Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2024 [Citations: 397 - 607]

Sali T. v Keezhmadu Service Co-operative Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397

Arshad v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 398

Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists v Akhil James and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 399

Satish Motilal Bidri v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 400

N S Gopakumar v The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 401

O. Abdul Rahiman v State Of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 402

Mohammed Mammunhi v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 403

Mansoor Ali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 404

Adithya Kiron v The Station House Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 405

P. R. Ramachandran V The State Chief Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

Jomi v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 407

C Kappan v State of Kerala & Other, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 408

Dr. Pramod John v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 409

Thomas Baby v Jojo V. Varghese and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 410

State of Kerala V Gireesh Kumar & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 411

Eldho Varghese v Liya Jose, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 412

Jeffin Kuriakose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 413

PVR Tourist Home v CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 414

The Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited v Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 415

Raju Sreedharan Versus The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 416

Sandeep G V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

The Authorised Officer v The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418

Vijayakumari v Jayakumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 419

Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420

Ammanoor Parameswaran Chakyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 421

Jesmon Joy Karippery v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 422

XX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 423

Lijin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 424

M. A. Sathar and Others v Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Forum and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426

Joy Varghese v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 427

Prasad P. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 428

X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 429

Sindhu v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 430

Arun S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 431

XXXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

Suresh and Others v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 433

Omana Somanadhan v Deepu Soman and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 434

Sri. Johnson Koomullil Thomas Versus The Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 435

Aaron Construction Co. Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 436

Remya Haridas v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 437

Abdul Razak v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 438

Vivek Joy v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 439

Soman T. N. v Additional District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 440

Joby George v Siby Valloran, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 441

Sajith Shyam v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 442

Pradeep v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 443

Sunil Kumar K Versus The State Tax Officer-I, Kottarakkara, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 444

PCIT Versus Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 445

Sujith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 446

Suneeh Babu v Maneesha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 447

Rajesh Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 448

Abdul Rahman v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 449

Raju George @ N M Raju v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 450

Dr. Radhakrishna S Naik v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 451

CA P J Johney v The GST Council Through Its Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 452

XXX v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 453

Geetha S v Pradeep G, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 454

Abdul Khader v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 455

Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary (Customs-III/VI), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

The South Indian Bank Ltd Versus ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 457

Unitac Energy Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 458

Case Title: Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 459

xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 460

Aboobakkar @ Abu v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 461

Saritha K. P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 462

State of Kerala v Thomas Chacko @Shibu and Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 463

T J Varghese v Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

State of Kerala v Nishad, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 465

Musthafa V. M. v Prajesh and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 466

PCIT Versus Arun Majeed, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 467

Mythree Associates Versus Commercial Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 468

Indian Medical Association Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 469

The Appellate Authority v The State Information Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 470

Lohith S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 471

Sahesh Rafeeque v Nural Inshira Binti Abdul Kareem, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 472

Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

Hyder Ali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 474

Libin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 475

XXX V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 476

Suo Motu v. Adv. Sojan Pavanios, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 477

State Of Kerala Versus Petrolink Data Services (P) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 478

S. Vijayan Versus Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Taxes, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 479

Sajid Muhammedkutty v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480

Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 481

Rasheeda Bano v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 482

Intersource Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 483

XXX V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 484

Mammen Varghese v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 485

B Prakash v Lazitha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 486

A. A. Rahim v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 487

Anupama Padmakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 488

Bharatheeya Jyothisha Vichara Sangham v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 489

National Highway Authority of India v P. V. George and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 490

Anujith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 491

Litty Mary John v Manoj K. Varghese, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 492

South Indian Bank v Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 493

The Commissioner Of Income -Tax (Exemptions) Kochi v M/S.Kerala Cricket Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 494

DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495

Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496

Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497

Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498

Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499

Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500

Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501

Sunil P P v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502

Prakash v Vandana, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503

State v R. Baiju, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504

C K Sasidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505

Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 506

Bar Council of Kerala and Others v Unnikrishnan H. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 507

K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508

Indian Space Research Organization V M/S.Roopam Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 509

P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510

XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 511

Joel Joji v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

Chandra Babu v Vidya Pushpan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 513

Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514

State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Jacky and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 515

Salim and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 516

C. Shukkur v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517

XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518

Suhail M A v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 519

The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v Joy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 520

Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Of Mr. Mattummel Kunhiraman Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 521

Global Distributors Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 522

K P Aliyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523

Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524

Shaji M. v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525

K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526

Shiyas S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527

Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528

The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529

Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530

Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531

Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532

Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533

A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534

Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535

Sham P S v State Bank of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 536

Mary Queens Mission Hospital Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 537

P.C. Varghese Muthalali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538

Mary Baby v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 539

Ibnu Shijil v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 540

P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541

Abdul Jaleel v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 542

Amal Babu v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 543

Nazeer K. T. v The Manager Federal Bank and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 544

xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545

Ankitha Joy v Joy Augustine @ Augusthy, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 546

G.Gopan @ Gopakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 547

Benzy Martin v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 548

Muhammed Ramees v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 549

Ibrahim v Administrator, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550

Fact United Employees Liberation V The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 551

Chirakkal Sankaran Nair v Ponguzhi Parambath Sreedharan Nair, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 552

Suneera T v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 553

Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554

Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555

C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556

Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557

Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558

Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559

George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560

Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561

V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562

V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563

Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564

Kerala Public Service Commission v Dinesh K M, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 565

Case Title: P V Samuel v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 566

Binod B. Kumar and Another v Guruvayur Devaswom and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 567

Sreejith Mon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 568

Egadwa Mercy Adamba v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 569

V K Prakash v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 570

Jaison and Others v A. G. Korah and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 571

Sarath G Nair & Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 572

Noora v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 573

M/George & Sons v Union of India & Other Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 574

M. J. Sojan v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 575

Jaleel P v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 576

M A Vaheed v K K Lathika And Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 577

Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 578

X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579

xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580

Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581

T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582

Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

Sheela v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584

Sajith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585

Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587

State of Kerala v Adwaitha S & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 588

Jayasoorya v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 589

Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 590

Xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 591

Smt Anitha T v Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 592

Rajesh Madhavan v Union of India and Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 593

Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil and Another v Visalakshi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 594

S T Sadiq v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 595

Annamma Mathew v The Managing Committee of Mavelikara Taluk Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 596

Pramod v The Secretary, The Sultanpet Diocese Society and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 597

Vinod v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 598

Akhil Raj Alias Akhil Marar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 599

Suresh v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 600

Shanid @ Shani v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 601

Jyothish P v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 602

Zara Michele Shilansky v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 603

Sunil Mathew v The Station House Officer and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 604

August Cinema (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. versus ITO & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 605

Praveen Prakash v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 606

Vaisakh @ Hari v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 607

Judgments/ Orders This Week

Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act | Impleadment Of Legal Representative In Execution Of Arbitral Award Is Not Hit By Limitation: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sali T. v Keezhmadu Service Co-operative Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397

The Kerala High Court held that that non – non-impleadment of legal representatives after the death of the judgment-debtor does not abate the execution proceedings with respect to an arbitral award. The requirement in Code of Civil Procedure requiring the legal representative to be impleaded within the limitation period will not apply for execution of arbitration proceedings under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

[Kerala Protection Of River Banks & Regulation Of Removal Of Sand Act] Loading Stationary Vehicle With River Sand Constitutes 'Transport' U/S 23: High Court

Case Title: Arshad v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 398

The Kerala High Court has held that the term 'transport' in Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereafter, Sand Act) cannot be interpreted to mean that the vehicle must be in motion.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that the term 'transports sand' would mean the removal of sand from the river bed to the lorry and from the lorry to any other place. The Court stated that even when a vehicle was loaded with river sand, it would constitute sand transport, regardless of whether the vehicle was in motion or not.

'Policy Decision': Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Removal Of Biochemistry And Microbiology Streams From Paramedical Courses

Case Name: Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists v Akhil James and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 399

The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists against the removal of B.Sc. Medical Biochemistry and B.Sc. Medical Microbiology courses from the prospectus of professional degree courses and paramedical courses for the year 2018-19, saying that it is a policy decision of the Government.

The Court however added that there are some cases where the policy decisions can be subjected to judicial review but that can be done only on well-defined grounds. In this case, there is no such grounds. No legal right or fundamental right of the petitioners are violated, it held.

Properties Not Connected With 'Proceeds Of Crime' Cannot Be Subject To Attachment Under PMLA: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Satish Motilal Bidri v Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 400

The Kerala High Court has held that properties subject to attachment under the PMLA must be properties acquired through proceeds of crime. It stated that provisions of PMLA cannot be unfairly and unreasonably used to attach properties that are unrelated to any criminal activity.

[Insurance Ombudsman Rules] Rule 17 Empowers Ombudsman To Grant Compensation But Gives No Power To Issue Directions Upon Insurer: Kerala HC

Case Title: N S Gopakumar v The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 401

The Kerala High Court held that an Insurance Ombudsman was empowered to pass an Award granting compensation to the complainant but not empowered to issue directions to the Insurer as per Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017.

"No Intent To Harm Reputation": Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Editor & Publisher Of Madhyamam Newspaper

Case Title: O. Abdul Rahiman v State Of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 402

The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against the editor and publisher of Madhyamam newspaper under Section 499 of the IPC on finding that the alleged news item was published without intention or knowledge to harm the reputation of the complainant.

If Tehsildar Issues 'Patta' Under Kerala Land Assignment Rules, It Is Implied That All Land Assignment Dues Are Paid: High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Mammunhi v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 403

The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Land Assignment Rules (KLA Rules) lay down that patta will be issued by the Tehsildar only if LA dues are paid by the assignee. The Court thus held the cancellation of patta on the ground that the assignee did not pay LA dues as invalid. However, it refused to pass any orders in favour of the Appellant since he had not sought a relief for recovery of possession. As per proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the court shall not make a declaration of title when the plaintiff being able to seek a further relief does not do that.

Every Breach Of Contract Would Not Amount To Breach Of Trust Or Cheating To Initiate Criminal Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mansoor Ali v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 404

The Kerala High Court has held that each and every breach of contract would not amount to breach of trust unless it is shown that there was an intent to cheat and defraud from the very inception.

'LGBT Persons Entitled To Privacy Like Other Heterosexual Persons': Kerala HC Grants Relief To Transwoman Forced Into Conversion Therapy

Case Title: Adithya Kiron v The Station House Officer and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 405

The Kerala High Court has come to the rescue of Elida Rubielle, a transwoman who was allegedly forced to undergo conversion therapy. It noted that the 19-year-old had made a firm decision to live separately from her parents and said the choice and desire expressed by her needs to be respected.

The Habeas corpus petition was filed by her friend alleging that she was forced to undergo conversion therapy. She had come out as a transwoman. It was submitted that she was forced to undergo conversion therapy at Amrita Hospital to change her gender identity.

Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Is 'Public Authority', Expected To Provide Information Not Exempted Under RTI Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. R. Ramachandran V The State Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

The Kerala High Court has held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority under the Right To Information Act. It stated that Registrar, being a public authority could gather and disclose information obtained from the Co-operative Society under his administrative or supervisory control to the extent permitted by law.

Teachers Liable Under Juvenile Justice Act For Assaulting Children But Mere Corrective Measures To Enforce Discipline Not Punishable: Kerala HC

Case Title: Jomi v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 407

The Kerala High Court has held that teachers cannot be prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for using simple corrective measures for enforcing discipline in schools.

The Court further relied upon Rajan @ Raju, S/o Choyi v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and others (2019) wherein it was stated that nature of injury inflicted by teacher upon the student would determine as to whether he can be proceeded under penal provisions or not. The Court stated that acts of teacher cannot be condoned if they inflict injury on a child out unbridled fury, excitement or rage, inflicts injuries causing unreasonable physical injury or harm.

Kerala HC Dismisses Plea By MLA Mani Kappan Challenging Magistrate's Order Framing Charges Against Him For Alleged Criminal Breach Of Trust, Cheating

Case Title: Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala & Other

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 408

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by MLA Mani C Kappan against the order of a Special Judge framing charges against him for allegedly committing offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. MLA Kappan currently represents the Pala constituency in Kerala.

Justice C S Dias quashed the Revision Petition filed by MLA Kappan on finding that the Special Court only has to form a prima facie opinion as to whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court stated that the Special Court was not expected to appreciate the evidence on record and to conclude whether there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused.

Abandonment Of Senior Citizen Must Be Total & Complete Without Any Arrangement Of Care To Constitute An Offence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr. Pramod John v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 409

The Kerala High Court observed that to constitute an offence of 'abandonment of senior citizen', there should be total and complete abandonment without any arrangement of taking care of the person.

[Kerala Registration Act] Rubber Trees Are Immovable Property, Agreement To Tap Rubber Is A Compulsorily Registrable Document: High Court

Case Title: Thomas Baby v Jojo V. Varghese and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 410

The Kerala High Court held that an agreement to tap rubber trees should be registered as per the Kerala Registration Act. The Court held that rubber trees are immovable properties and an agreement with the owner of the plantation to tap the rubber creates an interest in the immovable property. Therefore, the document is a compulsorily registrable one.

The Court rejected the trial court's finding that the agreement constituted only a license, not a lease and no interest was created over an immovable property. The trial court held that latex is the juice of a rubber tree and the agreement creates an interest on the movable property. The High Court however held that the agreement was to take yield from the yielding rubber trees and hence the interest is created on rubber trees. The Court held that simply because the yield is extracted in juice form, it cannot be considered to be a movable property.

