Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: October - December, 2024 [Citations: 608 – 828]
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 608 – 828 ]XXX v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 608N. Bhasurangan v The Assistant Director & Akhiljith J. B. v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 609E. Sreedharan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 610Naveed Raza v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 611Vineesh v Raji...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 608 – 828 ]
XXX v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
N. Bhasurangan v The Assistant Director & Akhiljith J. B. v The Assistant Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
E. Sreedharan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
Naveed Raza v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
Vineesh v Raji Radhakrishnan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
Anil v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
The West Chalakudy Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd V The Special Sale Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 614
C R Sudhan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
HLL Biotech Limited versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 616
Shastra Sharman Namboothiripad and Others v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
Santhosh K S v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by High Court v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
Abdul Noushad @ Noushad Ahsani v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
Navas P K v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 621
Kerala Public Service Commission v Johnraj P & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 622
Fr. Jose Mathai Myladath v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 623
M/s R. K. Ventures v The District Superintendent of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
Anson I. J. and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
Mrs. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
M/s. T. P. Metals & Roofings v Assistant Tax Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
Thottungal Padmanabha Das Sujith v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Assistant, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
Dr P K Baby v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
Adv Dheeraj Ravi v State Police Chief, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
Smt. Celin Thomas v. The Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
Ayyappan Pillai v. The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
P.K. Jayan Vs State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
Ali @Aliyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 653
Sindhu Sivadas v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 654
Sharun v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
Vinil v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 656
Abhirami Girish v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 657
Surendra Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
State of Kerala V Aysha & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
The Kerala Public Service and Another v Sabeena K. S. and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
Illiyas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
Sri Narayanankutty K v Cochin Devaswom Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
Vijayamma v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 663
Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
Monson M. C. @ Monson Mavunkal v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Romi K J @Romy v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
K.T. Saidalavi v. The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
Transformers And Electricals Kerala Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And Central Excise Central Revenue Building, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
Fisal Khan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
State of Kerala v Ismail and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
Angel Mary J N v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
Muhammad Iliyas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
Jillet K T & Another v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
Ashok Kumar v Hassainar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
Sojith v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
Muhammed Haroon v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 646
Hamjith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
O. P. Ashraf v The State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
Kumar S v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 650
Krishna Agencies v. The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise,
Kayamkulam Range, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 651
Dr Jacob Mani v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
Suo Motu v Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
Laila Beegam A.R. v. State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 667
Secretary, Trichur Tennis Trust v The Assistant Engineer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
N. V. Chandran and Others v Karikode Naduvilethadam Bhagavathi Mariamman Temple and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
Rahul P. Gopal and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
XXX v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
Leby Sajeendran v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Managing Committee v. Raghavan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
Farhan v s v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
KPSC v. Lasitha A.K., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
K. Vijayadharan Pillai @ K. V. Pillai & Others v Union of India & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
S. Mohammed Nowfal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
Unnikrishna Pillai P. V. v HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
Wahabuddin V State Of Kerala & Other Cases, 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 679
Celinamol Mathew v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 681
Elsy Joy v. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
Noushad Flourish v Akhila, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 683
Kottila Veetil Krishnakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 684
M/s Sance Laboratories Private Limited v Union of India and Others & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 685
Muhammed Ashraf K. A. v The Sub Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 686
Babu K Korah v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
X v State of Kerala and Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
Dr K Jayaprasad v Dr Jitha S R, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
Anu S P v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
Asha v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association Represented By Its General Secretary v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
T K Makkar v Meeravu Haji, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
State of Kerala v Sreenath and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
C. V. John v Mani C. Kappan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
Baby Joseph v State of Kerala and Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
XX v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. Kumaran, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
S. Gopalakrishnan Potti v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
Yasar Arafath v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
Suseelan v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 709
Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 710
K Sukumaran v Kerala State Waqf Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 711
Amjith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 712
Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Othes v Salimkoya K,. and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
xxx v xxx , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 714
Sabeer A v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 715
Niyas v Mohana, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 716
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. and Another v The Controller of Legal Metrology and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 717
In Re Captive Elephants v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 718
Shani v Muhammed Kunji, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 719
Vinod Valiyatoor v XXX and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 720
Anup V H & Ors. v Pramod A D & Ors. and Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 721
X v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 722
Charuvila Philipose Sundaran Pillai and Another v P. N. Sivadasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 723
K. T. Mujeeb v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 724
Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 725
Manjoo and Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 726
Nimija v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
Case Title: TNS India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
Aji v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729
Visakh v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 730
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
K K Damodaran & Co. v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
Unni K E v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
X. v Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 734
Simil v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 735
Ajith Prasad Edacherry v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 736
P.S.Sreedharan Pillai v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
Adv. M. Baiju Noel v Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
Aloysius Alexander v S. Jayakumar @ Panambil S. Jayakumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
Chandrasekharan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
Sheba Sam Benjamin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
M/s Knowell Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
Baiju George v. Commissioner Of Goods And Service Taxes Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax v. Bhima Jewellery And Diamonds P. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
Suo Motu JPP initiated by the High Court, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
Binumon KP v Kerala Public Service Commission and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
State of Kerala v Jayakrishnaraj G, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
Baburaj Jacob v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
The Federal Bank Ltd. v The Additional/ Joint/ Dputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
Pooja Anand v Ashokan K. and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
Georgekutty C X v Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
Master Jyothis Raj Krishna @ Jyothi Krishna v Sunny George & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
Shaju Jose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
Princy Mol v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
Prasanna E.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
State of Kerala v P V Mohan & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
Muraleedharan Koncherillam v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
Sunil Rajan K. v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
Dr.Beena Bahuleyan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
Union of India and Others v Bhaskaran N., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. v CP Mohammed Basheer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
M/S. Cradle Calicut Maternity Care Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
C. Alavi v The State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
T. N. Mukundan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 767
Motorsigns India v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 768
Nizar v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 769
Aravindakshan P. R. v Assistant Director, ED and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 770
M/S Inkel Ltd V The Federal Bank Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 771
Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 772
The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V The State Chief Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 773
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 774
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 775
The Kerala Public Service Commission V Aboobacker Mattayi, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 776
Ismail Valumathige v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 777
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kochi v. M/s Dewa Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 778
Braddock Infotech Private Limited v. Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 779
Ameen Akbarali. U V Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 780
Aneesh K. Thankachan v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 781
Manoj George v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 782
Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783
DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784
M Shammy Kumar v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 785
Nishad Padinjare Peediyekkal V Hyderiyya Masjid Mahall Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 786
State Bank of India v Sham PS & Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 787
Abraham Mathai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 788
Maya M. T. and Others v Nadukkandy P. C. Ashraf, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789
Riyas A @ Riyas Aboobakkar @ Abu Dujana v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 790
M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791
Joy v C K Manoj, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 792
XXX and Another v XXX and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 793
M K Nasar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 794
Mahesh C. and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 795
xxx v xxx, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 796
Sumith v Sebastian and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 797
State of Kerala v Haridasan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 798
Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 799
xxx v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 800
Balachandra Menon v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 801
Dr. Thahiya Thasleem V S & Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 802
A. K. Sreekumar v The Director and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 803
Sebastian Paul v P. R. Ashokan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 804
Vijith V. C. and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 805
Davy Varghese v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 806
Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni v Station House Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 807
Sadhoo Beedi Enterprises v The Controlling Authority and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 808
Rollymol v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 809
Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 810
Jamal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 811
Akhil Mohanan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 812
Abdul Muthalib T. and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 813
Aleema A V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 814
xxx v Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 815
Omar Abdul Wahab @ Omar Lulu v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 816
Nithin Gopi v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 817
Arshad v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 818
Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v State Medical Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 819
Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 820
M/s Fortune Service v. Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 821
N. Binoj v. Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 822
The Management Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another v The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 823
XXX v Union of India and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 824
M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. v State of Kerala And Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 825
Chavakkad Service Cooperative Bank vs. ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 826
The Kerala State -Ex-Services League State Committee, Thiruvananthapuram v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Trivandrum, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 827
S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 828
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
The Kerala High Court has stated that neither the CrPC nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) gives exception from DNA profiling on the ground that the accused and victims are siblings.
The accused and victim here are siblings, and the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(3) (punishment for rape) of the IPC, Section 5j(ii) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 6(1) (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the criminal miscellaneous cases filed by the accused and the victim challenging the seizure of blood samples collected for DNA profiling.
Case Title: N. Bhasurangan v The Assistant Director & Akhiljith J. B. v The Assistant Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
The Kerala High Court denied bail to former CPI leader N. Bhasurangan and his son in an alleged money laundering case, accused of allegedly indulging in several financial irregularities in the management of the Kandala Service Co-operative Bank.
A single judge bench of Justice C. S. Dias after considering the strict conditions imposed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to grant bail found that there is a prima facie case to deny bail to both of them.
"On a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the cases, the incriminating materials placed on record against the petitioners, the law on the point, and on considering that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioners have committed the above offence and that they are likely to commit the offences if they are enlarged on bail, I am of the definite view that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail at this stage," the court said.
Case Title: E. Sreedharan v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
The Kerala High Court disposed of the petition of E. Sreedharan to re-align the Thiruvanavaq – Thavanoor Bridge observing that it does not have the required technical expertise in this matter and directed the State to consider the suggestions by E. Sreedharan and implement them if it is feasible.
The Division Bench led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was considering the petition filed by E. Sreedharan to consider realigning the Thiruvanaya-Thavanur Bridge across the Bharathapuzha River. He submitted that the proposed bridge divides the Holy Trinity between the Vishnu Temple at Thiruvanaya in Malappuram district on the north bank of Bharathapuzha river from the temples dedicated to Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu at Thavanur on the south bank of the river He submitted that proposed bridge would thus affect 'religious sanctity' and hurt religious sentiments of Hindu devotees.
Case Title: Naveed Raza v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
The Kerala High Court has observed that since the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act (MH Act), attempting suicide, to a larger extent is not an offence.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed: “Decriminalizing attempts to commit suicide has been under consideration for the last several decades. Though section 309 IPC remained in the statute book, with the enactment of the MH Act in 2017, attempts to commit suicide became, to a large extent, no longer an offence.”
Case Title: Vineesh v Raji Radhakrishnan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
The Kerala High Court stated that the term 'Deaf and Dumb' is ethically and technically inaccurate and is now recognized as offensive. It also observed that the term 'Hearing Impaired' is no longer used since impaired means hindered or damaged.
The present observations were made in an original petition in which the respondent is a hard-of-hearing person, and the original petition described her as deaf and dumb. The Court was considering whether conducting an inquiry under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the CPC to seek representation through a Next Friend was mandatory.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha observed that the most accepted terms are 'deaf' and 'hard-of-hearing”.
Case Title: Anil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
The Kerala High Court held that if a Criminal Appeal is not summarily dismissed under Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), then it cannot be dismissed for non-representation or non-prosecution.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “Thus the legal position emerges is that when an appeal is not summarily dismissed under Section 384 of Cr.P.C and the appellate court admits the appeal, the same cannot be dismissed for non-representation or non – prosecution without adverting to the to the merits of the appeal”
Case Title: The West Chalakudy Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd V The Special Sale Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 614
The Kerala High Court observed that the decree-holder or any person whose interests are affected by the sale of a property to a credit-availing facility should approach the Registrar to set aside the sale on the grounds of material irregularity, mistake or fraud as per Rule 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Court further held that the Registrar has the authority to set aside the sale on grounds other than those alleged by recording his reasons in writing.
