIR in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that the victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.”
Case Title: M Shammy Kumar v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 785
The Kerala High Court has upheld the life sentence given to the husband under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife by hanging. The Court upheld the conviction by ruling out the possibility of suicide since the body of the deceased was found hanging in a nude state in a lodge room which was locked from the outside.
The Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar relied upon the evidence of the police surgeon to state that normally Indian women hide their nudity when they commit suicide. The Court observed that the fact the deceased was found in a nude clearly indicates homicide, as opposed to suicide.
Kerala High Court Extends Waqf Board's Term Until Election Process Initiated By State Concludes
Case Title: Nishad Padinjare Peediyekkal V Hyderiyya Masjid Mahall Committee
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 786
The Kerala High Court recently extended the term of the state Wakf Board–whose term was set to expire on December 14–until the election initiated by the state government for the constitution of the board is concluded.
The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S ordered thus: “we further issue a direction that the term of the elected body of the Board which is going to expire on 14.12.2024 shall continue till the election process initiated by the respondent/State is over. It is made clear that till such time, the Board shall continue to discharge the duties and deal with the pending matters, in accordance with law.”
Case Title: State Bank of India v Sham PS & Other Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 787
The Kerala High Court has held that borrowers who breach the terms and conditions of the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, cannot be permitted to seek directions from the Court to compel the bank to honour its obligations under the OTS Scheme.
The present appeals were filed by the State Bank of India, aggrieved by the orders in the writ petitions where benefits under the OTS Schemes were given to the respondents despite making lapses in discharging their obligations under the Scheme.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu found that borrowers in all these appeals have failed to discharge their obligations under the OTS Scheme.
Case Title: Abraham Mathai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 788
The Kerala High Court has held that oral complaints given by an employee alleging sexual harassment to various authorities cannot be a substitute for a written complaint for carrying an inquiry under Section 11 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
In the facts of the case, the local level committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act initiated the inquiry based on an anonymous complaint.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar clarified that while a written complaint is not mandatory under the law if the complainant is unable to submit one, it is still essential for a complaint to be made as per the provisions of the POSH Act for initiating an inquiry under Section 11 of the Act.
Case Title: Maya M. T. and Others v Nadukkandy P. C. Ashraf
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789
The Kerala High Court has observed that for the Rent Control Court to assess the genuineness of the claim of permanent tenancy or denial of title, the pleading must be clear, specific, unequivocal and explicit.
“The Pleading regarding the denial of title or the claim for permanent tenancy must be clear, specific, and unequivocal, without which the Rent Control Court cannot assess whether the said contention was raised in good faith or was merely a pretext for eviction.”
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that there is a statutory duty on the court to examine the genuineness of the claim before making a crucial decision.
Case Title: Riyas A @ Riyas Aboobakkar @ Abu Dujana v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 790
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction imposed upon Riyas Aboobakkar by the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act. His conviction under Sections 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 ( offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA, read with Section 120B of the IPC was upheld by the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian found that Riyas Aboobakkar propagated ISIS ideology and advocated war against non-Muslims. The Court modified the punishment imposed upon the appellant and reduced his imprisonment to 8 years of Rigorous Imprisonment instead of 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 38 and 39 of the UAPA, by considering various factors.
Case Number: M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791
The Kerala High Court has said that it is well-established that the High Court can under Article 226 of the Constitution consider the legality of orders passed by Tribunals, adding that it has ample powers to issue directions even when such reliefs are not specifically sought in the plea before the Tribunal.
In the facts of the case, OP (KAT)'s are filed by the employee as well as the State challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which ordered that disciplinary proceedings against the employee can be finalised in two months. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee since a criminal case was registered against him. However, the High Court ordered that the disciplinary authority could wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial before complying with the order of the Tribunal to finalize the disciplinary proceedings.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) a Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar said:
“Therefore, this court has ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the direction as above, even if it is not specifically sought in the petition filed before the Tribunal, if it is found necessary.”