The Court considered whether yielding rubber trees can be considered as 'standing timber' so as not to come within the ambit of 'immovable property. It held that they cannot be considered as standing timber as they continue to draw sustenance from the soil and they have not attained stoppage of vegetation and nourishment for further growth

Kerala High Court Acquits Death Row Convict After He Spends Over 10 Years In Jail, Grants Rs 5 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: State of Kerala V Gireesh Kumar & Connected Matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 411

The Kerala High Court has acquitted one Gireesh Kumar and overturned the death sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court, after he spent over 10 years in jail. He had been convicted on charges of trespassing with intent to commit robbery, rape, and the murder of a 57-year-old woman in Kollam in 2013.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was dealing with his appeal and the reference for confirmation of sentence by the Sessions court.

It found that a botched-up investigation was conducted by the police by adducing sham witnesses and there was a total absence of objective enquiry by the Sessions Court to assess whether the case falls within the rarest of rare category warranting death penalty. It thus granted Rs. 5 lakhs compensation to the appellant for living through the threat of death penalty for ten long years.

[S.24 CPC] Territorial Jurisdiction Is Not A Criteria While Transferring Divorce Petition To Competent Court: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Eldho Varghese v Liya Jose

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 412

The Kerala High Court has held that while transferring a divorce petition to another court, territorial jurisdiction of the Court to which the petition is transferred does not matter.

The High Court has power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer a proceeding to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose the suit. The Court held that competence is not with reference to territorial jurisdiction.

POCSO Offence Could Not Have Been Committed Without Interposition Of Alleged Abettor Not Enough, 'Intention' Of Abettor Must Be Shown: Kerala HC

Case Title: Jeffin Kuriakose v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 413

The Kerala High Court has held that aiding committed with the 'intention' of facilitating the offence would attract an offence of abetment punishable under the POCSO Act.

Section 16 of the POCSO Act defines abetment and the punishment is provided under Section 17.

Justice P.G. Ajithkumar found that the petitioner aided the minor victim in availing a flat on rent in the presence of the accused and has intentionally facilitated the offence and could be charged under Section 17.

Transfer Of Depreciable Capital Assets Attracts Capital Gains Tax: Kerala High Court

Case Title: PVR Tourist Home Versus CIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 414

The Kerala High Court has held that the transfer of the depreciable capital assets attracted capital gains tax under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, in the absence of distribution of any capital asset among the partners following a dissolution of the appellant firm.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while upholding the order of the tribunal that the charge of short-term capital gains had to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, observed that the Appellate Tribunal did not, however, proceed to determine the tax effect, if any, that would follow pursuant to its finding as regards the charge of short-term capital gains.

Filing Appeal In Tax Matters Require Legal, Technical Assistance: Kerala High Court Condones 11 Days Delay

Case Title: The Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 415

The Kerala High Court, while condoning the delay of 11 days, observed that filing an appeal in tax matters may require legal and technical assistance. The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the reason for not filing the a ppeal on time was the non-availability of the legal consultant.

Kerala High Court Quashes Order Demanding Late Fee For Delay In Filing GSTR-9C

Case Title: Raju Sreedharan Versus The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 416

The Kerala High Court has quashed the order demanding a late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C.

The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman relied on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, in which it was held that in view of Notification No. 07/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 25/2023, there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non-payment of the late fee for belated GSTR-9C filed by taxpayers before April 1, 2023, the date on which one-time amnesty commences.

Long Lasting Provocation Not 'Sudden Provocation': Kerala HC Upholds Framing Of 'Murder' Charge Against Accused In Dr Vandana Das Case

Case Title: Sandeep G V State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of the trial court disallowing the discharge application of Sandeep, booked for the murder of Dr Vandana Das. The Court stated that the prosecution materials prima facie substantiate the framing of charges under Section 228 of CrPC against Sandeep to proceed with the trial.

Dr Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by Sandeep who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police.

Justice A. Badharudeen while rejecting the defence argument that Sandeep committed the offence out of sudden and grave provocation without an intent to cause murder, observed that long-lasting provocation cannot be construed as sudden and grave provocation.

[SARFAESI Act] Nature Of Secured Asset Continues To Remain Same Even After Being Purchased By Secured Creditor: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Authorised Officer v The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418

The Kerala High Court held that a 'secured asset' continues its nature of 'secured asset' even after it is bought by the secured creditor. The Secured creditor can move under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), the Court said.

Justice N. Nagaresh observed that in Balakrishna Rama Tarle Dead through LRs and another v Phoenix ARC Privated Limted and Others (2022), the Supreme Court had said that secured creditors can take possession of secured assets post-confirmation of sale also. High Court held that this would mean that the character of the property as a 'secured asset' will continue for the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.

Penalty U/S 31 DV Act Though Confined To 'Protection Orders', Can Be Imposed Where Such Order Is In Addition To Residence Order: Kerala HC

Case Title: Vijayakumari v Jayakumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 419

The Kerala High Court has held that the penalty for breach of a 'Protection Order' passed under Domestic Violence Act is applicable even if such order also recognizes the woman's right to a 'Shared Household'. 

Section 18 of the DV Act pertains to protection orders and Section 19 pertains to residence orders. Ordinarily, an order falling within the category of a residence order does not qualify for being proceeded against under Section 31 of the DV Act. Section 31 prescribes imprisonment of upto one year or fine of upto twenty thousand rupees or both. Bench also said that absence of statutory penalty for breach of residence order is an anomaly, which the law makers must look into.

In the present case, the Court stated the order issued by the Magistrate intended it to be treated as an order of protection specifically to protect her from dispossession from a shared household and not merely as a residence order.

Kerala High Court Lays Down Guidelines Fixing Time Limit For Statutory Authorities To Pass Orders In Matters Where Hearing Is Concluded

Case Title: Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420

The Kerala High Court formulated guidelines related to passing orders by statutory authorities in matters where hearing is already concluded. The Court directed that orders should be passed within 30 days after the hearing is concluded in appeals, revisions and other statutory proceedings. If the order is passed after one month, the order should mention the reason for the delay. Further, if no order is passed for three months, the authority should rehear the parties. If no orders are passed in 6 months, the orders can be set aside for that reason alone. This is to be followed until the State Government comes out with a rule/ guideline regarding this.

Temple Dance Forms Of 'Kootu', 'Koodiyattam' Are Religious Ritual Ceremony, Performance Cannot Be Altered Without Tantris Consent: Kerala HC

Case Title: Ammanoor Parameswaran Chakyar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 421

The Kerala High Court held that temple dance art forms 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' are religious and ritual ceremonies and whether they can be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of a certain family are matters to be decided by the Tantris of the Temple. The Court stated that Devaswom Managing Committee cannot make performance alteration decisions without the consent of the Tantris.

The Court was considering whether the decision of the temple management committee that temple dance form 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' performed at the Koothambalam (temple theatre) in the Koodalmanikyam Temple in Irinjalakuda could be permitted to be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of Ammannoor Family without the consent of the Tantris of the temple.

Onerous Conditions Not Necessary When Accused Seeks To Renew Passport Without Permission To Go Abroad: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jesmon Joy Karippery v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 422

The Kerala High Court has held that onerous conditions are not necessary to be imposed when an accused in a pending criminal case approaches the Court merely for renewal/re-issuance of passport, without seeking permission to go abroad.

POCSO Act Often Misused To Settle Personal Scores, Even In Matrimonial Disputes False Accusations Made To Deny Custody To Father: Kerala HC

Case Title: XX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 423

The Kerala High Court has cautioned the Police officers as well as Courts to be vigilant against people with ill motivations who misuse the provisions of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO Act) to settle personal scores.

The Court said that the Act has harsh provisions and severe punishments, and it is misused by some people to implicate innocent persons.

The Court said that the Act is misused in cases where there is rivalry in between somebody connected with minor(s). Even in matrimonial disputes, it said, minor children are used for alleging POCSO offences so the father of the child would not get custody.

"Bench Hunting" Shakes Faith In Justice System: Kerala High Court Dismisses Third Bail Plea Of NDPS Accused

Case Title: Lijin v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 424

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that bench hunting by filing different bail applications before different Courts has no legal sanctity and would result in anarchy and shake the faith in the justice delivery system.

The petitioner is the third accused in an offence involving possession of contraband in commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. His first bail application was dismissed by the High Court and the second bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

The Court relying upon Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another (1987), Jayaraj A. v. State of Kerala (2009) and Bipin Sunny v. State of Kerala (2023) stated that the subordinate Court should not have entertained the second bail application moved by the accused after his first bail application was dismissed by the High Court. It was stated subsequent bail applications pointing out a change of circumstance have to be filed before the High Court and not before the Sessions Court to maintain judicial discipline unless otherwise permitted by the Superior Court.

Relief Not Prayed For By Plaintiff Can't Be Granted Particularly When Defendant Didn't Get Opportunity To Resist It: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M. A. Sathar and Others v Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Forum and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

The Kerala High Court has held that a Court cannot give a relief which was not prayed by the plaintiff especially when the defendant did not have an opportunity to raise pleadings in the matter.

[Doctrine Of Impossibility] Law Doesn't Permit Denial Of An Individual's Rights For Failure To Perform An Impossible Task: Kerala HC

Case Title: Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426

The Kerala High Court has held that denial of opportunity to seek public employment forever to a particular class of students because they were unable to obtain an equivalency certificate due to being compelled to complete an impossible task is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In this case, petitioners were denied an equivalency certificate by the Kerala Agricultural University to apply for PSC exams stating that their University did not have ICAR accreditation during their period of study.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. relying upon the 'Doctrine of Impossibility' stated that students cannot be compelled to perform an impossible task. In this case, petitioners were the first batch of students from their University and practically their University could only apply for ICAR accreditation after the successful completion of the course by the first batch of students.

No Material To Show Involvement Of Any Transnational Racket In Forced Gender Change Operations: Kerala High Court Declines CBI Inquiry

Case Title: Joy Varghese v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 427

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the plea moved by a father seeking CBI investigation alleging that his minor son's photographs were illegally used for raising funds for hormone replacement therapy.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that allegations of involvement of transnational racket or gang in doing forced gender change operations were vague and baseless.

Court Should Not Go Into 'Correctness' Of Prosecution Materials In A Petition To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prasad P. V. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 428

Kerala High Court has held that while Court is exercising its power to quash proceedings, the Court cannot examine the correctness or genuineness of the complaint. It observed that the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations.

The Court held that to quash the proceedings, the accused should be able to show that the allegations against him do not constitute the offence alleged.

Woman's Partner In Live-In Relationship Cannot Be Prosecuted For Offence Of Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 429

The Kerala High Court has held that a woman's partner who is not legally married cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC for the offence of cruelty. The Court clarified that husband means married man, woman's partner in marriage and does encompass a woman's partner without legal marriage for prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC.

Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the proceedings against the petitioner who was the live-in partner of the complainant woman.

[KAAPA] Period Of Detention Can Only Be Fixed By Govt Upon Getting Advisory Board's Report, Can't Be Fixed By Magistrate: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sindhu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 430

The Kerala High Court declared that under the provisions of the Kerala Anti–Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA), the District Magistrate does not have the power to fix the period of detention. Only the Government can fix the period, that too, after receiving the report of the Advisory Board.

Sexual Gestures' Of Accused Must Be Discernible From FIR, Final Report Or Other Material: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Arun S v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 431

The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against a man for allegedly making 'sexual gestures' degrading women's dignity, since disclosure of sexual gestures or acts was not discernible from the FIR, Final Report or other materials.

Imposing Unaffordable Costs Is Akin To Denying Relief: Kerala High Court Reduces Hefty Cost Imposed On Parties For Recalling Witnesses

Case Title: XXXX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

The Kerala High Court held that onerous, heavy and unaffordable costs imposed upon the accused for recalling witnesses would violate their rights to recall witnesses to defend their case and establish their innocence.

Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused For Allegedly Assaulting HIV Patient In Care-Home

Case Title: Suresh and Others v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 433

Kerala High Court denies anticipatory bail to the accused who allegedly tied an HIV patient in their care home to the window and beat her with a wooden log. She suffered multiple fractures. The complaint was given by the victim herself.

The Investigating Officer submitted before the Court that it is learnt that the petitioners treat their inmates in a very inhuman manner. He stated that custodial interrogation and recovery is necessary for full investigation.

Justice C. S. Dias observed that the prima facie materials establish petitioner's involvement in the crime. The Court refused to grant them anticipatory bail saying that custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be done.

Domestic Violence Act | Order Of 'Alternate Residence' Can Be Made Instead Of 'Shared Residence' If Interest Of Both Parties Served: Kerala HC

Case Title: Omana Somanadhan v Deepu Soman and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 434

The Kerala High Court has held that if an order of residence will completely negate and annihilate the rights of the respondent, the court can order for alternate residence if it will protect the rights of both parties.

Decision By Income Tax Officer Who Did Not Hear The Case; Kerala High Court Quashes The Order

Case Title: Sri. Johnson Koomullil Thomas Versus The Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 435

The Kerala High Court has held that if the income tax officer who hears the case does not render the decision, it would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the doctrine 'he who heard must decide or he who decides must hear' applies to statutory authorities. Section 148A of the Income Tax Act provides for the opportunity to be heard by the assessee.

Assessment Based On Best Judgement Basis, Non-Filing Of Returns After Receipt Of Order, Fatal For Assessee: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aaron Construction Co. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 436

The Kerala High Court has held that the non-filing of returns even after receipt of the assessment order is fatal for the assessee.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that it may be true that the respondents did not issue a formal notice as required under Section 62(1) of the Income Tax Act before completing the assessment on a best judgment basis under the said provision, but the fact remains that the appellant could have obtained a nullification of said assessment order if he had filed the return at least within thirty days of the receipt of the assessment order.