The Court stated that when the sale is not challenged within 30 days from the date of sale of the property, the sale stands confirmed and the Registrar is duty-bound to issue a certificate of sale.
Analysing Rules 81 to 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Justice N Nagaresh held thus, “When any immovable property is sold under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the sale shall be subject to the prior encumbrances on the property, if any. Within 30 days from the date of sale of immovable property, the decree holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of the assets or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Registrar to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the he sale. However, the Registrar has power to set aside a sale on grounds other than those alleged in any application.”
Case Title: C R Sudhan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
The Kerala High Court has said that the scarcity of experienced and skilled toddy tappers in the State led to a crisis in the toddy industry, which became a reason for inserting Clause 33A in the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, allowing them to re-enter the Scheme after retirement.
Clause 33A, inserted by way of Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Scheme 2021, permits the re-entry of toddy tappers to the welfare fund scheme who retired before superannuation due to prolonged illness on the production of medical certificates. The clause however does not mention that re-entry is permitted for toddy workers after retirement.
A single judge bench of Justice N Nagaresh held that it cannot be stated that permitting re-entry to toddy tappers is violative of Article 14 since there is a scarcity of experienced and skilled toddy tappers in the State. The Court further stated that toddy tapping is a hazardous activity as compared to transportation, storage or sale of toddy and thus held that toddy workers cannot claim parity with toddy tappers.
Case Title: HLL Biotech Limited versus The Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 616
The Kerala High Court held that the 'interest income' on the short-term deposits of the funds infused by the Government, which are sanctioned for purpose of setting up of business, are in nature of 'capital receipt' and not 'revenue receipt'.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Johnson John observed that “if the funds invested are not surplus funds as such, and the funds and interest accrued thereon are inextricably linked to them setting up of the business, then the ' interest income' from such funds would be in the nature of capital receipts”.
Case Title: Shastra Sharman Namboothiripad and Others v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
While hearing a matter on use of elephants in a festival without permission, the Kerala High Court said that taking cognizance of an offence is not a mechanical process but a "solemn function", adding that the court taking cognizance is not a rubber stamp of the investigating agency. A single judge bench of Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan noted that this shows that the Magistrate "mechanically recorded the provisions" contained in the chargesheet without even verifying it.
Case Title: Santhosh K S v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
The Kerala High Court has cautioned against the delaying tactics used by the accused to prolong the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act such as seeking forensic examination of the cheque and seeking expert opinions by summoning and examining private handwriting experts.
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by High Court v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
The Kerala High Court has held that a person apprehending arrest should mention whether he is in India or abroad, while filing an anticipatory bail plea. The direction was given by the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar .
Case Title: Abdul Noushad @ Noushad Ahsani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
The Kerala High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against a man under Section 153 of the IPC (giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and Section 119 (a) (punishment for atrocities against women) of the Kerala Police Act, who made allegations against a Muslim girl that she committed adultery and violated Shariat Law by shaking hands with the former Finance Minister of the State.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to follow religious practices in their own way and it is their personal choice. The Court stated that there are no compulsions in religion, especially in Islam. The Court further stated that one person cannot impose or compel another person to follow religious practices.
Case Title: Navas P K v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 621
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the Muslim Students Federation (MSF) State President, Navas P K for allegedly making derogatory remarks against former leaders of Haritha which is the girl's wing of the MSF.
Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the FIR, Final Report and further proceedings against Navas pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -IV of Kozhikode noting that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v Johnraj P & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 622
The Kerala High Court has set aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal directing the Kerala Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh driving test in a vehicle suitable for a 6 feet tall applicant, and to consider him in the selection process for the post of Forest Driver in the Forest Department.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque And Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that there is no denial of opportunity since candidates with same height as that of the applicant cleared the driving test using the same vehicle.
Case Title: Fr. Jose Mathai Myladath v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 623
The Kerala High Court had declined to quash proceedings against a priest who allegedly committed sexual intercourse with a lady by giving her promise to marriage, by making her believe that he would give up his priesthood.
Justice A. Badharudeen held that prime facie allegations are made out and proceedings cannot be closed against the accused. Additionally, the Court stated that filing a petition to quash the case and its subsequent withdrawal were no grounds to close the proceedings against the accused.
Case Title: M/s R. K. Ventures v The District Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
The Kerala High Court has recently held that if registered head load workers working in an area covered by the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, have the required skills and experience in handling delicate/sophisticated articles, then they are to be engaged for loading and unloading work.
A single judge bench of Justice V. G. Arun came to this conclusion after adopting a "purposive interpretation" of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme.
Case Title: Anson I. J. and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
The Kerala High Court has held that referring to a woman as prostitute in front of others is not insulting the modesty of woman as defined under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that to constitute an offence of violating the modesty of a woman, first part of Section 509 requires that any words uttered with the intention of insulting the modesty of woman should be made with the intention that it is heard by such a woman. The Court said that the alleged act would not come under this definition.
Case Title: Mrs. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
The Kerala High Court has observed that beneficial schemes like the Public Provident Fund (PPF) encourage adults or guardians to open accounts on behalf of minors. The Court thus stated that the PPF scheme cannot be restrictively interpreted and contributions from parents and children made into separate accounts should not be calculated collectively to determine the deposit limit.
In this case, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Post Office to re-credit the amount which was forfeited from her and her children's account by clubbing the amounts combined in all three PPF accounts. The Post Office forfeited the amount stating that total deposit from the three accounts exceeded the statutory limits under the Public Provident Fund Scheme.
Justice Harisankar V Menon ordered the respondent post office to re-credit the amount forfeited from the accounts of the petitioners.
Case Title: M/s. T. P. Metals & Roofings v Assistant Tax Officer and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
The Kerala High Court held that tax/ penalty under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST/ SCGST can be imposed only for violations which may lead to evasion of tax or which was done with the intention to evade or in case of repeated violations. Justice P. Gopinath said that in cases of minor discrepancies, the authorities can impose penalties after considering Sections 122 and 126 of the Acts.
Case Title: Thottungal Padmanabha Das Sujith v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Assistant
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
The Kerala High Court set aside an order in reassessment proceedings that was issued without providing the assessee an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that the show cause notice only gave the assessee three days' to respond
Case Title: Dr P K Baby v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
While quashing an FIR against a man booked under IPC Sections 354 and 354A(1) who allegedly had an altercation with a woman, the Kerala High Court observed that physical contact as part of resistance cannot be termed as an unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the petitioner was trying to implement restrictions to maintain discipline during the Youth Festival strictly and it cannot be held that he had any intent to outrage the modesty or sexually harass the de facto complainant.
Case Title: Adv Dheeraj Ravi v State Police Chief
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
The Kerala High Court has ordered a crime branch investigation into the theft conducted at the residence of the former President of the Bar Association of Kollam
Case Title: Smt. Celin Thomas v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
Kerala High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated against a deceased taxpayer (assessee). Justice Gopinath P. directed the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings by issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and concluding the proceedings against representative assessee (the petitioner) and to any other legal heir of late assessee.
Case Title: Ayyappan Pillai v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
The Kerala High Court stated that provisions of section 74 of CGST Act can be invoked if assessee fails to report actual sales to evade tax. The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that it is for the assessee to get his claim adjudicated by the statutory authorities under the CGST / SGST Acts.
Case Title: P.K. Jayan Vs State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
A single Bench of Kerala High Court comprising Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a writ petition filed by P.K. Jayan, a goods auto driver, seeking enhancement of his disability pension under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board Scheme. The court ruled that the petitioner was only entitled to the disability pension as per the Scheme's provisions, not the higher superannuation pension he sought.
Case Title: Romi K J @Romy v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
The Kerala High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to a man, accused of abetting the suicide of his wife, after noting that there was no prima facie evidence suggesting the commission of the offence and that the deceased had never complained of any physical or mental harassment by the husband prior to her death.
In doing so the court further observed that the matter requires an investigation and is "ultimately" to be decided at the time of trial.
A single judge bench of Justice C S Dias further held that there is "no prima facie" evidence to prove that the husband had physically or mentally harassed the deceased wife, abetting her suicide.
Case Title: K.T. Saidalavi v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
The Kerala High Court held that the initiation of an enquiry or the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act cannot be deemed to be initiation of proceedings for the purpose of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “The term 'initiation of any proceedings' is no doubt a reference to the issuance of a notice under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts and the initiation of an enquiry or the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be deemed to be initiation of proceedings for the purpose of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/SGST Acts.”
Case Title: Transformers And Electricals Kerala Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And Central Excise Central Revenue Building
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
The Kerala High Court stated that assessee cannot claim input tax credit for transportation services if transportation costs are not included in assessable value of goods for payment of central excise duty.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M. observed that “………the assessee did not include the transportation costs in the assessable value of the goods for the purposes of payment of Central Excise duty. Under such circumstances, the assessee cannot claim in input tax credit in respect of the transportation services availed by it for the purposes of transporting the goods from the place of removal to the buyer's premises.”
Case Title: Fisal Khan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
The Kerala High Court has stated that having sexual intercourse, after getting naked, in front of a minor child would amount to sexual harassment of a child defined under Section 11, and punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that exhibiting any part of the body with the intention that it would be seen by a child would amount to sexual harassment.
“To be more explicit, when a person exhibits naked body to a child, the same is an act intending to commit sexual harassment upon a child and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 11(i) read with 12 of the POCSO Act would attract. In this case, the allegation is that the accused persons engaged in sexual intercourse after being naked, even without locking the room and allowed the entry of the minor in the room, so that the minor could see the same. Thus, prima facie, the allegation as to commission of offence punishable under Section 11(i) read with 12 of the POCSO Act, as against the petitioner in this case is made out.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Ismail and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
The Kerala High Court has sentenced 7 persons allegedly affiliated with the Indian Union Muslim League namely Ismail, Muneer, Sidhique, Muhammed Anees, Shuhaib, Jasim, Samad to rigorous life imprisonment for the murder of DYFI activist Shibin.
The court observed that the court is not imposing harsh punishment as the murder occurred after a quarrel with the murdered victim and others. One of the accused, Ismail is absconding. However, the Court imposed a sentence upon him invoking the provision of Section 392 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. One of the accused, Aslam had expired and thus the charges against him abated.
Case Name: Angel Mary J N v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
A division Bench of Kerala High Court consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar dismissed a series of petitions filed by nursing officers challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's ruling. The petitions questioned the Kerala Public Service Commission's (KPSC) rejection of their applications for transfer appointments, which were turned down on account of their probationary status. The Court upheld the KPSC's decision, affirming that only those declared probationers or full-time members could apply for transfer appointments under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR), 1958.
Thus, the High Court found that the Kerala Public Service Commission had acted appropriately in rejecting the applications of the petitioners, given their failure to complete probation. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order was affirmed, and the petitions were dismissed. The Court concluded that both the one-year service requirement and probation completion were necessary for recruitment by transfer under the KS&SSR.
Case Title: Muhammad Iliyas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
The Kerala High Court stated that the criminal courts can frame charges based on the prosecution records, excluding the offences in the Final Report and even including offences not mentioned in the final report as per Section 228 and Section 240 of the CrPC.