Case Title: Joy v C K Manoj
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 792
Dismissing a contempt plea, the Kerala High Court observed that it would be too far fetched to hold that contempt of court proceedings can be initiated on the ground that a particular authority failed to follow a binding precedent.
The court was hearing a contempt plea alleging that despite series of judgments of the High Court, the respondent Sub Registrar Thrissur refused to register a document and insisted on the production of prior documents.
Justice Gopinath P. in his order said: “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that no proceedings can be initiated against the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act on the ground that he refused to follow a precedent, which according to the petitioner decides the matter in favour of the petitioner. While it is true that the law laid down by this Court must be followed by every authority, I am afraid that it is too far-fetched to hold that a Contempt Court proceedings can be initiated under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that a particular authority failed to follow a binding precedent.”
Case Title: XXX and Another v XXX and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 793
The Kerala High Court while reversing a decision of the Family Court granting compensation to the husband for his wife's alleged adulterous behaviour observed that India like many other jurisdictions does not recognize adultery as a ground for claiming damages.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that Indian law does not recognize marriage as a “relationship that creates enforceable propriety rights over spouse's behaviour.”
Case Title: M K Nasar v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 794
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 12) suspended the sentence of M K Nasar (third accused) who was convicted to life imprisonment by the Special Court of Trial of NIA Cases for chopping the hands of Professor T J Joseph.
The matter arose in 2010 when a question in an exam set by Professor Joseph, the former Head of the Malayalam Department of Newman College, Thodupuzha, contained a passage that was alleged to have insulted Prophet Mohammed. Subsequently, on July 4, 2010, a group of armed men attacked Prof. Joseph and his family as they were going to church, and chopped off his right hand for setting the question paper.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan observed that the accused had undergone incarceration for more than 9 years now. The Court found that the accused surrendered on November 6, 2015, but the trial did not begin until June 23, 2021, and the judgment was delivered only in July 12, 2023.
Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines To Ensure Minors Are Not Mistakenly Tried As Adults
Case Title: Mahesh C. and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 795
The Kerala High Court, while handling a case in which two juveniles were tried and punished as adults, issued a set of directives to investigating agencies and the district judiciary to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish said that they cannot consider this as police's fault as there is no dereliction of duty because there is no express provision requiring the authorities to cross-check the minority of the offenders brought before them. The Court also observed that Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh @ Baboo Singh and Anr. V State of UP (2013) has put the responsibility more on judiciary by saying that Magistrate shall order an inquiry if he has a doubt that the accused produced before him is a juvenile.
The Court highlighted the legislative gap, noting that no procedure has been established by the legislature to determine whether an arrestee is a juvenile.
Case Title: xxx v xxx
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 796
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment observed that that a woman's choice of dress should not be subject to moral policing or judgment, especially by the courts.
The Court cautioned that the Judge's personal opinions should not be incorporated into judgments. The Division Bench comprising of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha reminded that the Constitution grants everyone equal rights irrespective of gender.
Case Title: Sumith v Sebastian and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 797
The Kerala High Court has held that merely because a person is an advocate, he is not automatically prohibited from being summoned as a witness.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that prohibition under Section 126 of Indian Evidence Act will apply only to confidential communication made to the advocate by his client.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Haridasan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 798
The Kerala High Court has held that an officer would be entitled to full pay and allowances if there were no reasons for keeping him under suspension till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that disciplinary authority must apply their mind and exercise their discretion in deciding whether the employee's suspension should remain in place until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Reports Forming The Basis For Determining EPF Dues Must Be Shared With Parties: Kerala High Court
Case Name: Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 799
Kerala High Court: A single bench of Justice N. Nagresh overturned the orders of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) in two writ petitions filed by Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust. These orders demanded the Trust pay alleged EPF dues. The court ruled that repeated factual errors, procedural issues, and the lack of a fair hearing made the orders invalid. Authorities were directed to issue new orders within four months.