Kerala High Court Quashes Extension Given To KILA Director General, Directs For Charge To Be Given To Competent Officer Till Fresh Appointment

Case Title: Remya Haridas v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 437

In A Writ petition filed by former MP Remya Haridas, the High Court ordered that the extension given to the current Director General of Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) is illegal. Joy Elamon, General Director crossed the age of 60 and is therefore not qualified to continue as the Director General. The State had argued that the extension was given only till a new appointment was made.

The Court said that Joy Elamon continuing in the post after he attained 60 years is illegal and improper as it is against the Memorandum of Association. Justice Basant Balaji observed: “The Memorandum of Association of a registered society is a charter of the company. The Governing Council approved the said Memorandum on 16.01.2018, so all appointments and the functioning of the society shall be in tune with the memorandum of Association. Clause 43 states explicitly that the Director General recruited from the open market can be allowed until he has attained the age of 60 years, and reappointment is permitted subject to age restriction.”

Larger Public Good By Constructing National Highways Need Not Be Overemphasized, Interest Of Local People Must Also Be Considered: Kerala HC

Case Title: Abdul Razak v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 438

The Kerala High Court has stated that the importance of constructing national highways for the larger public good should not be over-emphasized since it is equally crucial to consider the interests of the people of a particular locality to promote the common good effectively.

Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the writ appeal taking note of the existence of a vehicular underpass close by to the location suggested by the appellants.

No Offence Of Bigamy If Second Marriage Is Performed During Subsistence Of Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Which Is Later Set Aside: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vivek Joy v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 439

The Kerala High Court has laid down that no penal consequences would be attracted under Section 494 of the IPC for solemnizing second marriage during the operation of ex parte decree of divorce from the first marriage, even if the ex parte decree was set aside on a subsequent date.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that there was no legal marriage subsisting between the parties when the second marriage took place due to the operation of the ex parte decree of divorce, even if it was set aside later. 

District Magistrate Has To Re-Consider All Parameters On Licensee's Application To Increase Storage Quantity Of Explosives: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Soman T. N. v Additional District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 440

The Kerala High Court has ordered that the District Magistrate has to re-ascertain all the criteria before allowing an application for increasing the permissible amount of explosive one can store, from 25 kilograms to 100 kilograms. The Court observed that the parameters of enquiry for 25 kilograms is not similar to the parameters for 100 kilograms. Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “The parameters of enquiry for storing 25 kilograms cannot be said to be similar and the same, as the parameters for an enquiry storing 100 kilogram.”

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Not Mute Spectators, Can Seek Second Opinion To Determine Authenticity Of Disability Certificate: Kerala HC

Case Title: Joby George v Siby Valloran

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 441

The Kerala High Court recently remarked that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have an active role in decision-making process and cannot act as a mute spectator while considering claims.

Justice V G Arun referred to a government order (G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD) and Rule 387 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to state that the Tribunal has powers to take second opinion if they have doubts regarding the authenticity or correctness of disability certificate.

'Inter-Country Organised Crime Of Extracting, Harvesting Organs': Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Organ Trafficking Case

Case Title: Sajith Shyam v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 442

The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail application filed by an accused who was allegedly part of a human organ trafficking racket. The Court stated that evidence indicates the involvement of the accused in an organized international crime warranting investigation by the National Investigation Agency. The allegations include trafficking financially vulnerable donors to Iran where their organs were removed, followed by importing these organs to India for transplantation.

Justice C. S. Dias stated that there is prima evidence showing his involvement in organ trafficking such as evidence of call data records and monetary transactions that establish his connection with the prime accused who is absconding. 

Press Exempted From Prosecution For 'Sting Operation' Done To Uncover Truth & Inform Public Without Maladies : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pradeep v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 443

The Kerala High Court laid down that Freedom of the Press may not include Sting Operations in all cases, but Sting Operations conducted by recognized media persons have to be considered differently, given their crucial role as the Fourth Estate in a democracy. It stated that the Court should assess whether the Sting Operation was carried out with bonafide intention to uncover the truth and inform the public and this must be determined on a case-to-case basis.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the Press have to be bonafide and vigilant while conducting sting operations and their intention should be to promote democracy and not to harass or humiliate anyone.

Assessment Order Downloaded From Common Portal Amounts To A Valid Service: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar K Versus The State Tax Officer-I, Kottarakkara

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 444

The Kerala High Court has held that the assessment order downloaded from the common portal amounts to a valid service. 

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has upheld the decision of the Single Bench in which it was held that the petitioner had downloaded the assessment order from the very same portal, and therefore, the delay occasioned in retrieving the assessment order from the portal was a predicament that the appellant found himself in because of his own latches. 

Tax Effect In Appeals Below Monetary Limit Of Rs.1 Crore; Kerala High Court Dismisses ​​Dept's Appeal

Case Title: PCIT Versus Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 445

The Kerala High Court has held that the tax effect in the appeals filed by the income tax department pertaining to assessment years 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, and 2010–11 is well below the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore and is liable to be dismissed. 

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that, as per Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, appeals cannot be maintained by the revenue before the High Court if if the tax effect in the appeal does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. A subsequent Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated August 8, 2019 was issued by the CBDT, and the monetary limit has since been enhanced to Rs. 1 crore.

Consensual Sexual Intercourse Without An Element Of 'Misconception Of Fact' Not Rape: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Sujith v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 446

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of raping a woman on finding that the sexual intercourse was voluntary and not an outcome of misconception of fact.

In this case, the complainant alleged that the petitioner who was a tempo van driver subjected her to rape in 2005, 2011, 2015 and 2016.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that no complaint was lodged till 2017 and a crime was registered alleging the commission of rape only after a long period of 13 years. The Court noted that the sexual relations between the complainant and petitioner were voluntary with her consent and not based on any misconception of fact.

Kerala HC Directs Family Court To Conduct Joint Trial Of Plea To Recover Past Maintenance And Miscellaneous Case Claiming Future Maintenance

Case Title: Suneeh Babu v Maneesha

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 447

The Kerala High Court has directed a Family Court to conduct joint trial of an Original Petition (OP) and Miscellaneous Case (MC) filed under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance.

The petitioner/husband had approached the High Court against the dismissal of his joint trial application of an OP and MC by the Family Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that join trial would save judicial time and energy.

Rape Committed In Oman But Genesis Of Crime In India? Kerala High Court Says Centre's Sanction U/S 188 CrPC Not Required For Trial

Case Title: Rajesh Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 448

The Kerala High Court has directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial against the petitioner who allegedly cheated, defrauded and had forceful sexual intercourse with a woman after taking her to Muscat, Oman by offering her a job at his house.

The Court referred to the Apex Court judgment in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2022), wherein it was laid down that there was no necessity of any sanction if a part of the offence was committed in India.

After analyzing the facts of the present case, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that sanction was not required under Section 188 CrPC to proceed against the petitioner since the offence has been partly committed in India and partly abroad.

Can't Let Credibility Of Indians Be Affected In UAE: Kerala HC Denies Relief To Businessman In Loan Fraud Case By Sharjah Based Bank

Case Title: Abdul Rahman v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 449

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by Abdul Rahman, a Malayali businessman seeking to quash the FIR registered against him on behalf of a UAE-based bank for cheating of 42.898 million UAE dirhams.

Rahman, the owner of Hexsa Oil and Gas Services, is accused of absconding from Dubai after taking a loan from the Invest Bank, Sharjah and diverting the money for his personal purposes.

Family Booked For Cheating Depositors Found Involved In More Than 100 Other Cases: Kerala High Court Refuses Bail

Case Title: Raju George @ N M Raju v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 450

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail applications moved by four members of the same family who were arrayed as accused for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust and offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 

Justice C S Dias observed that the petitioners were accused of being involved in more than 100 crimes registered across various police stations in the State. The Court noted that petitioners were charged with committing serious economic offences, where they took money from depositors by promising them high interest rates and subsequently cheated them by siphoning off more than 8.2 crore rupees.

Can Doctors Be Prosecuted U/S 19(1) POCSO Act For Failing To Inform Police About Offence Against Minor Within Reasonable Time? Kerala HC Answers

Case Title: Dr. Radhakrishna S Naik v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 451

The Kerala High Court has held that every person has to inform the police within a reasonable time as per Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act if they have an apprehension that an offence has been committed against a minor. It held that a person will be prosecuted only when there is a deliberate omission to report the offence to the police.

Justice A. Badharudeen held that a reasonable time must be given to doctors to inform the police about such incidents.

Kerala High Court Directs Selection Process To Establish GST Appellate Tribunal To Be Completed Within Four Months

Case Title: CA P J Johney v The GST Council Through Its Secretary

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 452

The Kerala High Court recently directed for completion of the selection process for establishing the GST Appellate Tribunal.

“In the light of the fact that the process has already been initiated to establish the GST Appellate Tribunal, we order that entire selection process shall be completed within a period of four months”, ordered the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu

[POCSO Act] 'Lifting Dhothi And Asking Minor To Measure Penis Amounts To Sexual Harassment': Kerala High Court

Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 453

Kerala High Court has held that an act of showing a person's private part to a child and asking her to measure it will constitute the offence of sexual harassment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Justice A. Badharudeen observed; “In this case, as I have already pointed out, lifting of dhothi to show his private part, and then asking the victim to measure his penis, are the allegations. The same would squarely attract Section 11(1) of the PCSO Act as well as under Section 509 IPC, prima facie.”

Forcing Spouse To Continue Broken Marriage, Denying Separation Perpetuates Mental Agony And Constitutes 'Cruelty': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Geetha S v Pradeep G

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 454

The Kerala High Court recently granted permission for the dissolution of marriage upon the wife's request, despite the husband seeking dismissal of the petition and not pursuing divorce. 

The Court stated that parties were unable to lead a meaningful matrimonial life and that forcing one spouse to continue in marriage would create mental agony and that would undermine the purpose of marriage. 

The matrimonial appeal was filed by the appellant/wife against the dismissal of her original petition seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of matrimonial cruelty.

BNSS Will Be Applicable To All Criminal Appeals Filed After 1st July: Kerala High Court Frames Guidelines

Case Title: Abdul Khader v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 455

The Kerala High Court has laid down the following principles to determine whether the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C) or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is applicable when an appeal is filed.

1. An appeal filed on or after 01.07.2024 shall be governed by BNSS
2. Irrespective of whether the conviction was given on or before 01.07.2024 or if the appeal is filed on or after 01.07.2024, BNSS is to be followed
3. All applications filed and steps taken in appeals prior to 01.07.2024 shall be governed by Cr. P.C
4. When an appeal/ application is re-presented after curing defects, its date of filing shall be the date of its first presentation.

SAD Refunds Can't Be Denied For Taking Away Facility Of Re-Crediting DEPB Scrips: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary (Customs-III/VI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

The Kerala High Court has held that if the appellant/assessee satisfies the conditions in Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for the purposes of refund of the 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD), then merely because the facility of re-crediting the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrips has been taken away, the refund that the appellant is entitled to by virtue of the notification cannot be denied.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that since the Delhi High Court has already annulled the Circular dated April 29, 2013, the respondent-department is now legally obliged to consider the refund application preferred by the appellant independently, on its merits, to see whether the conditions specified in Notification 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007 have been satisfied by the appellant.

Long Term Finance Provided For Purchase Of Residential House, Bank Entitled For Deduction ; Kerala High Court

Case Title: The South Indian Bank Ltd Versus ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 457

The Kerala High Court has held that the South Indian Bank is entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the long-term finance provided by it for the construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purposes.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that a view has been expressed that the National Housing Bank was not entitled to the benefits of the unamended Section 36(1)(viii), on the ground that it was not engaged directly in the long-term financing for the construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes

Disallowance Operate Against Erring Employer Assessee When Employees' Contribution To EPF/ESI Not Made Within Due Date: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Unitac Energy Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 458

The Kerala High Court has held that the disallowance operates against erring employer assessee when employees' contribution to EPF/ESI not made within the due date. 

The bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that where the employees' contribution to EPF/ESI was not made over by the employer to the statutory authorities within the due date prescribed for making those payments under the respective statutes, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) would operate against the erring employer assessee.

[UAPA] SC's Prabir Purkayastha Judgement Mandating Giving Reasons For Arrest To Accused In Writing Not Applicable Retrospectively: Kerala HC

Case Title: Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 459

Kerala High Court held that the direction of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) which held that for an arrest under UAPA to be valid the arrestee should be furnished with grounds of arrest in writing, would only need to be applied prospectively. 

It was held that arrests made before the date of judgment cannot be considered invalid for the reason that the arrestee was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 23-Yr-Old Unmarried Woman Accused Of Murder For Throwing Her Infant From Building To Conceal Birth

Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 460

The Kerala High Court has granted bail to a 23-year-old woman who had been in judicial custody for 80 days for allegedly throwing her infant child from her apartment building onto the road in an attempt to conceal the birth.

The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner, an unmarried lady gave birth to a stillborn infant without knowing its consequences. It also noted that the investigation was complete and she was in judicial custody for 80 days.

Accused Cannot Unilaterally Ask Victim Or Witnesses To Undergo Narco Analysis/ Lie Detection Test To Prove Defence Case: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aboobakkar @ Abu v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 461

The Kerala High Court has held that an accused cannot unilaterally demand the victim or witnesses to subject themselves to lie detection tests like Narco Analysis Test or Polygraph Test to prove defense case.

The petitioner, who is the first accused in a sexual assault case has approached the High Court for conducting lie detection test on the minor victim and her parents to prove his defense.