Section 228 pertains to framing of charges in Session cases and Section 240 deals with framing of charges for trial of warrant cases.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a revision petition of the accused, a school van driver accused of sexually assaulting a minor child. He had approached the Court to set aside the charges framed by the Special Court for offences which were not incorporated by the police in the Final Report.
Case Title: Jillet K T & Another v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to notify the constitution of Hospital Based Authorization Committees to conduct an inquiry into the joint applications submitted by the donor and recipient who are not near relatives, and when the organ donation is being made out of love and affection.
The Court further stated that the State Government has to ensure that qualified persons must be included in the Authorization Committees.
Justice V G Arun was considering a writ petition filed by a recipient and an organ donor whose joint application submitted under Section 9 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2012 was rejected by the District level Authorization Committee, due to suspicions of commercial dealings, as they were strangers and not close relatives.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar v Hassainar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
The Kerala High Court the power to transfer revision cases. It ruled that the provision is not applicable in cases where revision is pending before the High Court but appeal is pending before the Sessions Court.
Justice K Babu thus invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 to transfer the revision pending before it to the Sessions Court where the convict had preferred an appeal, to avoid conflict of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the appeals filed challenging a single bench order directing the Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad districts to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction feud.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar, pronouncing their order in open court said, 'the appeals are dismissed'. Detailed Judgment is awaited.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
The Kerala High Court has quashed the final report against a school principal and teacher for failing to report a sexual offence complaint received from a minor student on the same day. The Court stated that it cannot be justified to say that there was a wilful omission since the complaint was lodged with the police and FIR was registered on the next day itself.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that it was harsh to hold that the principal and teacher were liable since they reported the crime to the police on the next day.
Case Title: Sojith v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
The Kerala High Court held that the framing of a charge by a Sessions Court having no jurisdiction to try the case does not affect the evidence recorded by a Special Court constituted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu noted that as per Section 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure a finding or sentence of a valid court would not be deemed invalid merely because no charge was framed or there was any error in the charge unless the Court is of the opinion that there is a failure of justice due to it. The Court observed that according to this provision, even if the trial court did not frame fresh charge, there would have been no invalidity.
Case Title: Muhammed Haroon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 646
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to Muhammed Haroon, the sixth accused in the murder of RSS worker Sanjith.
Allowing the bail application of Haroon, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held thus, “As far as the petitioner in this case is concerned, he has been in custody since 23.01.2022 and thus, more than two years and nine months have elapsed. Moreover, the petitioner was never involved in any other offences in the past. Even though there is an allegation that he was an active member of PFI, a banned organisation, it was contended by the petitioner that, as on the date of commission of the crime, it was not banned. The said contention is not denied by the prosecution. Therefore, the fact that he was a member of such an organisation, by itself, would not attract any culpability, warranting incarceration, and it is for the prosecution to establish the role of the petitioner, in the trial.”
Case Title: Hamjith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against a man for allegedly smoking a beedi filled with ganja on finding that the beedi was not subjected to forensic examination.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that the beedi that was allegedly said to be smoked by the petitioner was not subjected to forensic examination. The Court stated thus:
“In the absence of any forensic examination of the beedi, the prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 27(b) of the Act, is without any legal basis.”
Case Title: O. P. Ashraf v The State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
The Kerala High Court, noting that the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of copyright infringement under Section 51(a) of the Copyright Act, set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly selling fake audio cassettes on the footpath in Kannur.
The police had seized 38 cassettes from the revision petitioner. He was convicted under Sections 51(a) and 52A r/w 63 of the Copyright Act by the Magistrate Court, upheld by the Sessions Court.
Section 51 relates to copyrights infringement. Justice K. Babu noted that the prosecution has not verified the contents of the cassettes seized. They did not ascertain who the copyright holder was or whether the copyright holder has retained any exclusive right or whether any license has been granted.
“Shocking Failure To Take Action”: Kerala High Court Questions Delay In Probing 2022 Rape Allegations Against Ponnani Police Officers
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
The Kerala High Court has questioned the delay in ordering an investigation into the rape allegations made by a woman in 2022 against four higher police officials in Ponnani in Malappuram district.
The Court was hearing a plea of a woman seeking to register an FIR under Section 173(1) of the BNSS against four higher police officials for raping and sexually assaulting her. She had approached the High Court stating that Magistrate, instead of directing to order investigation, called for a report from a superior officer by relying upon Section 175 (4) of the BNSS.
Justice A. Badharudeen questioned the delay in investigation and directed the Magistrate to pass orders for investigation within a period of ten days
Kerala High Court Upholds Denial Of Temporary Status And Regularisation For Contingent Employees
Case Title: Kumar S v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 650
Recently, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court, comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, considered a petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The judgement pertained to status and regularisation of employment.
The Bench noted that even according to the petitioner, he was engaged by the Department for the last 15 years on a daily wage basis, and not engaged continuously but for specified days in each month. The claim of the petitioner can be considered only in the light of such nature of his employment.
Further pointing that, in Umadevi, the Apex Court directed the Central and State Governments and the instrumentalities under it to regularise temporary employees, who have put in a minimum of 10-year service as a one-time measure and persons employed against sanctioned posts, but on a temporary basis continuously.
Lastly, the Bench reiterated that there's no reason to find fault with the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the original petition.
Case Title: Krishna Agencies v. The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, Kayamkulam Range
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 651
The Kerala High Court stated that rectification order is not sustainable if does not provide any reason justifying exercise of power of rectification.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “….personal hearing notice does not indicate that any reason justifying the exercise of power of rectification was pointed out to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is right in contending that the rectification order cannot be sustained in law.”
Case Title: Dr Jacob Mani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
The Kerala High Court stated that a victim under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS is a person who suffered damages or loss as a direct consequence of the crime.
Section 413 of BNSS corresponds to Section 372 of CrPC, where the proviso laid down the right of a victim to appeal against an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation. Section 2 (y) of the BNSS defines victim as someone who has suffered loss or injury due to the actions or omissions of the accused.
Justice C Jayachandran quashed the appeal preferred by the appellant who claims to be a victim. The Court observed that the loss or damage claimed to have been suffered is too remote a cause while considering the allegations made by the appellant.
Case Title: Ali @Aliyar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 653
The Kerala High Court held that when an individual is convicted to life imprisonment, any subsequent sentences imposed in other cases, whether for life or a fixed term, will be served concurrently and not consecutively, even if the Court does not explicitly state this.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was hearing a petition relating to Section 427 CrPC which deals with situations under which sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently.
Case Title: Sindhu Sivadas v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 654
The Kerala High Court has held that the School Principal compelling students to wear uniform while in school is not an offence of cruelty to child under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen said that such insistence is to maintain the discipline of school and cannot be held as an act which would cause unnecessary mental or physical harm. The Court also cautioned that if such acts are considered to be an offence, it can affect the discipline of the school.
Case Title: Sharun v State of Kerala and Others & Conncected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that an accused in a POCSO case is entitled to get unmasked copies of the prosecution records to effectively defend his case, while emphasizing that in such matters a balance has to be struck by courts between the "privacy of the victims" and the accused's right to defend themselves. The order was made by a single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen.
Case Title: Vinil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 656
The Kerala High Court ruled that stone would also come within the purview of weapon of offence likely to cause death to attract an offence under Section 324 of the IPC depending upon its nature, size, sharpness and the manner in which it was used for causing injury. The order was made by a single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen.
Case Title: Abhirami Girish v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 657
The Kerala High Court has held that instead of rejecting an application for police clearance certificate, the police can issue a certificate detailing the crime in which the applicant is involved.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that in many cases, for employment and assignment, the concerned employer or authority asks for a Non – Involvement in Offences Certificate (Police Clearance Certificate). In such situations, if the person was involved in any crime, the police can issue a certificate detailing the crimes in which he was involved. Then, it is up to the employer to take a decision based on the certificate.
Case Title: Surendra Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
The Kerala High Court has refused to intervene in the conviction of a husband who was found guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for pledging his wife's gold, without her consent.
Single bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that all the elements of the offence are made out.
Case Title: State of Kerala V Aysha & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
The Kerala High Court has enhanced the compensation amount for land acquired by the state government for the construction of Brahmapuram Solid Waste and Treatment Plant Phase II.
The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S has fixed a uniform rate of rupees 10 lakhs per are as enhanced compensation.
Case Title: The Kerala Public Service and Another v Sabeena K. S. and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
The Kerala High Court has observed that right to accessibility of persons with disability (in this case a visually challenged person) is not limited to buildings and services but extends to digital platforms too. Thus, compelling them to rely on third parties to fill up their online job application limits their "autonomy".
The Division Bench of Justice AM Mustaque and Justice PM Manoj has called upon the State and the Public Services Commission to establish service centres, providing services to persons with disabilities including the visually challenged, allowing them to submit applications online without barriers.
Case Title: Illiyas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
Displaying a "lenient approach" the Kerala High Court recently reduced the seven year sentence of a rape convict to one year, after noting that the convict and the minor girl were admittedly in a relationship and the latter had "voluntarily accompanied" him to Ooty where the alleged incident took place.
The Single Bench of Justice C. S. Sudha however said that as the girl was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, her consent was not valid adding that it was not justifying the actions of the convict.
Case Title: Sri Narayanankutty K v Cochin Devaswom Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
The Kerala High Court has directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to decide whether videography on mobile phones is permissible in Temples under their management.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar noted that a report regarding the usage of mobile phones filed by Chief Vigilance Officer is pending consideration before the Cochin Devaswom Board.
Case Title: Vijayamma v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 663
The Kerala High Court recently denied the plea of 'legal insanity' raised by a woman sentenced to life for murdering her twelve-year-old nephew, holding that depression would not come under purview of Section 84 IPC unless there is material to show that it significantly impaired the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The order was made by the Division Bench of the Court comprising of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G. Girish
Kerala High Court Dismisses Daughter's Plea Challenging Donation Of CPI(M) Leader MM Lawrence's Body
Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition moved by Asha Lawrence, daughter of veteran CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence, challenging the decision of Ernakulam Government Medical College Principal to donate her father's body to the medical college.
Justice V G Arun, pronouncing the verdict in open Court today said, "For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed."
No Double Jeopardy: Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case Against Alleged Fraudster Monson Mavunkal
Case Title: Monson M. C. @ Monson Mavunkal v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 23) refused to quash a rape case lodged against alleged fraudster Monson Mavunkal, for allegedly sexually assaulting a girl over a span of about 21 months.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that as per Section 223(c) of CrPC, the accused can be tried for offences of the same kind committed within a period of 12 months. The Court noted there is more than 12 months gap between these alleged incidents.
Case Title: Suo Motu v Yeshwanth Shenoy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that in case of contempt of court, rules prescribed by the High Court should be strictly followed and any deviation therefrom is fatal to the proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha noted that once the defect is noticed in the proceedings, any attempt to continue with it can be viewed as one – sided.