[POCSO Act] Quashing Of Serious Offence To Efface Evidence Already Recorded Cannot Be Done Even At Instance Of Survivor: Kerala High Court
Case Title: xxx v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 800
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by the victim of a POCSO offence to quash the proceedings saying that serious offences are involved and the trial had reached at the end stage. The Court noted that that the accused is alleged of committing serious offences like aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the minor.
The accused was the father of the victim. He is accused to have committed the offences from the period of April 2013 to 21.02.2016. The prosecution alleges commission of offence under Sections 4 r/w 3, 6 r/w 5(n)(l), 8 r/w 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It is also alleged that he threatened to kill the victim if she reveals the matter to anyone.
Case Title: Balachandra Menon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 801
The Kerala High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Balachandra Menon in a sexual assault case filed against him with 17 years delay, after publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan while granting the relief observed that men also have the right to dignity, not just women. While dictating the order in open Court, the Judge observed,
“It is an admitted fact that the alleged incident happened in 2007. It is an admitted fact that the victim filed the complaint after 17 years of the alleged incident. It is also admitted that the petitioner is a known cine artist, he is also known as a film actor, director, and scriptwriter. He directed about 40 films and obtained two national awards. The nation awarded him by giving a Padma Shri. Based on a statement of a lady, that too after 17 years, this case has been registered…It is true that investigation is going on but everybody must remember that the right and dignity is not only to a woman but to men also. This is a fit case to grant bail to petitioner in the interest of justice."
Case Title: Dr. Thahiya Thasleem V S & Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 802
The Kerala High Court has upheld Kerala State Medical Commission's decision mandating two year Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship to foreign students who missed offline classes due to COVID-19 and war in Ukraine, observing that it was made in larger public interest.
Justice C S Dias while referring to Supreme Court's judgment in National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh and Ors. (2022) observed that the Kerala State Medical Commission is the appropriate authority for issuing regulations.
Members Of Charitable Society Running Private College Are "Public Servants": Kerala High Court
Case Title: A. K. Sreekumar v The Director and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 803
The Kerala High Court held that the authority which can decide the grant of admission, collection of fees etc. of a private pharmacy college is a 'public servant' as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The Court was dealing with an issue regarding the collection of the capitation amount.
The Court noted that the admission and fixation of fees to the institution is governed by the provision of the Kerala Medical (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Institutions) Act, 2017. Justice K. Babu held that since the authorities are discharging a 'State function' under the obligation of existing laws, they are discharging a public duty and are public servants.
Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Former MP For Allegedly Comparing Lawyers To Street Dogs
Case Title: Sebastian Paul v P. R. Ashokan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 804
The Kerala High Court quashed the defamation case against former Ernakulam MP, advocate and lawyer, Sebastian Paul pending before the Taliparamba Magistrate Court for allegedly comparing the lawyer community with street dogs.
Justice G. Girish noted that even going by the complaint, it can be seen that he did not refer to the entire lawyer community. He only referred to the violent behaviour shown by certain group of lawyers. The Court emphasized that the former MP himself is a lawyer. The Court observed since it cannot be said that he insulted the entire lawyer community, the complainant cannot be considered as a person aggrieved by the statements.
Case Title: Vijith V. C. and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 805
While granting bail to three men accused of entering an advocate's office and causing destruction of property, the Kerala High Court appreciated the participation of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association noting that when a lawyer has a grievance the entire lawyer community and the association come together to lend its support.
Shenoy submitted before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan that if any criminal offence is committed against a lawyer or towards his office, that amounts to interfering the administration of justice.
Case Title: Davy Varghese v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 806
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA) does not intend to attach or confiscate all properties of a person connected with crime, especially those properties that were acquired before even the commission of the crime.
A senior citizen and his wife have approached the Court seeking to quash an order of provisional attachment issued under the PMLA.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas thus set aside the order of provisional attachment of properties purchased by the petitioners in 1997, 1999 and 1987 which is much prior to the commission of the crime in 2014. The Court also noted that the PMLA came into existence only in 2002.