[KAAPA] Detention Order Can Be Quashed If Representation Of Detenu Is Not Considered In Timely Manner: Kerala HC

Case Title: Saritha K. P. v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 462

The Kerala High Court held that if the Government fails to consider the representation of a person put in preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA) in a prompt manner, his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) is violated and due to this reason, the detention order can be quashed.

The detention order was passed on 11.04.2024 but the order and accompanying documents were forwarded to the government only on 21.06.2024. The Court held that this delay of more than 2 months and 11 days is enough to vitiate the order of detention.

Kerala High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man For Murdering 3 & 7 Yr-Old Nephews, Imposes 30-Yr Rigorous Imprisonment Sentence

Case Title: State of Kerala v Thomas Chacko @Shibu and Connected Matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 463

The Kerala High Court has commuted the death penalty imposed upon Thomas Chacko alias Shibu to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission for murdering his nephews aged 3 and 7. The Court also imposed a fine of rupees 5 lakh upon the accused which shall be paid to the mother of the deceased children.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that Constitutional Courts have the power to substitute the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court to imprisonment for a fixed term without remission in appropriate cases.

Human Rights Commission A Quasi-Judicial Body, Must Pass Reasoned Orders: Kerala High Court

Case Title: T J Varghese v Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

The Kerala High Court has held that the Human Rights Commission being a Quasi-Judicial Body is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and must pass reasoned orders after considering the merits of the complaint.

Justice Syam Kumar V.M set aside an order issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on finding that an unreasoned order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without hearing the parties on their respective pleadings.

Vehicle Attached Under BUDS Act Can Be Auctioned Before Trial, Priority Is To Distribute Proceeds Among Victims Of Offense: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v Nishad

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 465

The Kerala High Court held that to auction a vehicle attached under Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS Act), the competent authorities need not wait till the end of the trial.

The Court held that the scheme of BUDS Act is to give priority to realise assets in the custody of accused and distribute the proceeds among the victim of the offence. The Act says that an application for confirmation of attachment and permission of sale is to be filed within 30 days from the date of provisional attachment. This shows that the sale should take place in a time bound manner.

For Person To Be Considered Victim, There Must Be Some Harm To Mind Or Reputation Which Can Be Perceived From Materials On Record: Kerala HC

Case Title: Musthafa V. M. v Prajesh and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 466

The Kerala High Court held that for a person to be considered a victim, there should be some harm to the mind or reputation which is perceivable from the materials on record.

The Court made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed against the decision of Sessions Court whereby persons accused of conspiring to kill the appellant were acquitted. The Court said that there was no perceivable harm to his mind or reputation.

Gain From Selling Of Property Kept For Investment To Be Taxed Under 'Capital Gains': Kerala High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Arun Majeed

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 467

The Kerala High Court has held that when a property kept not for trade but for investment purposes is sold, the gain has to fall under the head 'capital gains' and such a transaction is only taxable under capital gain and not under adventure of trade.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the burden is upon the Department to show that a transaction effected by the assessee is an adventure in the nature of trade. Merely because the assessee makes some profit in a particular transaction, it cannot be treated as an adventure in the nature of trade so long as the initial intention or reason for investing money was to hold the property and use it for a different purpose.

Denial Of Credit For Non-Registration Thiruvabhranam Commissioner Of Under KVAT Act Is Unjust: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mythree Associates Versus Commercial Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 468

The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner/assessee has paid tax at the prescribed rate on the materials procured by him from the Travancore Devaswom Board, and since this amount has already been paid over to the State Exchequer, any denial of credit to the assessee solely on the ground that the Travancore Devaswom Board/Truvabharanam Commissioner was not registered under the KVAT Act would be unjust.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Indian Medical Association's Petition Challenging GST Levy On Supply Of Goods And Services To Its Members

Case Title: Indian Medical Association Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 469

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association challenging the levy of GST on supply of goods and services to its members. 

Section 7(1)(aa) explains that the person and its members or constituents shall be deemed to be two separate persons, and the supply of activities or transactions inter se shall be deemed to take place from one such person to another.

"Improper": Kerala High Court Pulls Up State Public Service Commission For Destroying Records During Pendency Of RTI Application

Case Title: The Appellate Authority v The State Information Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 470

The Kerala High Court stated that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) has the power to destroy records in accordance with the Office Manual prescribing record preservation procedures and Rules made under the Kerala Destruction of Records Act. However, the Court deemed that it was improper for the KPSC to destroy records while an application under the Right to Information Act was pending.

Justice Easwaran S stated that the State Information Officer (SIO) can take action against the PSC if they destroy records during the pendency of the RTI application.

Person Can't Be "Tied Down" To Religion Of Birth: Kerala High Court Permits Change Of Religion In School Certificates

Case Title: Lohith S v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 471

The Kerala High Court has allowed the plea moved by two youngsters seeking to change their religion in their school certificates since they have embraced a new religion.

It stated that even if there is a lack of a specific provision enabling change of religion in school certificates, the petitioners are entitled to correct their religion in their records on embracing a new religion.

MWPRD Act | Divorced Lady Must Reside Within Jurisdictional Limit Of Magistrate To Avail Benefit Of Act: Kerala HC Denies Relief To Malaysian Citizen

Case Title: Sahesh Rafeeque v Nural Inshira Binti Abdul Kareem

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 472

The Kerala High Court has quashed a complaint filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (MWPRD Act) by a woman with Malaysian citizenship.

Section 2(c) of MWPRD Act defines Magistrate as Magistrate of First Class exercising jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure in the area where the divorced woman resides

Denying Ordinary Leave To Convicts Has Detrimental Effect, Reduces Chances Of Rehabilitation And Re-Socialization: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril v The Chief Secretary

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

The Kerala High Court has held that denial of ordinary leave to convicts can be detrimental since it reduces their chances for better rehabilitation and re-socialization into society. The Court further stated that ordinary leave cannot be denied to convicts by relying upon vague police reports.

The petitioner, a convict undergoing life imprisonment for murdering his father has approached the High Court seeking for grant of ordinary prison leave after undergoing more than 6 years of imprisonment based on adverse police reports.

[POCSO] Not Safe To Fasten Liability On Cop Who Waited To Record Informant/Victim's Statement Due To Unavailability Of Female Officer: Kerala HC

Case Title: Hyder Ali v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 474

The Kerala High Court has held that there is no scope to put criminal liability on a police officer for asking the victim and her mother to come the next day to give their statement regarding an offence under the Protection of Children Under Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) due to there not being any woman officer at the police station.

The court said that while a police officer is criminally liable under Section 21 of the Act if he does not record the offence when he receives information regarding it, in this case, there was no willful or deliberate omission. It also observed that the statement was recorded without much delay.

Judge Not Mouthpiece Of Prosecution But Also Cannot Make Roving Enquiry While Considering Discharge Application Of Accused: Kerala HC

Case Title: Libin v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 475

The Kerala High Court has held that a judge should not act like a post office or a mouth piece of prosecution but it should also not make a roving enquiry and weigh the evidence akin to conducting a trial against the accused while considering a discharge application under Section 227 and 239 of CrPC.

Sexual Crimes Can't Be Settled On Compromise But 'Peaceful Family Life' A Humanitarian Ground If Accused & Victim Marry: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX V State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 476

The Kerala High Court has held that crimes that tarnish women's dignity and honour, such as rape, POCSO Act offences cannot be quashed on compromise or settlement. However, if the accused and victim have married and are living together peacefully, this may be a humanitarian ground to allow the quashing of the case.

Kottayam Bar Association Protest: Kerala High Court Orders 28 Lawyers To Offer Legal Aid Services For 6 Months

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Adv. Sojan Pavanios

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 477

The Kerala High Court has ordered 28 lawyers of the Kottayam Bar Association to offer legal aid services for a period of 6 months, on accepting their unconditional apology for purging the contempt charges against them.

The Court had initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against these lawyers for protesting and allegedly hurling abusive language against a female Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), in Kottayam.

Goods Transported For Own Use, No Intention To Evade Tax, Kerala High Court Deletes Penalty

Case Title: State Of Kerala Versus Petrolink Data Services (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 478

The Kerala High Court has held that the assessee, immediately after the goods were detained, produced the statutory declarations in Form 16 to demonstrate that the goods that were being transported were for the own use of the assessee.

Kerala High Court Allows Adjustment Refund Amount Towards Amount payable under Amnesty Scheme

Case Title: S. Vijayan Versus Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Taxes

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 479

The Kerala High Court has held that it is open to the department to consider an adjustment of the refund amount due to the appellant towards the amounts due from him by way of settlement under the Amnesty Scheme.

Illegal 'Talaq-E-Sunnat' Not Punishable As 'Triple Talaq': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajid Muhammedkutty v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480

Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that if the intention is not to pronounce instantaneous and irrevocable talaq, it cannot be considered as talaq–ul–biddat.

Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act Supersedes Muslim Personal Law : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 481

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 will supersede the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The Court stated that every Indian citizen regardless of their religion and location is bound to adhere to the law prohibiting child marriage.

Kerala HC Directs Centre To Grant Citizenship To Two Women Who Migrated From Pakistan As Minors, Not Insist On Renunciation Certificate

Case Title: Rasheeda Bano v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 482

The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to grant Indian citizenship to two women aged 21 and 24, without insisting upon a Renunciation certificate from the Pakistan government.

The Court stated that the government cannot compel the petitioners to produce a Renunciation Certificate since they migrated to India after surrendering their Pakistani passports before attaining the age of majority.

Assessments Getting Time Barred By 31.03.2017 Can Continue Only Upto 31.03.2018: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Intersource Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 483

The Kerala High Court has held that the assessments that were getting time barred by 31.03.2017 can continue only up to 31.03.2018.

POCSO Courts Must Be Vigilant Where Mother Embroiled In Custody Battle Accuses Father Of Sexually Abusing Child: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX V State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 484

The Kerala High Court has cautioned the POCSO Courts to be vigilant whilst considering allegations of child's sexual abuse levelled by his/her mother against the father, especially when there are ongoing matrimonial and custody disputes between them.

"Cartoonists Entitled To Freedom Of Expression": Kerala High Court Quashes Case Over Malayala Manorama Caricature 'Insulting' National Flag

Case Title: Mammen Varghese v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 485

The Kerala High Court has held that cartoonists, being a part and parcel of the Press and Media, are entitled to Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

The Court thus quashed proceedings initiated against the Printer and Publisher, Editorial Director, Managing Editor, Editor and Chief Editor of Kerala news daily 'Malayala Manorama', under Section 2 of Prevention of Insult To National Honour Act, 1971 for allegedly insulting the National Flag.

The specific case was that Malayala Manorama, in connection with the 70th Independence Day celebrations, published a caricature depicting Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian flag, with the top side of saffron portion of the flag outlined with a black line.

Law Does Not Entitle Male Child Who Has Attained Majority To Claim Maintenance From Father: Kerala High Court

Case Title: B Prakash v Lazitha

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 486

The Kerala High Court held that a male child who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from their father as per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of CrPC and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Kerala High Court Allows Rajya Sabha MP A.A. Rahim To Retain His Diplomatic Passport For The Rest Of His Tenure

Case Title: A. A. Rahim v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 487

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal filed by Rajya Sabha MP A. A. Rahim challenging the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, Thiruvananthapuram allowing him to hold a diplomatic passport for only two years.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 22-Yr-Old Woman Accused In Kollam Child Kidnapping Case

Case Title: Anupama Padmakumar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 488

The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail application of Anupama, a 22-year-old daughter of the family who was allegedly involved in kidnapping a six-year-old minor female child in Kollam district.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Safety Of Pilgrims During Karkidakavavu Festival Due To Adverse Weather Conditions

Case Title: Bharatheeya Jyothisha Vichara Sangham v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 489

The Kerala High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction to issue directions for ensuring the safety of pilgrims and others during the Balitharpanam and Karkidakavavu rituals conducted by devotees in public places such as Shanghumukham, Thirumullavaram, Varkala and other places during the Karkidakavavu festival on August 3, 2024.

Limitation Act Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Under National Highways Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: National Highway Authority of India v P. V. George and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 490

The Kerala High Court held that for arbitration proceedings other than under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply unless expressly mentioned in the law under which the arbitration proceedings were inititaed. It was thus observed that the Limitation act would not apply to arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act.

[S. 33(2) POCSO Act] Mode Of Examination Through Intermediary Remains Unchanged Even If Victim Attains Majority During Trial: Kerala HC

Case Title: Anujith v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 491

The Kerala High Court has held that the mode of examining a victim through the Special Court (intermediary) in a POCSO case as per Section 33 (2) of the POCSO Act remains unchanged even if the victim attains the age of majority during the trial.

Section 33 (2) of the POCSO Act mandates that the Special Public Prosecutor or the defence counsel shall give their questions to the Special Court, which will then ask those questions to the child victim during the examination. Section 33 (2) prohibits direct examination of the victim.

Woman Seeking Divorce From 'Loveless Marriage' Not Expected To Recall Each And Every Incident Of Cruelty: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Litty Mary John v Manoj K. Varghese

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 492

The Kerala High Court observed that a woman who complains of being in a loveless relationship with her husband who is allegedly living a wayward life and acting under the influence of alcohol would not be able to enumerate each and every incident of cruelty.

High Court Can Exercise Inherent Power U/S 482 CrPC To Quash ECIR Registered By Enforcement Directorate: Kerala High Court

Case Title: South Indian Bank v Directorate of Enforcement and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 493

Kerala High Court has held that even though ECIR is an internal and administrative document, the same can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).