Case Title: Laila Beegam A.R. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 667
Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon ruled that teachers above 50 years of age are entitled to exemption from the Accounts Test (Lower) under Rule 45B(4) of Kerala Education Rules for promotion to Headmistress position. The Court held that Leave Without Allowance taken after probation cannot affect seniority calculations, and distinguished between Rule 45B(4) applicable to primary/upper primary schools and Rule 44A(1) for high schools. The Court ordered promotion of the senior candidate who qualified for age-based test exemption over a junior candidate who had passed the test
Case Title: Secretary, Trichur Tennis Trust v The Assistant Engineer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
The Kerala High Court has ruled that as per Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, when the period of unauthorized use of electricity cannot be ascertained, the electricity bill assessment shall be made for twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection when such unauthorized use came to be discovered.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu referred to Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act of 2003
Case Title: N. V. Chandran and Others v Karikode Naduvilethadam Bhagavathi Mariamman Temple and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
The Kerala High Court has held that when two or more suits have been disposed of by a common judgement, a party for one of the suits cannot prefer an appeal against the common judgment if appeal in any other suit decided in that common judgment is already disposed.
Justice M. A. Abdul Hakhim held that such subsequent appeals are barred by the principle of res judicata contained in Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code.
Case Title: Rahul P. Gopal and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court has allowed the petition moved by Rahul P. Gopal and his family in the Pantheerankavu domestic violence case to quash the FIR lodged against them.
Justice A. Badharudeen granted relief after noting that the complainant/ wife had settled the matter with her husband and the couple was now residing together.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
The Kerala High Court quashed an order of Child Welfare Committee (CWC) giving the custody of a one-year child to the father observing that the Committee did not even consider that the child was being breastfed by the mother. Justice V. G. Arun gave the custody of the child to the mother.
The Court noted that the order of CWC violated the right of the mother to breastfeed the baby and right of the baby to be breastfed which is protected under the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further said that breastfeeding is implicitly supported by the Constitution as the Constitution imposes a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition.
Case Title: Leby Sajeendran v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Mental Health Act, 2017, which came into effect from July 07, 2018, is beneficial legislation and can be applied retrospectively.
Justice C S Sudha held that the Mental Health Act, 2017 being a beneficial piece of legislation should be applied retrospectively, and its advantages must be extended to all class of persons for whose benefit it was enacted. Consequently, the Court quashed the final report against the petitioner by extending the benefit of Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act which decriminalizes the attempt to commit suicide.
Case Title: Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Managing Committee v. Raghavan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
A single judge bench consisting Justice Harisankar V. Menon quashed an arbitration award reinstating a terminated bank employee, holding that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically invalidate findings of a domestic enquiry conducted under different standards of proof. The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings operate independently of criminal trials, being based on preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the arbitration court's reliance solely on criminal acquittal while ignoring domestic enquiry findings to be arbitrary.
Criminal Courts Of District Judiciary Cannot Recall Their Orders: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Farhan v s v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
The Kerala High Court has ruled that criminal courts of the district judiciary including Sessions Courts, the Magistrate Courts and even the Special Courts lack inherent powers to recall their earlier orders. As such, the Court quashed an order issued by the Special Court recalling its earlier order on its own.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that criminal courts of the District Judiciary have no inherent power to exercise any power of review, modification or even to recall their earlier orders.
Case Title: KPSC v. Lasitha A.K.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
A Division Bench of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and P.M. Manoj set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's orders directing Non-Joining Duty (NJD) vacancies in Non-Vocational Teacher (English) posts to be filled from the by-transfer category. The Court held that NJD vacancies arising after the expiration of the direct recruitment list must be renotified and filled according to the roster system for general category appointments. The Court emphasized that NJD vacancies are inherently tied to the general category recruitment process and cannot be transferred to a different recruitment list, as this would disrupt the roster-based system ensuring fair distribution of posts.
Financial Constraints Cannot Override Constitutional Right To Equal Pension Benefits: Kerala HC
Case Title: K. Vijayadharan Pillai @ K. V. Pillai & Others v Union of India & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon ruled that pre-2006 Assam Rifles retirees are entitled to revised pension benefits on par with post-2006 retirees. The court rejected the Union of India's financial constraints argument, holding that monetary considerations cannot justify violation of fundamental rights. Following Supreme Court precedents, the court found the 2006 cut-off date arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as pension is a continuing right that cannot be differentiated based solely on retirement date.
Dual Prosecution Under IPC And EPF Act For PF Defaults Valid; Serves Distinct Objectives: Kerala HC
Case Title: S. Mohammed Nowfal v State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu upheld the trial court's refusal to discharge S. Mohammed Nowfal, proprietor of Tasty Nuts Factory. The Court held that prosecution under Section 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust involving PF defaults does not require prior sanction under Section 14-AC of the EPF Act. The Court emphasized that the 1973 addition of Explanation 1 to Section 405 IPC created a distinct offence for employer PF defaults, operating independently of EPF Act procedures. The Court clarified that such dual prosecution does not violate Article 20(2)'s double jeopardy protection, as the statutes serve different objectives with separate legal frameworks.
Case Title: Unnikrishna Pillai P. V. v HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh set aside the Appellate Authority's ex-parte order in a gratuity dispute between HDFC Bank and its former Vice President. The court found that the Authority's failure to grant reasonable adjournments despite valid medical certificates violated principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Wahabuddin V State Of Kerala & Other Cases
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 679
Dismissing an appeal against an order rejecting the challenge to a land acquisition for construction of a Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Edava in Thiruvananthapuram District, the Kerala High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in such technical matters like infrastructure projects and land acquisition is limited.
In doing so the court underscored that a balance has to be maintained between public interest and private interest in such cases.
Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court and high court on the subject a division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu said:
“Scope of judicial review in the case of technical matters related to infrastructure projects like alignment is extremely limited. Same is the case with acquisition of land also. We are conscious of the fact that delay in acquisition of land as well as implementation of projects involving huge expenditure would lead to multiplication of the of the financial burden, apart from delaying the enjoyment of benefits envisioned to be made available to the public with the implementation. It needs no mention that the cost of construction escalates with passage of time. A project contemplated at one point of time, when implemented several years later, would cause huge loss to the public exchequer".
Case Title: Celinamol Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
The Kerala High Court ruled that private complaints against nurses alleging medical negligence should not be entertained unless the complainant gives prima facie evidence in the form of expert opinion to support their case of negligence.
The Court observed that nurses must be able to work without fear of malicious and frivolous prosecution alleging medical negligence. It emphasized that nurses must receive care, protection and also moral support from society while doing their duty.
The Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Another (2005) had laid down guidelines governing the prosecution of doctors for the offence of criminal negligence, punishable under Section 304A of IPC.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus urged the state government to issue a circular within three months to protect nurses from malicious prosecutions in tune with the Apex Court judgment in Jacob Mathew (supra).
Case Title: Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 681
The Kerala High Court stated that an application for condonation of delay should focus on whether there was sufficient reason to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(B) of the Income Tax Act, rather than on the merits of the assessee's claim.
Section 119(2)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers CBDT to direct income tax authorities to allow any claim for exemption, deduction, refund and any other relief under the income tax act even after the expiry of the time limit to make such claim.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “………the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had considered the merits of the claims raised by the assessee instead of assessing whether there was sufficient reason to condone the delay or extend time as per the provisions in Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961………..”
Case Title: Elsy Joy v. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
The Kerala High Court stated that any assessment order issued before the time allowed for filing a reply has no legal validity and can be overturned.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “…….the assessee had filed an appeal against the order is no ground to refuse relief to the assessee as the original order was clearly issued in violation of principles of natural justice…….”
Case Title: Noushad Flourish v Akhila
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 683
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a transfer petition which was filed alleging bias of judicial officer with a cost of fifteen thousand rupees, finding that the petition was meritless and was used as a ploy to delay the court proceedings.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner husband approached the High Court seeking the transfer of matrimonial dispute cases, alleging the Presiding Officer's bias.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the petitioner had filed two transfer petitions earlier, alleging identical allegations of bias against different Presiding Officers. Court said, “The similarity of allegations raised against two different Presiding Officers who dealt with petitioner's cases is a clear indication of petitioner's calumny. The various allegations raised by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer are without any merit. Such vituperative denigration of a judicial officer by a litigant has to be dealt with sternly and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever.”
Case Title: Kottila Veetil Krishnakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 684
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition moved by a husband who transferred a portion of his residential building to his wife's name to secure an exemption from payment of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975
It is to be noted that as per Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, a luxury tax is charged on a residential building if its plinth area exceeds 278.7 square meters.
Justice Gopinath P. observed that the attempt of the husband was to evade tax which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: M/s Sance Laboratories Private Limited v Union of India and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 685
The Kerala High Court struck down Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules holding that it was ultra vires to the Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act and was manifestly arbitrary.
Justice P. Gopinath noted that Section 16 has not imposed any restriction in availing refund of taxes paid on input goods and input services or claiming refund of IGST after payment of IGST on the exports. The Court, therefore held that the restriction imposed under Rule 96(10) on claiming refund is ultravires to the Act.
Case Title: Muhammed Ashraf K. A. v The Sub Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 686
The Kerala High Court held that the Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind independently on the material before him and decide whether to withdraw a case even if the Government has ordered for withdrawal. The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed that the Public Prosecutor should independently decide that such a case is fit for withdrawal even if there is a direction from the Government.
The High Court said that the Public Prosecutor while making an application for withdrawal under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. should make a statement that he had in good faith and is satisfied after considering all relevant materials that the withdrawal from prosecution is in public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause injustice.
Case Title: Babu K Korah v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
The Kerala High Court has declared Section 28 (2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Society Amendment Act, 2023 as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of co-operative member control. Section 28 deals with the constitution of the Committee for the management of the affairs of the Society.
Section 28 (2A) states that no member of a credit society shall be eligible for election to the committee for more than three consecutive terms. Section 28 (2A) was introduced by Act 9 of 2024 and it was notified and published in the Kerala Gazette on June 07, 2024.
Justice N Nargaresh observed that Co-operative Societies that function in rural and urban areas depend upon the trustworthiness of their members and have to function democratically. The court held that the General body can incorporate conditions in the bye-laws of the Society on elections, but the State cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that affect the autonomy of Co-operative Societies.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
While quashing a criminal case registered against a man under Section 498A IPC by the complainant wife, the Kerala High Court reiterated that in the absence of records proving legal marriage between the parties, there can be no prosecution for cruelty against the partner of the woman, or his relatives. In the facts of the case, the marriage between the petitioner husband and the de facto complainant wife was declared as null and void by the Family Court in 2013 after finding that the complainant wife's prior marriage was subsisting and had not dissolved. The high court thus said since the marriage has been declared as null and void, then there is "no legal marriage in the eye of law".
Referring to the court's recent decision on the subject, a single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held: “Thus it is emphatically clear that when there is no legal marriage the woman's partner did not attain the status of her husband and an offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted only against her husband or relative/relatives of her husband. Therefore, in the absence of a legal marriage as borne out from the records, no offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted against the partner of a woman or against the partner's relatives since the partner without a legal marriage would not occupy the status of husband.
Case Title: Dr K Jayaprasad v Dr Jitha S R
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order that had directed fresh consideration of representations against a professor's appointment. They held that matters settled through earlier Public Interest Litigations cannot be re-agitated through fresh proceedings, even by different petitioners, especially after significant delay.
Case Title: Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
While hearing a challenge to a telecommunication tariff order, the Kerala High Court said that while only the Constitutional Courts possess the power to enforce fundamental rights, an expert body like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), can exercise judicial review over those fundamental rights.
A division bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P M Manoj was considering an appeal against a single judge bench's order containing a challenge to certain provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Case Title: Anu S P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) is not empowered to conduct an enquiry to determine an applicant's caste status.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj stated that an affected authority like the issuing authority is capable of effectively assessing and addressing potential fraud or misrepresentation regarding applicant's caste status, rather than the KPSC.