Case Title: Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni v Station House Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 807
The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the plea filed by Sunil N.S., also known as 'Pulsar Suni', the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case- for recalling two expert witnesses.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the Sessions case was of the year 2018 and trial commenced on January 2020. It noted that the application filed by Suni is frivolous for delaying the disposal of the case.
Case Title: Sadhoo Beedi Enterprises v The Controlling Authority and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 808
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that gratuity could not be paid in instalments as the purpose of gratuity is to serve as a retirement or terminal benefit ensuring immediate financial support to the employees or their dependents.
Case Title: Rollymol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 809
The Kerala High Court underscored the importance of conducting effective investigation by the police by scientific methods of investigation technology, by not just relying on traditional methods of collecting evidence for ensuring a robust and efficient investigation process.
In the facts of the case, the appellant-mother who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Court for murder of her own 1 and half year old son. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the investigating officer failed to gather medical evidence or investigate the appellant's mental health issues.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan while setting aside the sentence and conviction of the appellant stated that the investigating officer was duty bound to investigate her mental condition to determine whether she suffered from any unsoundness of mind or not.
The Court stated that defective investigation could weaken the prosecution case, and hence stated that police must make use of advanced technology to navigate complex cases and to give justice to both the victim as well as the accused and to bring transparency to the investigation.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 810
The Kerala High while dismissing the appeals filed by daughters of M. M. Lawrence against the decision of Single Judge allowing the donation of CPI(M) Veteran to Ernakulam Government Medical College observed that it is “preferable that quietus be reached in this case”. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed in the order that they consider the appeals to be “regretful litigation”.
Case Title: Jamal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 811
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against a public servant for allegedly making "sarcastic comments" on a WhatsApp group concerning the Chief Minister's appeal to government officers to donate their one-month salary to a relief fund after the 2018 floods.
Justice G Girish found that the alleged comments were not intended to cause any injury to the beneficiaries of the flood relief scheme as it did not prevent other people from contributing their monthly salary as appealed to by the CM.
Case Title: Akhil Mohanan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 812
The Kerala High Court has held that remote chance of conviction due to compromise between the accused and the complainant should not serve as a ground to terminate investigation abruptly and to quash the FIR and further proceedings in serious offences involving POSCO Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that prime facie case was made out against the petitioner and declined to quash the criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act based on the girl's affidavit for settlement.
Case Title: Abdul Muthalib T. and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 813
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (18th December) declared the delimitation exercise carried out in 2024 in Padne Grama Panchayat, Panoor Municipality, Mukkom Municipality, Koduvally Municipality, Payyoli Municipality, Sreekandapuram Municipality, Feroke Municipality, Pattambi Municipality and Mattannur Municipality as invalid.
Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. observed that a delimitation exercise was already carried out in these local bodies based on the 2011 census.
Case Title: Aleema A V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 814
The Kerala High Court has held that if a person satisfies the definition of drug offender, then he would automatically come within the definition of goonda under Section 2 (j) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian stated that for a drug offender to be regarded as goonda, it was not essential to prove that he was engaged in an activity that was harmful for the maintenance of public order.
Case Title: xxx v Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 815
The Kerala High Court set aside an order issued by the Child Welfare Committee, which had directed the child to be produced before it without hearing the preliminary objections of the mother. The Court noted that the father filed a parallel petition before the Child Welfare Committee, while his original petition for custody was still pending before the Family Court.
Justice C S Dias observed that shuttling child between two forums would cause inconvenience to the child and would affect its well-being.
Case Title: Omar Abdul Wahab @ Omar Lulu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 816
Kerala High Court on Friday (20th December) granted bail to Malayalam Movie director Omar Lulu in a rape case. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that prima facie, the relationship between the director and the complainant seems to be a consensual one. However, the Court added that the investigating officer may continue investigation into the matter.
Case Title: Nithin Gopi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 817
The Kerala High Court has stated that restrictions have to be imposed while granting bail to persons who are alleged of committing offences under Kerala Healthcare Service persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2012 for criminally trespassing and causing destruction to hospital building or hospital materials.