Whether Income Received By Kerala Cricket Association Would Be Exempted Income Or Not? Kerala High Court Remands Back Matter To ITAT

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income -Tax (Exemptions) Kochi Versus M/S.Kerala Cricket Association

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 494

The Kerala High Court has remanding the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to determine whether income received by the Kerala Cricket Association during the assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 would partake of the nature of exempted income going by the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has set aside the impugned orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh determination of the issue in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. The Supreme Court held that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the heading "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce, or providing any service for any consideration.

Kerala High Court Says It Lacks 'Supervisory Jurisdiction' Over NCDRC

Case Title: DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495

The Kerala High Court has held that it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only over Courts and Tribunals falling within its territorial jurisdiction.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu stated that NCDRC falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition as not maintainable under Article 227. “….a close reading and comprehensive analysis of the precedents leads us to the conclusion that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 only over those courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, over the NCDRC, falling falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”

Appellate Court Can't Direct Party To Deposit Part Of Amount Covered By Impugned Verdict As Condition To Condone Delay: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496

The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate Court cannot direct a party to deposit part of the amount covered by impugned verdict, as a prerequisite to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The delay condonation plea and the appeal filed by the revision petitioner were dismissed by the Sessions Court citing non-compliance with its order to pay maintenance arrears.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that it was legally impermissible for the First Appellate Court to impose a condition directing payment of any amount covered in the impugned appeal for considering the delay condonation petition.

'Group of Companies' Doctrine Not Applicable When The Party Is Not Referred To Arbitration: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497

The Kerala High Court has held that 'Group of Companies' doctrine is not applicable when the third party is not even referred to the arbitration. The Supreme Court adopted the 'Doctrine of Group of Companies' in Cox and Kings Ltd. v SAP India Private Limited and Other (2023).

The Apex Court held that a non- signatory affiliate or a sister or parent company can be a party to the arbitration agreement, if there is mutual intention of the signatories and non-signatories to this effect. The Supreme Court observed that the non-signatory's casual connection with the negotiation and execution of the contract is a factor to determine the mutual intent to arbitrate.

Six-Day School Week | Kerala HC Quashes Decision To Make 25 Saturdays Working Days, Says Adverse Impact On Student's Mental Health Not Considered

Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498

The Kerala High Court has quashed the decision of the Director of General Education in so far as it makes 25 Saturdays as working days out of 35 Saturdays in an academic year. The Court observed that the decision to implement a six day working week with Saturdays working was made without considering its adverse effects on the mental health of students.

In this case, several writ petitions were filed by teachers, their associations, students and parents challenging the competence of the Director of General Education by publishing the academic calendar for 2024-25 by making 25 Saturdays as school working days.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the decision was taken without hearing the views of students, teachers, parents and other stakeholders. The Court observed that the decision was made without considering its advantages and disadvantages through any expert studies.

Untimely Demise Of Husband Sufficient Explanation To Condone Delay In Seeking Leave To Continue Appeal On His Behalf: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499

The Kerala High Court has stated that the untimely death of the husband is sufficient reason to condone 20 days delay in filing an application seeking leave under Section 394 of CrPC.

Section 394 of CrPC provides for abatement of criminal appeal on the appellant's death. As per the provision, near relatives can apply for leave to continue the appeal within 30 days of the death of the appellant against the sentence of death or imprisonment.

Here, the wife filed an application seeking leave to continue appeal after 50 days of her husband's death.

[S.73 Evidence Act] Trial Court Is Empowered To Compare Disputed Handwriting In Cheque Dishonour Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500

The Kerala High Court held that a Trial Court can compare the disputed handwriting and prove the handwriting of a person in a case where the accused had already admitted his signature in a cheque dishonour case.

In the present case, the accused was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had claimed that while the signature on the offending cheque was his, the contents on the cheque were not filled by him.

Justice K. Babu invoked the trial court's power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, and held: “Therefore if the accused makes a request for comparison of his admitted or proved writings with disputed writings, the Trial Court shall invoke Section 73 of the Evidence Act.”

Settlement Affidavit Cannot Be Relied On To Quash Rape Case, Nature Of Victim's Relationship With Accused To Be Decided In Trial: Kerala HC

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501

The Kerala High Court has stated that serious offences alleged against the accused like rape cannot be quashed merely based on a settlement affidavit filed by the defacto complainant.

Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the petition filed by the accused stating that whether the relationship was consensual or not were matters to be decided in a trial. It was held that: “Whether the relationship is consensual, is a matter to be decided during evidence and merely relying on the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, this Court cannot quash the proceedings, holding that there are no materials, prima facie, to go for trial.”

Kerala HC Declines To Quash FIR Against Doctor & Hospital Staff Booked For Sharing Images, Videos Of Woman Undergoing Surgery To Deliver Triplets

Case Title: Sunil P P v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor and hospital staff who approached the Court to quash proceedings initiated against them for allegedly taking and sharing videos and images of a woman undergoing a cesarean operation to deliver three children, through WhatsApp.

The crime was registered against the doctors under Section 354(C) (Voyeurism) of IPC, Sections 66(E) (Punishment for violation of Privacy) and 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case was made out against petitioners involving serious allegations.

'Media Entitled To Discuss Publicly Available Book': Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case For Discussing Book On Mata Amritanandamayi

Case Title: Prakash v Vandana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503

The Kerala High Court quashed a defamation case against media persons of Reporter Channel who aired a show called 'Big Story' that discussed a book about Mata Amritanandamayi and her Math. The Court stated that media persons can conduct discussions about books available in the public domain and doing so would only constitute fair comment or criticism, which falls under their freedom of speech.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted that the book 'Holy Hell' is available on Amazon and other public domains, and it has also been translated into Malayalam. The Court stated that petitioners being media persons cannot be expected to stay mum and not discuss about a book available on the public domain. The Court also observed that if Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees were not taking action against the author or publisher of the book, they could not pursue defamation claims against media personnel for discussing the book which is available on public domain.

Kerala High Court Alters Murder Conviction Of Ex-CPI(M) Leader Who Was Sentenced To Death

Case Title: State v R. Baiju

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504

The Kerala High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded to former CPI(M) local leader and Chairman of Cherthala Municipal Standing Committee, R. Baiju convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha of murdering Divakaran, a member of the Indian National Congress.

A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice M. B. Snehalatha found that the charge of murder was not proved against him and held he could be found guilty of only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, Employee Of Licensee, Not An Employer: Kerala High Court

Case Name: C K Ssidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505

A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, while deciding writ petitions held that an employee who is merely associated with the conduct of business and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf, cannot be said to be an employer.

The definition of “employer” under Section 2© of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 was examined by the court. It was noted that the definition included any person who employs, directly or indirectly, other persons in the establishment. However, it was concluded by the court that the employee did not meet this definition since he was merely an employee and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf.

Based on the above findings, the writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders that held the employee liable for the welfare fund contributions were set aside by the court. It was concluded that he was merely an employee and not an employer, as defined under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969.

Shifting Bio Toilets From Sabarimala To Relief Camps In Wayanad Not Feasible Due To Large Number Of Expected Pilgrims: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 506

The Kerala High Court has stated that it will not be feasible to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to shift 15 bio toilet units kept at Sabarimala to relief camps at Wayanad due to the anticipated large number of pilgrims for Chingamasapooja from August 16, 2024.

Court Should Not Interfere With State Bar Council's Timeline For Enrolment Of Advocates: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Bar Council of Kerala and Others v Unnikrishnan H. and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 507

The Kerala High Court held that it cannot interfere with the timeline fixed by the Bar Council of Kerala for enrollment. The Court noticed that the Bar Council fixed the timeline based on the instructions of the Bar Council of India and the Court should not interfere with it.

Complainant Being Social Worker Should Have Complained Against Sexual Assault Without Much Delay: Kerala HC Stays Proceedings In Rape Case

Case Title: K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508

The Kerala High Court has allowed a plea to quash the final report and stay further proceedings in a case of rape. The Court observed that the complainant being a social worker ought to have raised a complaint against the alleged sexual assault without much delay. Reportedly, there was a delay of three and a half months in filing the F.I.R.

Writ Court Has Jurisdiction Over Non-Statutory Contractual Dispute If State Acts Arbitrarily: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Indian Space Research Organization V M/S.Roopam Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 509

The Kerala High Court has held that the Writ Court does not always lack jurisdiction to address disputes involving a 'State' entity under Article 12 when it enters into a purely contractual relationship with a private party.

Kerala High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Advocate For Filing 'Frivolous' Contempt Petition Against Judicial Officer, Opposing Counsel

Case Title: P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510

The Kerala High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on an advocate who filed a 'frivolous' contempt petition against a judicial officer. The contempt petition was filed alleging that the judicial officer colluded with an advocate and parties in disobeying the directions of the High Court in a case being contested by the contempt applicant.

Whether Consent Was Obtained Based On Mistake Of Fact On Promise Of Marriage To Be Determined At Trial: Kerala HC Declines To Quash Rape Case

Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 511

The Kerala High Court held that when prosecution allegations make out prime facie case, then whether a sexual relationship took place after obtaining consent on the misconception of fact on the promise of marriage has to be decided during evidence.

Criminal Antecedents Of Accused Not Bar To Compound An Offence, Which Is Otherwise Compoundable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Joel Joji v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

The Kerala High Court has held that the criminal antecedents of the accused would not stand in the way of compounding an offence that is otherwise compoundable under the Indian Penal Code.

DV Act | Couple Cohabiting During Subsistence Of Previous Marriage Do Not Share Domestic Relationship In Nature Of Marriage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chandra Babu v Vidya Pushpan and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 513

Kerala High Court held that a couple who did a marriage ceremony when their previous marriages were subsisting and lived together for a considerable period of time cannot be said to have a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' as mentioned in the definition of 'domestic relation' in Section 2(f) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act).

War Injury Pension/ Disability Pension Is 'Right' Of Eligible Military Personnel, Not Bounty: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514

The Kerala High Court has held that war injury pension and disability pension claims are not a bounty but a right available to eligible military personnel. The Court held that provisions of Pension Regulations for military personnel must receive beneficial interpretation.

Jet Santhosh Murder Case: Kerala High Court Acquits 7 Including Two Death Row Convicts, Says Approver's Evidence Not Reliable

Case Title: State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Jacky and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 515

The Kerala High Court has acquitted 7 convicts in the murder of gangster Santhosh, also known as Jet Santhosh. Two of the convicts were sentenced to death and others were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge – I, Trivandrum.

The Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran and Justice Syam Kumar V. passed the order after finding the approver, on whom the prosecution case was heavily based, was not reliable.

Compounding Of Offences U/S 67A Of Akbari Act Is Equivalent To S. 320(8) CrPC, Has The Effect Of Acquittal: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Salim and Others v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 516

The High Court held that the principle of compounding of offence applicable for Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is also applicable to the compounding of offences under Section 67A of the Abkari Act. Section 320(8) of the CrPC says that compounding will have the effect of acquittal.

Kerala High Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Seeking 'Cheap Publicity' By Filing Meritless PIL Alleging Misuse Of Wayanad Landslide Relief Funds

Case Title: C. Shukkur v The State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517

The Kerala High Court came down heavily on a lawyer who approached the Court with a Public Interest Litigation requesting the establishment of a centralized system for collecting and managing the disaster relief funds meant to aid landslide victims in Wayanad. The petitioner alleged that the funds being collected for the relief of the Wayanad landslide victims, were not reaching the intended beneficiaries.

Kerala High Court Orders Counselling For Cousins Falsely Accused In POCSO Case, Calls State To Implement Guidelines To Prevent Misuse

Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518

The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail applications moved by two boys aged 19 and 20 years old, cousins of a 17-year-old girl who lodged a false POCSO case against them for objecting to her love affair.

Stringent Conditions Must Be Imposed Before Releasing Vehicles Seized For Dumping Waste On Public Property: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suhail M A v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 519

The Kerala High Court has directed that stringent conditions, at least in the form of a bank guarantee must be imposed while directing the release of vehicles dumping waste onto public property.

Absence Of Proof In Employee's Engagement In Dual Employment, Kerala HC Directs Employer To Pay Salary

Case Title: The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v Joy Mathew

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 520

A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice N. Nagaresh, while deciding a petition, held that an employee is entitled to arrears of salary because the employer could not produce enough evidence to prove that employee was engaged in dual employment.

Revisional Jurisdiction Available , Writ Not Maintainable Against First Appellate Authority Order : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Of Mr. Mattummel Kunhiraman Versus State Of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 521

The Kerala High Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the first appellate authority's order under the Kerala Building Tax Act.

The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has granted the liberty to the appellant to prefer a statutory revision before the District Collector against the order, by which the First Appellate Authority affirmed the assessment order of the Tahsildar, assessing the buildings belonging to the appellant to building tax.

Uploading Assessment Orders After GST Registration Cancellation, Petitioner Failed To Check Website, Kerala High Court Grants Opportunity To Challenge On Deposit

Case Title: Global Distributors Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 522

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the orders of assessment and summary of orders for the years July 2017 and August 2017 under the CGST/SGST Acts. The registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on 12.12.2021 with effect from 30.11.2019, and the petitioner was therefore unaware of the orders passed and did not get an opportunity to file returns.

The orders were uploaded on the portal, which had not been accessed by the petitioner since the registration had been cancelled and the petitioner was no longer continuing with the business.

The Kerala High Court has quashed the assessment orders and remanded the matter back on condition of remitting Rs. 10 lakhs towards the GST liabilities.