Case Title: Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
The Kerala High Court has held that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of IPC will not attract when a woman's photos were clicked by two men, while she was standing in front of her house without any secrecy.
Justice A. Badharudeen made it clear that the offence is attracted only upon watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a 'private act' as mentioned under the provision.
Case Title: Asha v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
While hearing plea to quash an FIR containing allegations of attempt to murder, the Kerala High Court held that an additional or a subsequent police report cannot be held as invalid just because the investigation officer did not seek the court's permission before conducting further investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that though the practice of seeking permission before conducting further investigation is upheld by judicial decisions, none of those decisions hold that a final report based on such further investigation is "non-est".
Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Film Director Sreekumar Menon Filed By Film Actress
Case Title: Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
The Kerala High Court quashed the case against film and ad director Sreekumar Menon by prominent Malayalam movie actress. Justice S. Manu found that the offences alleged against him is unsustainable based on the allegations made against the director.
Case Title: B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
While deciding a challenge to a conviction for possessing counterfeit currency, the Kerala High Court observed that the testimony of a Police Official does not suffer from any infirmity merely because he belongs to the police force.
A single judge bench of Justice M. B. Snehalatha further held that the presumption that every person acts honestly applies to a police officer also. The Court however added that such evidence might require more careful scrutiny
Case Title: The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association Represented By Its General Secretary v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that to represent the grievance of its members, an association is entitled to file an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, clarifying that in such a situation, the association espousing the grievance of its members can also be deemed as aggrieved.
A division bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P M Manoj stated that the definition of the term 'person' in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 includes the Association or body of individuals.
Case Title: T K Makkar v Meeravu Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
The Kerala High Court held that even after the constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the Civil Court can execute a decree passed by it relating to a waqf dispute.
Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that even after the constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to execute both its own decree as well as any decree passed by the Waqf Tribunal.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Sreenath and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court held that a public prosecutor can consider the nature of the offence, lack of mens rea and the reformation of the accused as positive factors while deciding withdrawal of prosecution.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu made this observation in a petition filed by the State challenging the Magistrate's order disallowing an application for withdrawal of prosecution filed by the State.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
The Kerala High Court recently observed that while marriage is an essential ingredient to attract the offence of cruelty punishable under IPC Section 498A, however for abetment to suicide under IPC Section 306 there need not be any relationship between the "accused and the victim".
A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas in its order clarified that a person can be convicted under Section 498A if the evidence proves the commission of that offence, even in the absence of a specific charge under 498A, as long as the charge under Section 306 clearly indicates the necessary elements for attracting an offence under Section 498A.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2021 Assembly Election Of UDF MLA Mani C Kappan
Case Title: C. V. John v Mani C. Kappan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (November 5) dismissed a petition filed by C V John challenging the result of 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election where Mani C. Kappan who had contested under United Democratic Front was declared as the returning candidate.
The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Justice C. Jayachandran. The election result was challenged on the ground that Kappan spent more money for their campaign than permitted under Representation of People Act.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
The Kerala High Court held that any expression by the media on the guilt or innocence of an accused in an ongoing criminal case would not be protected under the right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court stated that only an adjudicatory authority can pronounce on the guilt or innocence of an accused.
A Five Judge Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha and Justice Syam Kumar V. M, held that when an accused feels his right to reputation is infringed by the media, he can approach any constitutional court to prevent such act or demand compensation.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan v Deccan Herald and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
A five judge bench of the Kerala High Court while deciding a reference on whether any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings be formulated has observed that media trial can create a distrust in judicial outcomes especially when verdicts differ from prevailing public beliefs.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha, Justice Syam Kumar V. M. was deciding a reference on whether to formulate any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings.
Case Title: Baby Joseph v State of Kerala and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
Quashing a notification of the State government which restricted the length of routes of private stage carriage operators to a maximum distance of up to 140 kilometres, the Kerala High Court said that the final notification was issued without hearing and duly considering the objections of the affected parties as required under the relevant rules.
A single judge bench of Justice D K Singh stated that even though the final scheme was published as per Rule 246 in Form (F) (Appendix 1), it did not contain the reasons given for rejecting the objections given by the affected persons after publication of the proposed scheme in Form (E).
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
The Kerala High Court quashed a case against a school teacher for allegedly beating a student in her class. The teacher was booked under Section 75 (cruelty to child) of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 324 (voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code. Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the petition noting that the teacher beat the student only after he abused her.
Case Title: Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Quashing a criminal case against Malayalam Communications Limited (Kairali TV) and Asianet News Network for telecasting a program featuring an allegedly defamatory and fabricated letter about Congress MP K C Venugopal, the Kerala High Court said that the statements in question were already in public domain hence it can't be termed defamatory.
A single judge bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that there is no evidence to prove that the TV Channels telecasted the program with mens rea or malice and that the MP cannot blame the media, adding that the woman had convened a press conference and made certain statements which were published.
Case Title: Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Dismissing a plea against an order refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant, the Kerala High Court observed that the decision to grant or refuse sanction to prosecute a public servant vests absolutely with the sanctioning authority, adding that its purpose is to insulate the public servant from frivolous prosecution.
In doing so Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said that Courts must not interfere lightly in the decision of the sanctioning authority unless it is demonstrated that the order was made based on irrelevant considerations and without proper application of mind. It further said that the process of getting a sanction would become a dead letter if orders of sanctioning authority are interfered with without any reason.
Case Title: Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. Kumaran
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a police constable who was terminated from service, ruling that Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 bars disciplinary action based on the same facts that led to acquittal in criminal proceedings.
Withholding Pension Payments During Vigilance Proceedings Justified: Kerala High Court
Case Title: S. Gopalakrishnan Potti v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
he Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj dismissed the petition filed by S. Gopalakrishnan Potti seeking penal interest on delayed pensionary benefits and back wages. The court upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's (KAT) decision, ruling that delays in disbursing benefits were justified due to pending vigilance proceedings.
Need To Invoke Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act Must Be Assessed If Proceedings For Peace Keeping U/S 107 CrPC Already Initiated: High Court
Case Title: Yasar Arafath v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
The Kerala High Court has held that when proceedings under Section 107 of the CrPC have already been initiated against an individual, the competent authority must assess whether it was necessary to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 as well to preventively detain or extern the individual.
Section 107 of CrPC is initiated for taking security for keeping peace and public tranquillity.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that if authorities are convinced that proceedings under the KAAPA Act also have to be initiated against an individual to prevent him from engaging in anti-social activities, then they may initiate such actions, even if proceedings have already been taken under Section 107 CrPC.
Case Title: Suseelan v State of Kerala & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 709
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction imposed upon an accused under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for causing the death of a motor bike rider by driving his car on the wrong side of the road after consuming alcohol beyond the permissible limit.
Section 304 defines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person is convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC when he does an act with the 'knowledge' that such an act is likely to cause death.
Justice C S Sudha observed that the accused was not speeding his car but he drove the car after consuming alcohol beyond the permissible limit. It observed that the accused was unable to manage or control the car and drove on the wrong side of the car with the presumption of knowledge that if he hit pedestrians or people travelling in vehicles, death would be caused.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 710
The Kerala High Court has recently issued directions to ensure the fitness of 'dollies' (cane chairs) that are used to carry devotees at Sabarimala.
The court said that the Travancore Devaswom Board shall ensure the fitness of the dollies used for carrying pilgrims through the trekking path before the commencement of each Maasapooja and Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.
For context, a dolly is a reclining bamboo cane chair used for carrying pilgrims who are unable to walk the trekking path from Pamba to Sannidhanam. Four workers carry the dolly, which is tied to the poles using plastic and coir ropes.
A division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar passed the order based on the report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner about a 59-year-old devotee falling from the dolly and sustaining injuries.
Case Title: K Sukumaran v Kerala State Waqf Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 711
The Kerala High Court held that there cannot be a prosecution under Section 52A of the Waqf Act for taking possession of Waqf property without prior sanction of the Waqf Board if there was prior possession of the property, that is before the insertion of Section 52A in 2013.
Section 52A of the Waqf Act provides rigorous imprisonment up to 2 years for alienation, purchasing or possession of movable or immovable Waqf property without prior sanction from the Waqf Board.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus quashed the proceedings initiated against the employees of the post office on finding that they were in possession of the property since 1999.
Case Title: Amjith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 712
The Kerala High Court has observed that the report or findings of the Internal Complaints Committee formed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013 will not have an impact against the police report made based on the victim's complaint alleging sexual harassment at workplace.
The Court further observed that this is because most of the ICC reports tend to be one-sided and biased, often favouring the institution involved.
The Court was considering whether the report of the Internal Complaints Committee established under the POSH Act could be solely relied upon to quash criminal proceedings against the accused.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus observed that ICC reports must be carefully examined and scrutinized before any action is taken based on them.
Case Title: Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Othes v Salimkoya K,. and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
The Kerala High Court has removed stay on further construction in connection with the development of Tent City in Thinnakkara and Bangaram islands of Lakshadweep.
A Single-Bench Judge had earlier, while dealing with challenge to assignment of the concerned properties to the Tourism Department, stopped the construction by ordering to maintain status quo.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. after perusing the photos produced by the Additional Solicitor General of India saw that the constructions in question were temporary, mainly tent to accommodate tourists. The Court also noted that a substantial amount has been spent on the construction for promoting tourism. It added that the constructions shall be subject to the final decision made by the Court in deciding the validity of allocating the land to Tourism department.
Case Name: xxx v xxx
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 714
The Kerala High Court set aside the orders of the Family Court granting permanent custody of a one-and-a-half-year-old daughter to the father on the prima facie finding that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders from her old medical records indicating post-partum depression.
The Court further stated that scientific studies are proving that post-partum depression is relatively common in some women and is typically a temporary condition and not permanent.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that the Family Court should not have granted permanent custody the daughter to the father merely based on the mother's medical records which indicated post-partum depression shortly after giving birth to the child.
Case Title: Sabeer A v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 715
The Kerala High Court has held that a person residing in a state can register his vehicle by any registering authority within the state, irrespective of his place of residence or business within the state, as per Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act of 2019.
Section 40 provides for the place where the motor vehicle has to be registered.
The petitioner's car was not registered by the RTO in Attingal in Trivandrum district, stating that the RTO in Kazhakootam in Trivandrum district has the jurisdiction.
Justice DK Singh observed that as per the 2019 amendment to the MV Act and an advisory issued by the Central Government, any registering authority within the State can register the vehicle.
Case Title: Niyas v Mohana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 716
The Kerala High Court has observed that the notional income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed after considering the fair wages applicable at the time of calculating the compensation and not based on his earning capacity at the time of the accident.
The appellant had approached the High Court challenging the award of rupees 75,000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Justice Johnson John stated that earning less than fair wages at the time of the accident should not be a reason to deprive parity in notional income.
Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. and Another v The Controller of Legal Metrology and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 717
Quashing a case against Hindustan Coca Cola Company under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules concerning alleged illegible declaration about the packaging details of mineral water sold at a movie theatre, the Kerala High Court observed that it could not be said that the details in the form of laser printing were illegible or not prominent.