The Court by relying upon decisions of the High Court in Hemanth Kumar and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another (2011), Hemachandran M. T. @ Kamalesh and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another (2011) observed that persons must be directed to deposit the value of the destroyed property or even more for getting bail under 2012 Act.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of rupees ten thousand, while allowing his bail application.
Case Title: Arshad v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 818
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that an attempt to murder case under IPC Section 307 can be settled between the accused and complainant after filing Final Report if the prosecution materials do not suggest commission of the said offence and after considering the injuries sustained to the victim.
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice A. Badharudeen held that such a case cannot be settled before the filing of final report.
Case Title: Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v State Medical Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 819
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 19) reiterated that medical reimbursement cannot be denied because an insured underwent treatment in a hospital not approved by the insurer.
The petitioner sought reimbursement from the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI), since her husband had to undergo an emergency liver transplantation in a non ESIC hospital. And, his claim for reimbursement was not being processed even after submission of emergency certificate. Justice C S Dias ordered for reimbursement
Case Title: Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 820
The Kerala High Court while quashing the demand order stated that there has been no wrong availment of credit, and that the only mistake committed by the assessee was an inadvertent and technical one, where he had omitted to mention the IGST figures separately in Form GSTR 3B.
Case Title: M/s Fortune Service v. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 821
The Kerala High Court stated that orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order in order to treat the order to be a valid order.
Case Title: N. Binoj v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 822
The Kerala High Court stated that notice issued against a dead person is invalid and participation of legal heirs of deceased in the proceedings won't make it legal.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction to the assessing authority for initiation of an action which is otherwise illegal and 'non-est'.”
Case Title: The Management Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another v The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 823
The Kerala High Court held that a bank cannot publish the photo and details of defaulting borrowers to coerce them to repay loan. Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that such acts invade a person's right to live with dignity and reputation.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 824
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 24) dismissed a petition by the mother of two girls–who were allegedly raped and killed in Walayar in 2017–against the Integrity Certificate issued by the State to Superintendent of Police MJ Sojan, which is a requirement for conferring an officer with IPS cadre.
Justice CS Dias observed that the State Government's home department had considered the matter in detail before issuing Integrity Certificate to Sojan.
Case Title: M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. v State of Kerala And Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 825
The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 27) held that the State can take over the Nedumbala estate and Elstone tea estates in Wayanad for rehabilitation purposes post the July 30 landslide, under the Disaster Management Act, 2015 (DM Act).
Justice Kauser Edappagath also said that the government shall determine the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners for taking over/acquiring the subject properties as per the provisions in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Chavakkad Service Cooperative Bank vs. ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 826
The Kerala High Court held that circumstances under which AO can absolve a taxpayer from payment of penalty u/s 271B are discernible from a reading of Sec 273B, which states that no penalty can be imposed on an assessee u/s 271B for breach of the provisions, if he proves that there was "reasonable cause" for the said failure.
The Division Bench of Justice Dr. A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice K V Jayakumar observed that no penalty shall be imposed on assessees u/s 271B, if no prejudice is caused to Revenue Department on account of any belated furnishing of audit report as per Sec 44AB.
Case Title: The Kerala State -Ex-Services League State Committee, Thiruvananthapuram v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Trivandrum
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 827
The Kerala High Court stated that services by charitable society who look after socio-economic and welfare matters of ex-serviceman and their families is liable to service tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “for an association like the assessee, the embarking on a transaction that is designed to earn income for its members, would have to be seen as a commercial venture and the assessee who embarks on such a venture, a 'commercial concern'.”
Longevity Of Service Cannot Be Sole Reason For Claiming Regularisation: Kerala HC
Case Title: S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 828
A single bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed petitions by Cochin Port Trust firemen seeking regularisation and pay parity with permanent firemen. The court observed that the firemen were engaged only as Leave Reserve Pool (LRP) workers and were not entitled to regularisation or equal pay. Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the court ruled that regularisation requires strict adherence to judicial guidelines.