'Public Place' U/S 294(b) IPC Includes Areas Where Obscenities Can Cause Annoyance To Those In Vicinity, Not Limited To Public Spaces Alone: Kerala HC

Case Title: K P Aliyar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523

The Kerala High Court recently held that when an obscene act is committed to the annoyance of others in any public place in or near any public place attracts an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice A. Badharudeen added that 'in or near public place' mentioned in Section 294 (b) of the IPC is wide enough to include areas in the vicinity of public places and does not limit its orbit to absolute public place alone.

Be Vigilant Of Unwanted Defamation Cases Against Press, Media Persons: Kerala High Court To District Judiciary

Case Title: Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524

The Kerala High Court has directed the judicial officers of the district judiciary to exercise caution when considering allegations of defamation against newspapers and media personnel.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that unwanted legal prosecutions against newspapers and media persons under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC would amount to violation of Freedom of the Press and people's right to know. The Court thus directed the Trial Courts to be vigilant while considering prosecutions alleging defamation against Press and Media persons.

S.377 IPC Contemplates Unnatural Acts Against The Order Of Nature, Does Not Cover Unnaturality Of Relationship Such As Incest: Kerala HC

Case Title: Shaji M. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525

The Kerala High Court has held that having carnal intercourse against 'the order of nature' mentioned in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code looks only into the nature of the act and not the relationship of the parties involved.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish was hearing an appeal where the appellant was convicted of raping his daughter by the Sessions Court.

No Fundamental Right To Elect Or Be Elected: Kerala High Court

Case Title: K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526

The Kerala High Court has held that the Court have to strictly go by the law and cannot apply rules of equity in an election matter. The Court held that right to elect though fundamental to a democracy is neither a fundamental right neither a common law right.

Justice C. S. Sudha observed: “Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore subject to statutory limitations. An election petition petition is not an action in common law, nor an equity,”

Gram Nyayalaya Lacks Jurisdiction To Deal With Applications Under Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shiyas S v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527

The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 lacks jurisdiction to consider applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that Gram Nyayalaya cannot deal with applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking maintenance or mahr to be given to the wife at the time of divorce.

Kerala High Court Quashes Section 377 IPC Charge Against Husband, Discusses Absence Of An Equivalent Provision In BNS

Case Title: Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her husband for offence under Section 377 IPC.

The Court observed that after the definition of rape in Section 375 was amended in 2013, forcible acts of oral sex committed by a male accused on a female victim is an offence of rape. However, since a wife can't prosecute her husband for offence of rape, neither section 377 not section 375 will stand against the accused.

The Court also noted that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not have an offence equivalent to Section 377 IPC. The rationale for this omission, the bench said, is not stated in the statute.

TransUnion CIBIL Must Update Credit Ratings On Time, Borrowers' Reputation Integral To Right To Dignity And Privacy Under Article 21: Kerala HC

Case Title: The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529

The Kerala High Court has ruled that if a Credit Information Company such as TransUnion CIBIL Limited fails to update the credit ratings of its borrowers promptly, it would infringe upon their fundamental rights.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that borrowers reputation is protected under right to dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Public Discussion Crucial To Solve Gender Issues In Malayalam Cinema, Apprehension That Media Will Malign 'Misplaced': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530

The Kerala High Court has called for public debate and discussion to ensure that recommendations made by Justice Hema Committee, to alleviate grievances regarding harassment and discrimination raised by women working in Malayalam film industry, are implemented promptly.

Bench of Justice V. G. Arun thus dismissed the petition filed by producer Sajimon Parayil against publication the Committee report. It also dismissed the apprehensions that unwarranted media coverage about the report would cause irreparable damage to individuals and the industry as a whole.

No Parent Would File False Case Alleging Rape Of Unmarried Daughter: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531

The Kerala High Court recently observed that in normal human conduct, no parent would lodge a false case alleging that their unmarried daughter was raped.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha thus upheld the conviction of a 27-year-old man for raping and sexually abusing the victim and condoned the six-month delay in filing the FIR, given that the victim was a 13-year-old vulnerable teenager.

Section 354A IPC Not Attracted On Alleged Sexual Harassment Of A Woman By Another Woman: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532

The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 354A of the IPC alleging sexual harassment by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law.

The sister-in-law (3rd accused) and mother-in-law (4th accused) of the de facto complainant had approached the High Court seeking to quash the offences alleged against them under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that when the legislature has used the term 'any man' and not 'any person' under Section 354A of the IPC, overt acts done by women cannot attract the said offence.

To Attract Offense U/S 111(1) BNS Two Or More Persons Must Carry Out Continuous Unlawful Activity Leading To More Than One Chargesheet Within Last 10 Yrs: Kerala HC

Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533

The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing criminal activity committed by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Section 111 (1)(i) defines 'organized crime syndicate' and Section 111 (1) (ii) defines 'continuing unlawful activity'.

Justice C S Dias observed that prime facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been filed against him in any Court in the 'preceding period of last ten years' to satisfy the mandate of 'continuing unlawful activity' as defined under Section 111(1) (ii).

'Ex-Army Officer & Celebrity Needs To Be Careful': Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Major Ravi For Remarks Against TV Anchor

Case Title: A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534

The Kerala High Court refused to discharge former army officer and Malayalam movie director A. K. Raveendran, also known as Major Ravi, in a criminal case over making sexually coloured remarks against a TV news anchor.

The Court remarked that the petitioner, who is a celebrity and a former army officer, should be careful while making statements as common people watch him and his words.

Compensation To Discontinue Commodity Brokerage Business Chargeable To Income Tax: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535

The Kerala High Court has held that the amount received by the assessee is under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business that was carried on by the assessee; it would attract the provisions of Section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act and make the receipt chargeable to income tax under the heading of “Profits and gains of business or profession.”.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that Section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act does not restrict the operation of the provision to only amounts received by way of non-compete fee. The words used in the said provision do not admit any restricted meaning. So long as the amount received by the assessee was received for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business and the amount received was not on account of the transfer of the right to manufacture, produce, or process any article or thing or on account of the transfer of the right to carry on any business, which receipts would have been chargeable under the head “capital gains," there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Authority that brought the amounts received by the assessee from BNP Paribas to tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.

OTS Benefit Can't Be Denied After Accepting Delayed Installment: Kerala High Court Asks SBI To Release Title Deeds

Case Title: Sham P S v State Bank of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 536

The Kerala High Court has directed the State Bank of India to release the title deeds of a residential property mortgaged by a petitioner on payment of outstanding debts under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.

The Bank did not confer the benefit of the OTS Scheme to the petitioner, citing a delay in payment of the second instalment within the stipulated time. 

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Bank did not raise an objection saying that the petitioner delayed the payments of the second instalment or that the OTS Scheme had lapsed. The Court thus observed that the Bank accepted the second instalment paid by the petitioner under the OTS Scheme, even if it was made with some delay. 

Applications For Condonation Of Delay, Should Not Be Too Hyper-Technical: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mary Queens Mission Hospital Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 537

The Kerala High Court has held that the applications for condonation of delay should have been considered without being too hyper-technical and in a judicious manner.

The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the delay in filing the audit report in Form-10B can at best be 30 days, as the law only requires that the audit report be uploaded at least a month before the due date for filing returns. The Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone the delay instead of taking a strict view of the matter.

[POCSO] Accused's Culpable Mental State Cannot Be Considered At Pre-Trial Stage: Kerala High Court Dismisses Discharge Plea

Case Title: P.C. Varghese Muthalali v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538

The Kerala High Court has held that the culpable mental state of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage when the prosecution makes out a prima facie case.The Court was considering whether culpable mental state under the POCSO Act could be considered at the time of discharge or quashment of the proceedings against the accused. 

Kerala Govt Land Assignment Act | Assignee Bound By Restrictions & Limitations Prescribed In 'Patta' Or Other Assignment Documents: High Court

Case Title: Mary Baby v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 539

The Kerala High Court held that the assignee of Government land is bound by restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed in the patta or other documents of assignment as per the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and rules made thereunder.

A Person Cannot Be Prosecuted For Consumption Of Narcotic Drug On The Basis Of Smell Of His Breath: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ibnu Shijil v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 540

Kerala High Court has held that a person cannot be booked for consuming narcotic drug on the basis that the investigation officer smelt the substance from his breath. 

The Court observed that if it is allowed, a situation will arise where the investigating officer can prosecute anyone as an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It was noted that since sensory perceptions are subjective, reliance cannot be placed on it to identify a substance.

"No Fundamental Right To Demand Laws Titled In Familiar Languages": Kerala HC On 'Hindi' Names Of New Criminal Laws

Case Title: P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a lawyer challenging the Hindi titles given to the new criminal laws, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu observed that citizens have no fundamental right to demand that the title of enactments should be in a familiar language. The Court stated that nothing prevents Parliament from giving Hindi names as the title of an enactment.

Agreement To Withdraw Prosecution In Rape Case Is Opposed To Public Policy: Kerala High Court Declines To Quash Proceedings

Case Title: Abdul Jaleel v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 542

The Kerala High Court held that an agreement entered between the complainant and accused to withdraw prosecution in an offence of rape is void in the light of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

As per Section 23 of the Contract, if the court regards that the object of an agreement is opposed to public policy, the agreement is void. Here the Court held that the agreement will stifle prosecution of public offence and it is opposed to public policy.

For Offences Relating To Marriage, Magistrate Can Only Take Cognizance On A Complaint By The Aggrieved Person: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Amal Babu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 543

The Kerala High Court has recently held that for offences relating to marriage under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Magistrate if he intends to take cognizance, can do so only on the original complaint of the aggrieved person even if the police had filed a final report.For context under Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a Court can take cognizance of an offence under IPC Chapter XX–which pertains to offences relating to marriage–only on the complaint of a person who is aggrieved by such an offence.

Failure To Inform Jurisdictional Magistrate About Direction To Freeze/Seize Bank Account Can Invalidate It's Freezing: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nazeer K. T. v The Manager Federal Bank and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 544

The Kerala High Court has held that the failure to inform the Magistrate about the seizure/freezing of a person's bank account can have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure.The court made these observations while hearing a plea challenging the freezing of a person's bank account and directed the police to inform the concerned bank whether the requirements of Section 102 CrPC had been followed.

Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused Booked For Brutally Murdering 7-Yr-Old Boy, Says He Was Deliberately Protracting Trial

Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545

The Kerala High Court ruled that the accused who was deliberately protracting the trial was not entitled to bail.The petitioner, who is accused of allegedly brutally attacking and murdering the 7-year-old minor son of the woman he was living with after her husband's death has approached the Court with a bail application.

Burden Of Proof To Establish Lack Of Means To Maintain Spouse Lies On Party Who Expresses Such Inability: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ankitha Joy v Joy Augustine @ Augusthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 546

The Kerala High Court held that in a suit for maintenance, it is upon the respondent to prove that he does not have enough means to maintain the claimant. The Court observed that evidence to prove the means of a person will be within his exclusive knowledge and therefore, it is upon him to disprove the claim put by the petitioner.

Hearing Opportunity Must Be Given To Investigating Officer Before Making Adverse Remarks Against Him To Protect Future Career Prospects: Kerala HC

Case Title: G.Gopan @ Gopakumar v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 547

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is a basic requirement under the principles of natural justice to give an opportunity of hearing to an investigating officer before the Court making adverse remarks against him, especially when such remarks could affect his future career prospects.

KSFE Entitled To Resort To Revenue Recovery Proceedings Under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, Not Barred By Chit Funds Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Benzy Martin v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 548

The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) is entitled to resort to revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 for recovery of dues from subscribers as it has been designated as a notified institution under Section 71 of the Act.

Accused Not Entitled To Materials Affecting Privacy Of Sexual Offence Victim On Ground That Her Identity Is Already Disclosed In Public: Kerala HC

Case Title: Muhammed Ramees v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 549

The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that publishing any details which would affect the privacy of a victim of sexual assault is prohibited and to say that since her privacy has been disclosed in public by other publication modes would be enough to give the accused such details, would add "pepper" to the victim's wound.

Police Lack Authority To Adjudicate Civil Disputes, Must Refer Parties To Competent Civil Court Or ADR: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ibrahim v Administrator

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550

The Kerala High Court has observed that the police lack the power or authority to act as a Civil Court or to adjudicate civil disputes between the parties.

Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the police cannot adjudicate civil disputes relating to title, possession, boundary, or encroachment of land and it can only refer parties in civil disputes to a competent civil court or ADR for resolution of their disputes.

Important To Hold Referendum For Multiple Trade Unions To Determine Which Union Commands Bargaining Power: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Fact United Employees Liberation V The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 551

The Kerala High Court has held that when there are multiple registered trade unions, it is significant to determine which union must negotiate with the establishment to represent the interests of workmen to maintain industrial peace.

It thus directed the Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) to hold a Trade Union Referendum by secret ballot to determine the representative character of Fact United Employees Liberation, a Trade Union operating in FACT's Cochin Division.

No Invariable Rule That Prescriptive Easement Right Of Way Can't Be Claimed Over Ridge Of Paddy Fields, Burden Lies On Claimant: Kerala HC

Case Title: Chirakkal Sankaran Nair v Ponguzhi Parambath Sreedharan Nair

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 552

The Kerala High Court has held that there is no absolute rule that prescriptive easement right of way cannot be claimed over ridges of paddy field. However, the Court stated that there is a heavy burden on the user who claims prescriptive easement right of way over ridges of paddy field as a matter of right, rather than as a permissive user.