After perusing through the seized product Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in its order said, "The counsel for the petitioner made available a bottle of 'Kinley', packaged drinking water. The Public Prosecutor also produced the bottle seized by the officer concerned. This Court perused the same. A perusal of the same would show that there is laser printing in the bottle. It cannot be said that the same is not legible and prominent. The counsel for the petitioners produced a news item of the Central Minister, which published in Times Of India dated 24.09.2024 in which it is stated that the Minister bats for laser printing in water bottles. Since the printing is legible, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is not necessary".
Case Title: In Re Captive Elephants v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 718
The Kerala High Court has remarked that Elephants in Kerala are widely used in Temples in the name of tradition and religion but, in reality, it is a "commercial exploitation" without any care or concern for their well-being.
The Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. thus issued certain directions for effective implementation of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 and to ensure compliance of Apex Court's decision in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and others Vs. Union of India (2016).
Case Title: Shani v Muhammed Kunji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 719
The Kerala High Court stated that when there is no appeal provision given in law, then the judgment made in appeal was non-est in law and could be ignored.
The Court was considering the challenge against an order issued by the Sessions Judge, dismissing Magistrate's order when there was no provision provided for appeal.
Justice P .G. Ajithkumar stated that the Sessions Judge committed an error in considering the appeal when there was no provision for appeal.
Court said, “In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in entertaining and deciding Crl.Appeal No.28 of 2019. It was without jurisdiction. When such a remedy is not provided in law, the judgment in the appeal is a non-est and can only be ignored.”
Case Title: Vinod Valiyatoor v XXX and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 720
While hearing a case where a woman had alleged that she was raped by police officials in Ponnani with the police allegedly refusing to register an FIR, the Kerala High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge which had directed the Magistrate to pass order regarding investigation, after noting that it suffered from "serious procedural irregularity".
Observing the failure on the part of the police to take action for three years was "shocking", single judge in its October 18 order had questioned the delay in ordering an investigation into matter.
Setting aside the single judge's order the division bench of Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu in its order said, "The reliefs sought in the Petition have nothing to do with the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate and, in fact, ExhibitP6, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 11 September 2024 in C.M.P. No.3288/2024 calling for a report, was not even the subject matter of the petition. If the learned Magistrate found that the matter needed to be proceeded further, the Magistrate would have taken steps as per the subsequent provision under the BNSS, in respect of an investigation. If the learned Magistrate found that the complaint should be dismissed, an order would have been passed under Section 226 of the BNSS. Section 223(2) is a stage where the Magistrate will not take cognisance and this stage had not arisen in the present case. If any erroneous order is passed by the learned Magistrate, it is always subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings. The impugned judgment thus suffers from serious procedural irregularity and is required to be set aside".
Case Title: Anup V H & Ors. v Pramod A D & Ors. and Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 721
The Kerala High Court held that the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014 would not grant any entitlement to employees who were appointed under the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service of 1962 and Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Special Rules of 2010 in the matters of promotion.
The Court was considering whether the promotion of Beat Forest Officers who were advised for appointment to the post of Section Forest Officer under the 1962 Special Rules would be governed by those rules or by the 2014 Amendment, which prescribed additional qualifications.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar found that the saving clause does not confer promotion rights upon employees appointed under the 1962 Rules or 2010 Rules without acquiring the additional qualifications.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 722
The Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate Court does not lose its jurisdiction to try criminal cases merely because the State Government has notified Children's Courts for the speedy trial of offences against children.
However, the Court stated that it is proper that the offences be tried by the Children's Court.The state government issued a notification in 2009 made under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 which stipulates that Special Courts are constituted or Sessions Courts are designated as Children's Court to ensure speedy trial of offences against children.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that the Children's Courts are notified for the specified purpose of trial of speedy offences against children.
Kerala High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Service Of Summons In Suits For Defendants Outside India
Case Title: Charuvila Philipose Sundaran Pillai and Another v P. N. Sivadasan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 723
The Kerala High Court on Friday laid down guidelines regarding effecting service of summons in a suit where the defendants reside beyond India's borders. The Bench comprising of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Justice C. Jayachandran and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was answering a reference by a Division Bench as to whether a summons issued by the Court to a defendant residing outside India has to be effected through modes mentioned under Order V Rule 25 of CPC or as per the Convention on The Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial matters (the Hague Service Convention).
Case Title: K. T. Mujeeb v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 724
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order of District Collector refusing to give NOC to continue the functioning of a prayer hall in Kadalundi village. Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. quashed the order observing that the main reason for objection of NOC was due to apprehension of law-and-order situation due to the objection made by other members of the community. The Court said that the order based on such apprehension was unreasonable.
Case Title: Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 725
The Kerala High Court stated that while determining the assessment of relevant years assessing authority cannot determine the assessment for earlier years without enquiry.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M. observed that “…….we fail to understand how the assessing authority, as well as the First Appellate Authority, while considering assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2011-12 could have embarked upon an enquiry with regard to the nature and extent of business that was carried on by the assessee during the assessment years from 1999- 2000 to 2009-10……..”
Case Title: Manjoo and Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 726
The Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M. observed that “the concern of the Assessing Authority, while passing a consequential order, has to be limited to those specific issues that have been remanded to it for consideration by the Commissioner………..”
Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise any order passed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Case Title: Nimija v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
The Kerala High Court has stated that body shaming of a woman by her sister-in-law would prima facie amount to wilful conduct to cause injury to health of a woman to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that spouses of siblings who are residing in the matrimonial home would also come under the term relative in Section 498A.
Case Title: TNS India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
The Kerala High Court has asked investigating agency Internal Security Investigation Team (ISIT) to inform Central Government about the "suspicious" survey allegedly conducted by a foreign agency without sanction from it.
The Internal Security Investigation Team (ISIT) after investigation alleged that the foreign agency, Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA) had conducted the survey with the intention to spoil the existing communal harmony and create emotional conflict among the Muslim Community. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan was hearing a plea moved by an Indian company–which had entered into a contract with PSRA to conduct the survey–seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against them for allegedly carrying out malicious acts to outrage religious feelings.
Case Title: Aji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729
The Kerala High Court stated that the accused right to access documents, including digital documents excluding those which affect the privacy of the victim.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the accused cannot be denied the right to view the pen drive containing CCTV visuals which are part of prosecution records for defending his case, as part of his right to a fair trial.
Case Title: Visakh v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 730
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order cancelling bail of a man booked under NDPS Act, observing that there is nothing to show that the accused interfered in the investigation or trial. The bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the petitioner involved himself in another crime and thereby violated the bail condition.
Justice K. Babu observed that there should be overwhelming reasons for cancelling a bail.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
The Kerala High Court has held that a woman can seek protection against matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code when there is either "religious or customary" marriage between the parties which has the "colour of legal marriage", even if such marriage was later found to be invalid under law.
Justice Sophy Thomas in its order observed that although there was no registration of marriage under Secular law, the Nikah of the girl who was originally Hindu was conducted with the first accused after she converted to Islam. The Court thus stated that marriage of minor girl on attaining puberty was considered as a valid marriage under the Muslim Personal Law and thus offence of cruelty would be attracted against her husband and in-laws.
Case Title: K K Damodaran & Co. v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
The Kerala High Court has held that the Port Trust Authority is empowered to take decisions regarding movement of vessels, boats, watercrafts within port waters to ensure the safety and security of passengers and watercraft.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M., however emphasized that the statutory authority must hear the party and make a decision objectively, ensuring fairness and adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Unni K E v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumarheld that integrating categories and giving seniority based on Kerala General Subordinate Service Posts in the Rural Development Department (Amendment) Special Rules of 2008 is a policy decision and any anomaly in it would be beyond Court's domain for rectification.
Case Title: X. v Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 734
While deciding a review petition pertaining to a custody dispute, the Kerala High Court said that a party is not estopped when the error is committed by the court itself. A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar underscored that the court has a duty to correct its own mistake.
Case Title: Simil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 735
The Kerala High Court has stated that showing or waving a black flag at a person cannot be perceived as a defamatory or illegal act to attract an offence under Section 499 of the IPC.
The Court further stated that even if a flag of any colour is displayed as a form of protest, it cannot be regarded as defamation in the absence of any law prohibiting such an act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that waving a black flag could be a sign of support or protest and that it depends on perception.
Case Title: Ajith Prasad Edacherry v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 736
The Kerala High Court has held that any overt act which involves a physical contact with sexual intent constitutes 'sexual assault', even if there is no penetration.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that under Section 7 of POCSO Act, which defines 'sexual assault', includes within its ambit any other act which involves physical contact with sexual intent.
Case Title: P.S.Sreedharan Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
The Kerala High Court quashed a case registered under Section 505 (1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC against former State BJP President and present Goa Governor P.S. Sreedharan Pillai for allegedly making statements supporting the Thantri's decision to deny entry of women at Sabarimala Temple, against the Apex Court decision in Young Indian Lawyers Association case.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan quashed the case against Sreedharan Pillai on finding that he was inaugurating a meeting of the BJP's Youth Wing, Yuva Morcha Samsthana Samithi, and that the event was only accessible to a private or exclusive group of people and not the general public.
The Court further observed that Sreedharan Pillai, as the Governor of Goa, is immune from criminal proceedings under Article 361 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Adv. M. Baiju Noel v Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
While ordering further investigation into the allegedly insulting remarks made by Minister for Fisheries, Culture and Youth Affairs Saji Cherian, the Kerala High Court observed that post the 2003 amendment to Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, even disrespect shown to the Constitution by words either spoken or written or by acts can amount to conduct falling foul of the Act.
Perusing through the language of the provision Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in its order noted that it indicated that the words “otherwise shows disrespect to” were not part of the statute initially.
Case Title: Aloysius Alexander v S. Jayakumar @ Panambil S. Jayakumar and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (21st November) dismissed the appeal filed by a police officer against the attachment of his property in a case of custodial torture of an advocate.
The police officer appealed against the attachment before the High Court saying that the said property is used as a security in a loan he has taken. He submitted that due to the attachment order, the bank is planning to recall the loan and initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the property. He further submitted that such an action would also affect the advocate's right to ultimately realise damages.
Justice G. Girish noted that the property was a security for the loan much before it was attached by the Court order. The Court observed that there is no basis for apprehension for the bank as it will have the right to proceed against the property in case the officer defaults on the loan.
Case Title: Chandrasekharan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application of a police officer who is accused of raping a 14-year-old minor girl who is stated to be a member of the scheduled caste.
Justice K Babu observed that Courts must not lightly entertain bail applications when "serious offences" are alleged and a "prima facie case" is made out. The court underscored that where the offence complained is of such nature "as to shake the confidence of the public" there bail shall not be granted
Are Government Pleaders Gazetted Officers? Kerala High Court Asks Govt To Clarify
Case Title: Sheba Sam Benjamin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
The Kerala High Court has asked the government to issue a notification or instruction clarifying whether Government Pleaders, Senior Government Pleaders, and Special Government Pleaders are Gazetted Officers within one month.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition filed by an Indian woman who wanted to marry an American citizen and her application submitted under the Special Marriage Act was rejected, stating that the Government Pleader who attested her document was not a gazetted officer.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
While permitting a 16-year-old school going girl to terminate her over 26-week-pregnancy, the Kerala High Court said that the mental trauma undergone by the minor girl who had been stated to be subjected to "repeated sexual assault", cannot be an irrelevant consideration.
A division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu in its November 8 order allowed the writ appeal of the mother after the report of the psychiatrist stated that the minor does not have the mental capacity to continue with the pregnancy and that would adversely affect her mental health.
Case Title: M/s Knowell Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
The Kerala High Court has stated that income from the sale of immovable properties is to be treated as 'capital gains,' not 'business income' for taxation purposes.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “the requirement of ensuring uniformity and consistency in tax assessments cannot be overlooked, especially while categorizing the nature of the activity carried on by an assessee to earn its income for the purposes of taxation.”
Case Title: Baiju George v. Commissioner Of Goods And Service Taxes Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
The Kerala High Court stated that the medical condition cited by the assessee is not sufficient grounds to justify condoning a four-year delay in filing the appeal.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “the assessee has not made out any ground for grant of relief in the writ petition. Admittedly, the assessee filed appeals against the orders only in the month of February 2024 i.e., four years after the date on which the orders against which the appeal was sought to be filed had been issued.”
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax v. Bhima Jewellery And Diamonds P. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
The Kerala High Court stated that the department cannot reopen an assessment that has already been settled by issuing a fresh notice if the period of limitation had expired before the date of the amendment extending the timeline for reopening.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “…….no doubt, in those cases where the erstwhile period of limitation of five years had already expired before the date of the amendment of Section 25(1) in 2017, the Revenue would not be permitted to re-open assessments that had been settled, through a fresh notice issued thereafter invoking the six-year period of limitation.”
Case Title: Suo Motu JPP initiated by the High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
The Kerala High Court has said that its Registry will seek "administrative orders" from Chief Justice if it receives any judicial orders to connect cases from a different roster without any assigned specific reason or without a direction to obtain permission from the Chief Justice.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu directed the Registry to place before the Chief Justice any such order of the Court without delay, for passing necessary administrative orders.
Case Title: Binumon KP v Kerala Public Service Commission and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
While hearing a plea against the rejection of a man's candidature to the post of a typist on account of his promotion prior to recruitment to the post, the Kerala High Court said that 'recruitment by transfer' under the relevant rules requires that the condition prescribed in the concerned recruitment notification is scrupulously followed till appointment is effected.
A division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that when the notification says that recruitment by transfer shall be made from persons holding low paid post in government services, the qualification of the candidate is expected to be holding the low paid post at the time of recruitment, as appointment by transfer does not envisage appointment of a person with a higher scale of pay.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Jayakrishnaraj G
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
The Kerala High Court has warned the State of the adverse consequences it must face for causing administrative delays in granting promotions to government servants without any reason.
In the facts of the case, a professor who has been entitled to promotion since 2003 was brought to the Court in an appeal preferred by the State against the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal upholding his right to promotion since 2003.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. M. Manoj upheld the order of the Tribunal which found that he was entitled for promotion since 2003, since there was a vacancy of the Professor even prior to 2003 and that his name was on the select list published in 2002.
Case Title: Baburaj Jacob v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
The Kerala High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by Malayalam film actor Baburaj in connection with allegations of sexual harassment that came to light following the Hema Committee report, with stringent conditions. The Court has directed actor Baburaj to surrender before the Investigating officer in ten days.
The crime was registered against him at the Adimali police station in Idukki alleging rape and sexual harassment between January 01, 2018 to December 31, 2019.
While allowing the bail application, Justice C S Dias referred to the decision in Siddique v State Of Kerala And Another, wherein Malayalam actor Siddique was granted bail by the Supreme Court on similar grounds of delay in lodging the FIR.
Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. v The Additional/ Joint/ Dputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
The Kerala High Court held that the income tax authorities, by not considering a request for personal hearing has violated the principles of natural justice. Justice K. Babu observed that due to this violation, the orders passed without considering the assessee's request is bound to be set aside.
“The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a competent statutory authority embarks on an action involving civil consequences. The fundamental principle is that no one should be condemned unheard.”
Case Title: Pooja Anand v Ashokan K. and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
The Kerala High Court while quashing a case of defamation, observed that the complaint filed in the present case before a lawful authority which was enquired by it, will not attract an offence under Section 500 IPC.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in its order said that the fourth exception to Section 499 IPC says that, it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings.
Case Title: Georgekutty C X v Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
The Kerala High Court quashed the punishment imposed upon a Sub-Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL) and exonerated him from all the charges for the delay in issuance of a provisional assessment order, which was imposed by the disciplinary authority by invoking the doctrine of Factum Valet.
For context, the doctrine of Factum Valet which means that an act that was not supposed to be done, is valid once it is done.
Justice K Babu stated that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Sub-Engineer by invoking the doctrine of Factum Valet, was illegal and vitiated in law. The court said this after noting that the principle cannot be invoked to hold that the petitioner sub engineer, who was not authorised to issue a provisional assessment order with respect to a consumer, but had issued it in the interest of the board, is responsible for the delay in issuing the same.
Case Title: Master Jyothis Raj Krishna @ Jyothi Krishna v Sunny George & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
The Kerala High Court has fixed the notional income at rupees 17, 325 per month for a 5-year-old minor boy, who has been in a state of paraparesis and lost his childhood since a 2016 accident.
The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's decision to fix the notional income to rupees 8,000 per month.
Justice Easwaran S. referred to Master Ayush v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others (2022) wherein the Apex Court granted over 50 lakh rupees as compensation to a 5 year old victim who was paralysed for life in an accident. Relying on it, the High Court observed that Courts must undertake a progressive thinking while fixing notional income of a minor child and must not apply a restrictive mind.
Case Title: Shaju Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
The Kerala High Court while dismissing a case for expunging the adverse remarks made against a police officer, observed that such remarks were absolutely necessary to take an appropriate decision in that order.
Justice A. Badharudeen said that in such a case, it will be difficult to issue notice to the officer before making such observation. "...such a finding by the learned Special Judge was absolutely necessary for taking an appropriate decision of the discharge petition as an integral part thereof. Therefore, in such a case, it was difficult to issue notice to the Circle Inspector of Police before making observations."
Case Title: Princy Mol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
The Kerala High Court has held that a lab technician can be held liable for negligence if they deviate from the test prescribed by the doctor on the ground that the test so prescribed was unavailable in their lab.
Consequently, the Court refused to quash the final report alleging offence punishable under Section 336 (rash or negligent acts endangering human life) IPC against a lab worker, who conducted the Elisa Test by 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay' method, instead of the 'Hit Antibody Test' method on complainant's mother.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the lab technician was duty-bound to conduct the test prescribed by the doctor or to send back the patient if the test was unavailable in their lab.
Case Title: Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
The Kerala High Court has held that the bar under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) does not apply if the police officer does not have any 'personal grievance' against the accused.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vaijayaraghavan V. and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that such a grievance cannot be said to have existed if the crime relates to obstruction of discharge of duty.
Case Title: Prasanna E.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 27) ordered the authorities to conduct periodical inspections and supervisions on hotels, vendors and restaurants selling Shawarma to ensure that there is strict compliance of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The Court further ordered that the license of eateries selling Shawarma without adhering to safety standards must be cancelled and stringent action must be taken against them.
Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the authorities to ensure strict compliance of its interim order dated November 14, 2023. The interim order was issued directing all eateries selling Shawarma to exhibit the date and time of preparation of food articles on its packaging.
Case Title: State of Kerala v P V Mohan & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when pay scale is revised retrospectively, then the revised pay scale must be considered while calculating pension even if the pensioners have retired prior to the issuance of the pay revision order, provided they are entitled to the revised pay scale.
In doing so the high court upheld an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal which set aside a government letter which had said that revised pension of university teachers in the state who receive UGCpayscale would be effective from 2009 and not from 2006.
A Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ordered thus: “The law is settled that when the pay is revised retrospectively, that revised pay should be taken into account when calculating the pension, even if the pensioner retired prior to the issuance of the pay revision order, provided he is entitled to get the revised pay.”
Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking CBI Probe Into Former ADM Naveen Babu's Death
Case Title: Muraleedharan Koncherillam v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation moved by a social activist seeking CBI probe into the death of former ADM Naveen Babu, stating that there is another writ petition moved by the wife of the deceased which is already under the Court's consideration.
Stating that the wife's plea seeks similar relief, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu disposed of the PIL.
“We are informed by the state that the wife of the deceased has already moved this Court for the same relief. In thereof, not necessary to entertain a public interest litigation as the matter is already seized before this Court in another writ petition. The PIL is accordingly disposed of.”
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v Vilayathulla P. H. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 760
The Kerala High Court held that the Kerala Administrative Tribunal does not generally have the power to extend the life of the ranked list of candidates issued by Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), and the latter alone has the power to decide the extension period.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. M. Manoj emphasized that PSC is a constitutional body. It referred to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure which pertains to the lifespan of a ranked list and circumstances in which the lifespan of the ranked list can be extended. The Court held that as per the rules, only PSC has the power to extend the lifespan of the ranked list.
Case Title: Sunil Rajan K. v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala High Court held the criteria for the Magistrate to direct any person to give voice sample under Section 349 of BNSS is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that such sample is required for the purpose of investigation.
“Under Section 349, the criteria is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that it is expedient to direct any person to provide his voice sample, again, for the purposes of the investigation or proceeding under BNSS. Therefore, the thrust is upon the question whether the voice sample is required for the purpose of investigation of the crime.”
Justice C. Jayachandran held that as per Ritesh Sharma and BNSS, the determining factor is whether the voice sample is required for the purpose of investigation.
Case Title: Dr.Beena Bahuleyan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor under Section 166B of the IPC, who was accused of showing unwillingness to examine the victim in a child missing case and failing to issue a medical certificate, on finding that the ingredients of the said offence were not made out.
The Court however, expressed that enquiry has to be conducted against the doctor and opined that departmental action must be taken, if necessary.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the victim was admittedly not a victim of offences like acid attack or rape-related offences and therefore offence under Section 166B cannot be attracted.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v Bhaskaran N.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
The Kerala High Court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) should not lightly interfere with the opinion of medical board as to the nature of disability of ex-service personnel in the question of granting disability pension.
The Court observed that whether the disability has connection to the personnel's service is a crucial factor for granting pension and it depends upon the opinion of the Medical Board.
Case Title: Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. v CP Mohammed Basheer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against a media house for allegedly publishing a defamatory article about the 'Popular Front of India' (PFI).
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that PFI is a banned association in India; therefore, defamation cannot be alleged against a banned organization, since it has no legal entity. While quashing the defamation case against the media house, the Court observed that a banned organization cannot raise a complaint of defamation.
Sophisticated Medical Beds For Expecting Mothers Are Subject To Luxury Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. Cradle Calicut Maternity Care Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
The Kerala High Court has held that 'sophisticated medical beds' provided for expecting mothers would be subject to luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act of 1976.
In doing so, the high court underscored that what was ultimately being taxed under the Act was the "experience of luxury as regards the accommodation/amenities in the hospital".
Justice Harisankar V. Menon stated that admittedly expecting mothers are being permitted the use of amenities and services while being accommodated in the hospital rooms which was not disputed. It said:
“Thus, ultimately, what is to be looked into is as to whether the facility provided is a necessary requirement of an average member of the society. There cannot be any dispute that even without the aid of the medical bed provided by the petitioner, an expecting mother can give birth.”
Case Title: C. Alavi v The State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate Court can take cognizance in case of custodial torture by police office, without prior sanction of the State Government under Section 197(1) of CrPC.