[KAAPA] Police's Failure To Use Available Technology To Expedite Process Undermines Personal Liberty Of Accused In Preventive Detention Cases: Kerala HC

Case Title: Suneera T v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 553

The Kerala High Court observed that the State Police uses an 'Integrated Core Policing System' that enables them to collect information about offenders promptly and efficiently without delay. The Court thus stated that with the technological advancements, the government cannot justify the delay in issuing the detention order by claiming that they spent time gathering case details.

Unexplained Long Delay Fatal To Prosecution: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case Filed After 16-Yr Delay

Case Title: Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554

The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on finding that the prosecution failed to explain the delay of 16 years in filing the rape case.

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner subjected her to rape in the year 2001, and First Information Statement was given in 2017 only.The Court noted that the delay of 16 years in filing the case was fatal to the prosecution and found the allegations to be unbelievable.

Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the fact that the de facto complainant continued the relationship with the petitioner even after having sexual intercourse in 2001 would point out that their relationship was consensual.

Presumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty Not Just Legal Principle But A Fundamental Human Right: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555

The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Aggrieved Person Can Challenge Sessions Court Order U/S 29 DV Act By Filing Revision Petition: Kerala High Court

Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556

The Kerala High Court has held that an aggrieved person can challenge the decision of a Sessions Court issued under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) by way of a Criminal Revision Petition.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sessions Court which had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife had moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the DV Act and had obtained a maintenance order against the petitioner. A challenge against this order was dismissed by the Magistrate.

Invocation Of Article 227 Against Final Orders/ Judgments Passed By Sessions Court In Appeal Is 'Almost Barred': Kerala High Court

Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556

The Kerala High Court has held that there is almost an an absolute bar on challenging the final order or judgment passed by a Sessions Court in appeal, under Article 227 of the Constitution. Article 227 deals with the superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals in its territory.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which held that a person cannot approach the High Court under Article 227 when there is an alternate remedy available. The High Court held that a person has the remedy of criminal revision petition to challenge the final order of Sessions Court in an appeal made under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Kerala HC Closes Anticipatory Bail Plea By Film Director Ranjith Upon Being Told Offense Was Committed Before S.354A IPC Was Made Non-Bailable

Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557

The Kerala High has closed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Malayalam Movie Director Ranjith. The petition was closed on the report of the Public Prosecutor that the S. 354 of IPC (outraging modesty) which is alleged against the petitioner was bailable in 2009 when the incident allegedly took place.

He submitted that the police are treating the offence as bailable and the director can take bail directly from the police station if he is arrested.

Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu appeared for the actor before the Court. The matter was heard before the bench of Justice C. S. Dias.

Kerala High Court Convicts Police Officer Who Abused Advocate; 2 Months Imprisonment Imposed For Contempt Of Court

Case Title: Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558

The Kerala High Court has imposed a sentence of 2 months of simple imprisonment on a police officer for contempt of court for abusing and misbehaving with an advocate. The Court has however suspended the sentence for a period of 1 year. During this period, the police officer is cautioned to not indulge in any untoward activities. After the period of 1 year, the sentence would lapse.

The sentence was delivered by Justice Devan Ramachandran.

Spices Board Stands On Different Footing From Central Govt, Cannot Claim Building Tax Exemption: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Spices Board stands on a different footing than the Central Government and so the properties and buildings of the board cannot claim exemption from building tax by virtue of Article 285(1) of the Constitution.

A single-judge bench of Justice Basant Balaji referred to Section 19 of the Spices Board Act which deals with the Power of the Central Government to supersede the Board.

"Premature Petition": Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea For Probe By Central Agency Into PV Anwar MLA's Corruption Allegations Against ADGP

Case Title: George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition seeking an investigation by a central agency into the allegation made by MLA P. V. Anvar against the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) M. R. Ajith Kumar at the first instance itself. The Division Bench comprised of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu noted that the petition was premature.

Kerala High Court Permits Temporary Shifting Of Courtroom To Accommodate Sr Advocate Raman Pillai Appearing For MLA Mani C Kappan In Cheating Case

Case Title: Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561

The Kerala High Court ordered that the trial involving MLA Mani C Kappan be moved to a different courtroom, for one day, to accommodate his counsel, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai.

MLA Kappan has approached the High Court seeking permission to allow the trial to be held in a courtroom with lift facility for the convenience of his counsel, Senior Advocate Raman Pillai, rather than on the 1st floor which has no lift facility.

Justice B Jayachandran held that shifting of court premises is a matter within the administrative realm of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

[POCSO Act] Kerala High Court Awards 20-Yr Sentence To Father Convicted For Repeatedly Raping Minor Daughter Over Two Years

Case Title: V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562

The Kerala High Court has convicted and sentenced an accused, the father of the minor daughter, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly raping and committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim.

The Court passed the above order in the appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar And Justice C.Pratheep Kumar ordered that the accused cannot be convicted both under the IPC and the POCSO Act and that he can be convicted for the offence providing a greater degree of punishment.

BNSS Gives Wider Protection To Accused Of Unsound Mind Or Intellectual Disability, Will Apply Retrospectively: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563

The Kerala High Court has held that protection afforded to an accused of unsound mind or with intellectual disability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has wider scope and will thus apply retrospectively, to pending applications.

Chapter XXV of CrPC pertains to provisions for accused persons of unsound mind. It includes persons suffering from unsound mind or mental retardation. Whereas, Chapter XXVII of the BNSS deals with provisions for accused persons with mental illness that protect persons with unsound mind or intellectual disability. This means that CrPC does not grant protection to persons suffering from intellectual disability.

Trial Against Person With Alzheimer's Must Be Postponed Under CrPC & BNSS If Accused Incapable Of Making His Defence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563

The Kerala High Court has held that a person accused in a criminal case but incapable of making defence due to Alzheimer's Dementia is entitled to protection under the CrPC and The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Justice K Babu noted that dementia is a form of mental disability which include problems with language, memory loss, etc. and thus an affected person may be prevented from defending his case.

Justice K Babu held that BNSS will apply retrospectively to proceedings prior to July 01, 2024, to ensure fair trial for persons with intellectual disability or mental disability.

Purpose Of Trial Is To Unearth Truth: Kerala High Court Orders To Give The Accused List Of Documents Not Relied On By Prosecution

Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564

The Kerala High Court has held that the accused has a right to access all materials which was gathered during investigation, irrespective of whether the prosecution seeks to rely upon the same.

Justice C. Jayachandran remarked that the very reason that the prosecution is not relying upon the same may imply that the evidence may be in favour of the accused

Public Service Commission Can't Demand Gazette Notification To Resolve Caste Name Discrepancy, Certificate From Revenue Sufficient: Kerala HC

Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v Dinesh K M

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 565

The Kerala High Court has held that the Public Service Commission cannot require an applicant to provide a gazette notification to address discrepancies in caste name, to prove that the applicant belongs to a community different from the one listed on their Secondary School Leaving Certificate.

Kerala High Court Declines To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Man Booked For Uploading Allegedly Objectionable Video Against Nuns

Case Title: P V Samuel v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 566

he Kerala High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a man booked for allegedly publishing a video stating that nuns are the concubines of priests and bishops on YouTube and Facebook.

The prosecution alleged that the video was published on June 01, 2020, with the intent to hurt and insult the religious feelings of nuns. It is alleged that the petitioner indecently represented nuns and intentionally insulted Christian bishops and priests.

Notification For Recruitment Can Only Be For Actual And Anticipated Vacancies, Not Future Vacancy: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Binod B. Kumar and Another v Guruvayur Devaswom and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 567

The Kerala High Court has held that a public authority, while calling for recruitment can only notify vacancies that are existing or anticipated, but not for future vacancies. The Court also added that an authority can resort to recruiting beyond the notified vacancies only in rare and emergent situations.

Duty Of Court To Restore Litigant For Loss Suffered Due To Negligence Of Court: Kerala HC

Case Title: Sreejith Mon v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 568

The Kerala High Court has observed that the concept of restitution of the litigant for the loss suffered due to negligence of the court is a fundamental principle of Indian Judiciary and Jurisprudence.

[S.14A Foreigners Act] Foreigners Who Overstay After Expiry Of Documents Cannot Be Treated As Infiltrators: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Egadwa Mercy Adamba v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 569

The Kerala High Court observed that foreign nationals who entered India with valid visas and passports and continued their stay after the expiry of these documents cannot be treated as infiltrators under Section 14A of the Foreigners Act. The Court thus quashed the proceedings initiated against four foreign nationals under Section 14 A of the Foreigners Act.

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Film Director VK Prakash In Sexual Harassment Case But Permits Police To Interrogate Him

Case Title: V K Prakash v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 570

The Kerala High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Film Director VK Prakash in connection with sexual abuse allegations made against him after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.

Kerala HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Mathrubhumi TV Employees For Conducting Sting Operation; Says No Malafide Intention

Case Title: Jaison and Others v A. G. Korah and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 571

The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the reporter and other employees of Mathrubhumi TV News and Press in connection with a sting operation done by the channel. 

The Court held that the case can be quashed as there is no allegation that there was any personal malice or prejudice against the individual concerned.

Tourist Buses Not Allowed To Pick Up And Drop Off Passengers Like A Stage Carriage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sarath G Nair & Other Cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 572

The Kerala High Court held that tourist buses operating as contract carriages have a prior contract between the passenger or a group of passengers and the operator and they cannot pick up and drop off passengers enroute their journey when those passengers are not included in its prior contract.

Kerala HC Invokes 'Parens Patriae' Jurisdiction To Protect Vulnerable Minors, Allows Mother To Take Children To UAE Without Father's Consent

Case Title: Noora v Union of India 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 573

The Kerala High Court has permitted a mother to take her minor children to UAE by invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction. The Court stated that constitutional courts can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the rights of vulnerable adults and minors. A petitioner mother has approached the Court seeking permission to take her children to the UAE to obtain permanent residency, as the children's father did not provide a no-objection certificate for their relocation.

Vehicle Owners Cannot Be Penalised For Glazing Windows With Plastic Film If They Conform To Stipulated Standards & Specifications: Kerala HC

Case Title: M/George & Sons v Union of India & Other Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 574

The Kerala High Court held that motor vehicles cannot be penalised for using Safety Glass or Safety Glazing including glazing with plastics in their windscreens or window glasses if they comply with stipulated standards and specifications.

Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Police Officer For Remarks Against Walayar Rape Victims, Asks DGP To Consider Action Against News Channel

Case Title: M. J. Sojan v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 575

The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal case filed against Superintendent of Police M. P. Sojan for making distasteful comments against the child victims in Walayar rape case. 

He was booked under Section 23(1) Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for making comments against the children in '24 News' channel. 

The Court said that at the time of making of the comment, he did not know that it will be telecasted. It further observed that the police can consider whether to take case against the journalist, who recorded the statement and others in the channel, for telecasting it.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To One PFI Member Accused In RSS Leader Sreenivasan's Murder, Denies Bail To Two Others

Case Title: Jaleel P v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 576

The Kerala High Court has granted bail to one Shihab P, an alleged member of the Popular Front of India, accused for murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. found no reasonable ground to believe that the accusations made against him are prima facie true. It thus held he is entitled to bail under Section 43 (D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

[2015 Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case] High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Three Congress Legislators

Case Title: M A Vaheed v K K Lathika And Other Cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 577

The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings against former Congress MLAs M A Vaheed, Dominic Presentation, K Sivadasan Nair in the 2015 Kerala Legislative Assembly Ruckus case.

Former LDF legislators K K Lathika and Jameela Prakasham filed complaints against the legislators for obstructing their movement inside the Assembly by using force and touching their bodies. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty), and 34 (acts done with criminal intent) of the IPC.

Kerala High Court Declines To Quash Case Against Publisher, Chief Editor Of Newspaper For Disclosing Details Of Sexual Offence Victim

Case Title: Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 578

The Kerala High Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 228A of the IPC against the Printer and Publisher and Chief editor of Rashtra Deepika Publications, Kottayam for disclosing the details of a victim of a sexual offence.

Victim/ Informant Must Be Communicated About Deletion Of Names From Array Of Accused In Final Report: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579

The Kerala High Court has held that an investigating officer must notify the informant or victim about removing individuals from the list of accused in the final report, if they were initially named as accused in the FIR.

Additionally, the Court emphasized that upon taking cognizance of the offences based on the final report, the Magistrate must also inform the informant or victim of this change.

Allowing the criminal revision case, Justice K Babu stated thus, “The learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the informant / victim regarding the finding of the Investigating Officer that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some of the accused.”

Accused Must Be Given A Legibile Copy Of Statement Recorded By Magistrate U/S 164 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580

The Kerala High Court held that an accused should be given a legible copy of the Section 164 statement before the start of trial as he has the statutory right to use those statements to contradict the maker of the statement during cross-examination.

Justice A. Badharudeen found that the order of the Sessions Court was not justifiable.

“Indubitably, accused has a statutory right to use 164 statement for contradicting the maker, during cross examination of the maker, with a view to shake the version. In order to enable the said purpose, the statement must be readable and legible.”

Fair Trial Has Sacrosanct Purpose, Both Prosecution And Accused Should Be Heard Before Scheduling Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581

The Kerala High Court has directed the trial court to postpone the date of a criminal trial noting that the order of the trial court did not show that the prosecution and accused were heard before the trial was scheduled.

Justice K. Babu noted that Rule 77A(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982 mandates that both sides should be heard before fixing the date for recording evidence.

Inquiry U/S 116(2) CrPC Must Be Carried Out In A Similar Manner To Summons Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582

The Kerala High Court held that the provision in Section 116(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) which says that the recording of evidence and conduct of trial in an inquiry under Section 116 shall be done 'as nearly as maybe practicable' in the manner of a summons trial would mean that the essentials of summons trial should be followed in such an inquiry.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “Section 116(2) provides that, an inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of Cr.P.C shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. In this context, the text 'as nearly as possible' has to be understood to ensure that the essentials of summons trial should be followed.”

Defamatory Posts On Social Media Amount To "Cyber Defamation" U/S 499 IPC, Law Making It 'Cognizable' Offence Will Be Effective: Kerala HC

Case Title: Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

The Kerala High Court has held that defamation through statements or posts on Facebook and other social media platforms comes under cyber defamation, thus justifying invocation of Section 499 of the IPC, which deals with defamation.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that even excluding the Facebook posts, the petitioner is liable under Section 509 (insulting modesty of woman) of the IPC and Section 120 (o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order through anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail, messenger ) of the KP Act for sending two defamatory postcards to the father of the de facto complainant.

Observing the lacunae in legislation to deal with defamatory Facebook posts, Justice A Badharudeen observed that Section 499 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and emphasized the need for an exhaustive law that makes such offences cognizable, accompanied by stringent punishments.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Against Woman For Failing To Report Sexual Assault On Minors In Cottages Provided By Her

Case Title: Sheela v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584

The Kerala High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings under POCSO Act initiated against a woman in-charge of the cottages where allegedly two minors were subjected to rape.

Justice A. Badharudeen however noted that on the alleged day of occurrence of the said crime, the license in the name of her husband had expired. At that time, the cottage was running without a valid license. The Court said that the materials collected during the investigation would prima facie show that the cottage was run by the petitioner at that time.

S. 250 BNSS | Court Has Discretion To Consider Discharge Plea Even After Prescribed Limit Of 60 Days: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajith v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585

The Kerala High Court has held that the limit of 60 days provided in Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is directory and not mandatory. The Court further held that the period of 60 days will start from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.

Justice A. Badharudeen made this pronouncement while dealing with a revision petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein.

Donors Collecting Money From Sabarimala Pilgrims For Accommodation In Donor Rooms 'Legally Impermissible': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that donor rooms at Sabarimala registered under individual donors can be used only by the donors themselves or their family members.

The Court further stated that donor rooms associated with trusts or organizations can be occupied by its trustees, office bearers and registered members on identity verification. The Court also stated that donors cannot transfer donor passes issued to them to other third parties.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the authorities to conduct regular inspections to ensure that the donors are not misusing donor passes to collect money from pilgrims.

'Right To Get Unadulterated Food Fundamental Right' : Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Examine Lacunae In Food Safety & Standards Act

Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587

The Kerala High Court has directed the Central Government to look into the lacunae in the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 and its Regulations. The Court stated that it is the duty of the government to have a fool proof Act and Rules to ensure that citizens are given unadulterated food.

In this case, the Court was considering whether prosecution could be initiated against Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited for allegedly selling unsafe and misbranded Mint & Lemon Flavoured Green Ice Tea when the reports from the Food Analyst and Food Laboratory were divergent.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that due to the lacunae in the Act, prosecution can be initiated only when the Food Laboratory report confirms the Food Analyst's report and not when the reports are divergent.

Effect Of Rights Of Persons With Disability Act Can't Be Taken Away By Conditions In Prospectus Of Educational Institute: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v Adwaitha S & Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 588

The Kerala High Court has recently observed that the "effect" of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) 2016 which defines a person with physical disability and their certification cannot be taken away by certain conditions imposed in the prospectus of an educational institute. 

The court however said the State is not disempowered in adopting a uniform process for admissions to professional institutes, which can be done by stating that the State Medical Board will be the certifying authority constituted as per the prospectus. A proper notification would be required under Section 57, RPwD Act, the court said.

Offences Bailable, Kerala High Court Closes Anticipatory Bail Applications Moved By Actor Jayasoorya Accused Of Sexual Harassment

Case Title: Jayasoorya v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 589

The Kerala High Court has closed the anticipatory bail applications moved by film actor Jayasoorya in connection with sexual abuse allegations made against him after publication of Justice Hema Committee Report. 

Justice C S Dias noted that the offences alleged against the actor are bailable offences and closed the bail applications.

CPI(M) Leader MM Lawrence's Body Donation: Kerala High Court Asks Medical College Principal To Consider Daughter's Objection

Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 590

Asha Lawrence, daughter of veteran CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence has approached the Kerala High Court aggrieved by the decision of her siblings and the CPI(M) to hand over her father's body to the Ernakulam Government Medical College hospital.

Justice V G Arun directed the Principal of Government Medical College, Kalamaserry, Ernakulam to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner before taking a decision.

Breaking | Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Actor Siddique In Rape Case

Case Title: Xxx v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 591

Kerala High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by actor Siddique, booked for rape following release of Justice K. Hema Committee Report. The order was pronounced by Justice C. S. Dias.

Govt Maintained Silence On Hema Committee Report For 5 Yrs, Allegations Came To Light Only After Court's Intervention: Kerala High Court

Govt Maintained Silence On Hema Committee Report For 5 Yrs, Allegations Came To Light Only After Court's Intervention: Kerala High Court

Case Title: xx v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 591

The Kerala High Court today expressed regret over the Government maintaining silence on the Hema Committee Report, which disclosed allegations of widespread sexual harassment and other issues faced by women in Malayalam film industry, for five long years.

[Hindu Marriage Act] Children Born Out Of Void Marriage Also Have Right To Property Of Parents: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Smt Anitha T v Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 592

The Kerala High Court recently granted terminal and pension benefits to three children born from a man's invalid second marriage, which he entered into without dissolution of the first marriage.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon relying upon the Apex Court decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) and amended Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages) observed that children born out of a void marriage will also have right to the property of parents.

'RDF Not Declared Unlawful Or Terrorist Organization Under UAPA' : Kerala High Court Acquits Five In Alleged Maoist Meeting Case

Case Title: Rajesh Madhavan v Union of India and Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 593

The Kerala High Court has acquitted five persons (A1- Rajesh Madhavan, A2-Gopal, A3-Devarajan, A4-Bahuleyan, A5-Ajayakumar @ Ajayan @ Mannoor Ajayan) who were convicted by the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam as accused in the Mavelikara Maoist case.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish held that the prosecution has failed to establish that RDF is a frontal organization of CPI (Maoist). The Court also stated that RDF is not declared as an unlawful organization or as a terrorist organization under the UAPA.

Managing Director Of Newspaper Has No Direct Role In Selecting News, Chief Editor/Editor Is Responsible: Kerala High Court In Defamation Case

Case Title: Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil and Another v Visalakshi and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 594

Justice A. Badharudeen of Kerala High Court held that a managing director has no role in selecting the news item. The Court said these while quashing the further proceedings against the Managing Director of Rashtradeepika in a defamation case. The complainant filed this case saying that a news item published in the newspaper was defamatory against her. The Court, however, declined to quash further proceedings against the Chief Editor.

High Court Strikes Down Sections 3A & 6A Of Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act As Unconstitutional And Arbitrary

Case Title: S T Sadiq v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 595

The Kerala High Court has struck down Section 3A of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 amended by the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 6A which was inserted by the 2015 Amendment as unconstitutional and arbitrary.

Justice Gopinath P passed the order by relying upon the Apex Court decision in S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and others (2015) which had struck down Section 6 of the Act as unconstitutional.

Kerala High Court Directs Co-Op Bank To Release Gratuity And Provident Fund Of Employee Against Whom Surcharge Proceedings Were Pending

Case Title: Annamma Mathew v The Managing Committee of Mavelikara Taluk Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 596

The Kerala High Court directed the bank to pay gratuity and provident funds to the employee against whom surcharge proceedings under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act).

Tenant Who Hasn't Paid Rent Can't Seek Protection From Eviction : Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines

Case Title: Pramod v The Secretary, The Sultanpet Diocese Society and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 597

The Kerala High Court has held that a tenant, who has failed to pay rent, cannot seek protection from the Court against eviction proceedings.

Calling it a "disquieting litigative trend", Single bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held that a Landlord is the paramount title holder of the tenanted premises and the tenant's right to occupy the same is wholly dependent on his obligation to pay the rent.

Trial Courts/ Tribunals Must Not Adjourn Cases Based On Oral Submission Of Parties That Matter Is Stayed: Kerala HC Issues Guidelines

Case Title: Vinod v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 598

The Kerala High Court has directed Trial Courts and Tribunals to not adjourn cases based solely on the oral submission of advocates or parties that the matter has been stayed by the High Court. 

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan noted that advocates/parties often claim that there is a stay order from the High Court to adjourn proceedings, when in fact, there is no stay order.

Offences Bailable, Kerala HC Closes Akhil Marar's Anticipatory Bail Plea In Case For Discouraging Contributions To CM Disaster Relief Fund

Case Title: Akhil Raj Alias Akhil Marar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 599

The Kerala High Court has closed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Malayalam film director Akhil Marar on the report of the Public Prosecutor that the offences alleged against him are bailable.

Kerala HC Cautions Parents Against Taking Tender Age Children To Protests For Grabbing Attention, 'Wilful Neglect' Will Attract Strict Action

Case Title: Suresh v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 600

The Kerala High Court has cautioned parents against the rising "trend" of taking small, tender age children to protests and agitations, merely to grab the attention of authorities.

The bench of Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan said such actions often expose the young lives to extreme temperatures, loud noises, crowds and conflicts- causing them emotional trauma, and therefore held that Police can take action against such parents in case of 'wilful neglect'.

Refusal Of Passport Not Arbitrary If Foreign Travel Not In Public Interest/ May Prejudice India's Friendly Relations: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shanid @ Shani v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 601

The Kerala High Court recently refused to interfere with a Special Court's decision to refuse a 32-year-old man accused of committing human and drug trafficking, permission to travel abroad, adding that the order stands the "test of constitutionality".

A single judge bench of Justice K Babu in its order observed, "The genuine apprehension that the presence of a citizen of India in a foreign country is not in the public interest and is likely to prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country is a ground to refuse passport and related travel documents to him. Such a restriction is just and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive".

Kerala High Court Directs State To Complete Revalidation Of ₹20 Stamp Papers Within Three Weeks

Case Title: Jyothish P v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 602

The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to complete the revalidation process of stamp papers of rupees 20 denomination which are remaining unused in the Treasury within a period of three weeks.

Kerala High Court Quashes FIR U/S 153 IPC Against Jewish Australian Woman Who "Tore" Posters Creating Impression On Palestine-Israel War

Case Title: Zara Michele Shilansky v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 603

The Kerala High Court recently quashed an FIR registered against an Australian woman of Jewish descent booked for provoking rioting under Section 153 IPC for allegedly tearing two posters in Fort Kochi, which had "apparently" created an impression in her mind about the ongoing Palestine-Israel war.

'Absence Of Free Press The Absence Of Democracy' : Kerala High Court Sets Aside Bail Condition Restricting Online Media From Airing A News

Case Title: Sunil Mathew v The Station House Officer and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 604

The Kerala High Court lifted the bail condition imposed by the Sessions Judge on the Managing Editor of YouTube News Channel 'i21 News' to not air any news related to the death of Sri K. P. Yohannan, the former Supreme Head of Believers Eastern Church. He had filed a complaint before the State Police Chief saying that there was foul play behind the death of the Bishop. The Sessions Court has barred the media from airing any news on his death till the complaint before the State Police Chief is disposed off.

Entire TDS Along With Penal Interest Stands Paid By Taxpayer Upon Intimation By I-T Dept.: Kerala HC Quashes Proceedings U/s 276B Of Income Tax Act

Case Title: August Cinema (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. versus ITO & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 605

The  Kerala High Court held that taxpayer cannot be prosecuted u/s 276B of Income tax Act simply because of failure to deduct and pay TDS to the government, once the non-compliance was sorted out and the tax along with penalty was sufficiently deposited to the government, after being informed of the delinquency.

Mere Messages Or Chats With Minor Without 'Sexual Intent' Not Sexual Harassment U/S 11 POCSO Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Praveen Prakash v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 606

The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings instituted against a 24-year-old man, accused of sending messages and making calls to a 17-year-old girl, causing her disturbance. 

The crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 354D (stalking) of the IPC, Section 11(iv) (sexual harassment) and Section 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act. 

Justice A. Badharudeen stated that there is no evidence against the petitioner to prove that he constantly sent messages or chats to the minor with 'sexual intent' to attract an offence of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act.

Kerala High Court Suggests Use Of Advance Technologies To Reduce Stress Of Judges Writing Down Witness Depositions In Trial Courts

Case Title: Vaisakh @ Hari v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 607

While hearing a plea seeking legible copies of witness depositions in the trial court, Kerala High Court suggested to its Registry to explore the possibility of equipping trial courts in the State with advanced technologies changing archaic practices, adding that the practice of trial court judges "writing down" depositions is stressful.

A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in its order observed:

"In this context, this Court is compelled to observe that with the advent of modern technology, including artificial intelligence, it is high time that the trial courts are equipped with sufficient infrastructure to take down the deposition of witnesses by resorting to the latest technology. Though writing depositions in own handwriting may enable the court in its analytical process, the benefits of using modern technology will far outweigh such limited advantages. The laborious and time-consuming process of Judges writing down witness depositions is indeed archaic and even stressful. The plight of the judicial officers indulging in writing down long depositions, cannot be ignored, especially when advanced technologies are available".