Justice K. Babu reasoned that a Police Officer torturing a man in a police station cannot be treated as part of official duty, thus not requiring sanction to prosecute.
Case Title: T. N. Mukundan v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 767
The Kerala High Court has ordered the State to remit the entire amount it collected as application fee for conversion of paddy land since the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to the Agricultural Promotion Funds (APF) in the next 12 months.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu ordered for this entire amount is to be transferred to the Agricultural Promotion Funds.
Case Title: Motorsigns India v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 768
The Kerala High Court has quashed the notification issued by the state government dated July 30, 2024, permitting Regional Transport Officers in the State to set up plants for the production of high-security registration number plates (HSRP) and to obtain Technical Approval Certificates (TAC) for the implementation of the HSRP scheme.
The government introduced the HSRP scheme, which provides standardised registration plates and chromium-based holograms to vehicles for enhanced security, facilitates their identification, and reduces motor vehicle-related offences.
The single bench of Justice D K Singh also rejected the permission to license plate manufacturers and their dealers, who have a Type Approval Certificate from the central agency, to affix HSRP plates without further approval or selection by the State Government since that would affect the integrity and object behind implementation of the HSRP scheme.
Case Title: Nizar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 769
The Kerala High Court has held that an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the IPC is attracted when the offender's action is such that it would be perceived as capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency.
In this case, the President of the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) of an upper primary school was accused of using obscene language and outraging the modesty of the school headmistress. It was alleged that during the PTA meeting, he grabbed both of her hands and pulled her towards his body.
Justice Muralee Krishna S. while quashing conviction under Section 354 of the IPC found that the revision petitioner might have acted in a heat of passion during the PTA meeting when he was being decided to be expelled out of the PTA.
Case Title: Aravindakshan P. R. v Assistant Director, ED and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 770
The Kerala High Court on Monday (December 2) granted bail to the former CPI(M) Municipal Councillor of Vadakkanchery Municipality Aravindakshan P. R. accused in the Karuvannur Bank Scam case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
Justice C. S. Dias also granted bail to the former Senior Accountant of the Bank, Jilise C. K. Both of them were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 4 (punishment for money laundering) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Case Title: M/S Inkel Ltd V The Federal Bank Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 771
The Kerala High Court has observed that it was not appropriate to proceed against the property of a guarantor who has not created mortgage over the property as collateral, merely because the guarantor had previously acted as a surety in another mortgage that has already been settled.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon directed the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the return of original title deeds.
Case Title: Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 772
The Kerala High Court has held that the pendency of maintenance proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of the CrPC would not affect the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal from ordering residence to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007.
Justice D. K. Singh observed that the 2007 Act was enacted to prevent the deprivation of senior citizens by their children and to safeguard their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Act, which stipulates that maintenance can be claimed either under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 12 of the Act but not under both, does not restrict the Tribunal's authority to grant residence to senior citizens.
Case Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V The State Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 773
The Kerala High Court has said that if the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has access to the information requested by an applicant under the Right To Information Act, and if the information is not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Act, the official is obligated to provide that requested information to the applicant.
Referring to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, Justice D. K. Singh noted that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has wider powers in the functioning of the society and has access to the documents sought by the applicants which are not exempted from disclosure.
Petitioner: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 774
The Kerala High Court has held that the trauma and shock of a mother coming to know of her minor, unmarried daughter's pregnancy is a justifiable reason for delay in informing the POCSO offence to the police.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in one way the mother can also be considered the victim of the crime and thus, prosecuting her under Section 19 of the Act is like “putting chilly powder on the deep wound”.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 775
The Kerala High Court has observed that provisions of the POCSO Act were being misused by certain persons to wreak vengeance against their rivals with ulterior motives.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Court shall exercise its powers to quash false and frivolous litigations filed with ulterior motives at the threshold by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS.
Case Title: The Kerala Public Service Commission V Aboobacker Mattayi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 776
The Kerala High Court has stated that a candidate who underwent a degree course having two main subjects would get the advantage of two main degrees.
In the facts of the case, a candidate who has a BA in Arabic and Islamic History from Calicut University was stated to be not eligible to apply for a post advertised by the Public Service Commission requiring a degree in Arabic, due to his dual main degree.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that merely the inclusion of an additional subject in the main degree would not mean that the candidate lacks degree in BA Arabic.
Case Title: Ismail Valumathige v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 777
The Kerala High Court has said that Courts have to be liberal while considering issuing a No Objection of Certificate for passports when the case pending against the applicant is a matrimonial issue or a trivial/ simple offence.
In doing so the court said that if a liberal approach is not adopted in such cases, the applicant's right to go abroad to carry out their employment, without obstructing the trial, "would be in peril".
Justice A. Badharudeen held that the Court has to uphold the right of life of the accused. In the case before it, the high court noted that it was the petitioner's grievance was that the pendency of a criminal case is a matter which would negate the issuance/re-issuance of passport, unless No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court is produced
Loss In Derivatives Is Not A Speculative Transaction And Can Be Set Off Against Business Income Of Assessee: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kochi v. M/s Dewa Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 778
The Kerala High Court stated that loss in derivatives is not a speculative transaction and can be set off against business income of the assessee. Further, this is not a case where Section 73 of Income Tax Act is attracted since it deals with losses in speculation business.
The Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar observed that “……..a loss in the derivative business would consequently be a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, and a set off of such business loss would have to be permitted against profits and gains of business as computed in terms of the I.T. Act……..”
Case Title: Braddock Infotech Private Limited v. Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 779
The Kerala High Court stated that the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy cannot by itself authorise the levy of interest under Section 28AA of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, as such levy must be supported by plenary legislation.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. was considering a case where the assessee challenged the interest imposed upon him under the provisions of Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the amounts repaid by the assessee on the assessee being found ineligible for the benefit of the Scheme introduced by the Foreign Trade Policy.
Case Title: Ameen Akbarali. U V Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 780
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 5) quashed the order expelling the college students implicated as accused in the suicide of Sidharthan J S. The Court has also quashed the order debarring the students from taking admission to any other college for three years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while pronouncing the verdict ordered the Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving the students memo of charges outlining the specific allegations against them, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court has also permitted the students to continue their studies in the college, subject to the final outcome of the fresh enquiry to be conducted.
Case Title: Aneesh K. Thankachan v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 781
The Kerala High Court has held that YouTube, being an intermediary cannot be directed to remove an allegedly objectionable video without an order from the Court finding that the alleged video was defamatory in nature.
Justice T.R. Ravi reached the above conclusion by relying upon the landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India and perusing Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Mere Giving Of Hand Loans On One Or Two Occasions Is Not 'Money Lending Business': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Manoj George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 782
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the mere giving of hand loans on one or two occasions cannot be considered as engaging in money lending business, since that would discourage people from offering emergency hand loans due to fear of penal consequences under the Kerala Money-Lenders Act and Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.
In the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused of running money lending business and threatening the complainants for repayment.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that there is no evidence to even prima facie suggest that petitioners run a money-lending business. It stated that unless prosecution proves that petitioners have given loans to large numbers of persons on exorbitant interest, no offences can be made out.
Case Title: Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783
The Kerala stated that there is distinction between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court explained that the jurisdiction of a writ court is not generally invoked when there is an alternative remedy available, and in such cases, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. The Court stated that having an alternative remedy cannot be used as a ground to hold that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Here, writ appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of a writ petition as not maintainable.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu observed thus: “Even if alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner, that cannot be a ground to hold the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an administrative authority as “not maintainable”. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised even if there exists an alternate remedy, however, it is in restricted circumstances, within well defined parameters. As a matter of settled judicial practice, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available and in such circumstances, the writ court may decline to “entertain” the writ petition. There is, therefore, a difference between maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition.”
Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784
Elaborating on Zero FIR, the Kerala High Court said that the provision has been introduced in the BNSS to primarily ensure that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.
The court also said that under Section 173 BNSS police cannot refuse to register an FIR merely because a part of the offence has happened outside the limit of the local jurisdictional police station.
Justice Kauser Edappagath in his order said:
“The implementation of Section 173 of BNSS marks a significant shift in how the police handles information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Now, Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition by incorporating it in Section 173 of BNSS, which deals with registration of FIR in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that the victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.”
Case Title: M Shammy Kumar v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 785
The Kerala High Court has upheld the life sentence given to the husband under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife by hanging. The Court upheld the conviction by ruling out the possibility of suicide since the body of the deceased was found hanging in a nude state in a lodge room which was locked from the outside.
The Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar relied upon the evidence of the police surgeon to state that normally Indian women hide their nudity when they commit suicide. The Court observed that the fact the deceased was found in a nude clearly indicates homicide, as opposed to suicide.
Kerala High Court Extends Waqf Board's Term Until Election Process Initiated By State Concludes
Case Title: Nishad Padinjare Peediyekkal V Hyderiyya Masjid Mahall Committee
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 786
The Kerala High Court recently extended the term of the state Wakf Board–whose term was set to expire on December 14–until the election initiated by the state government for the constitution of the board is concluded.
The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S ordered thus: “we further issue a direction that the term of the elected body of the Board which is going to expire on 14.12.2024 shall continue till the election process initiated by the respondent/State is over. It is made clear that till such time, the Board shall continue to discharge the duties and deal with the pending matters, in accordance with law.”
Case Title: State Bank of India v Sham PS & Other Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 787
The Kerala High Court has held that borrowers who breach the terms and conditions of the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, cannot be permitted to seek directions from the Court to compel the bank to honour its obligations under the OTS Scheme.
The present appeals were filed by the State Bank of India, aggrieved by the orders in the writ petitions where benefits under the OTS Schemes were given to the respondents despite making lapses in discharging their obligations under the Scheme.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu found that borrowers in all these appeals have failed to discharge their obligations under the OTS Scheme.
Case Title: Abraham Mathai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 788
The Kerala High Court has held that oral complaints given by an employee alleging sexual harassment to various authorities cannot be a substitute for a written complaint for carrying an inquiry under Section 11 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
In the facts of the case, the local level committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act initiated the inquiry based on an anonymous complaint.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar clarified that while a written complaint is not mandatory under the law if the complainant is unable to submit one, it is still essential for a complaint to be made as per the provisions of the POSH Act for initiating an inquiry under Section 11 of the Act.
Case Title: Maya M. T. and Others v Nadukkandy P. C. Ashraf
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789
The Kerala High Court has observed that for the Rent Control Court to assess the genuineness of the claim of permanent tenancy or denial of title, the pleading must be clear, specific, unequivocal and explicit.
“The Pleading regarding the denial of title or the claim for permanent tenancy must be clear, specific, and unequivocal, without which the Rent Control Court cannot assess whether the said contention was raised in good faith or was merely a pretext for eviction.”
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that there is a statutory duty on the court to examine the genuineness of the claim before making a crucial decision.
Case Number: M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791
The Kerala High Court has said that it is well-established that the High Court can under Article 226 of the Constitution consider the legality of orders passed by Tribunals, adding that it has ample powers to issue directions even when such reliefs are not specifically sought in the plea before the Tribunal.
In the facts of the case, OP (KAT)'s are filed by the employee as well as the State challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which ordered that disciplinary proceedings against the employee can be finalised in two months. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee since a criminal case was registered against him. However, the High Court ordered that the disciplinary authority could wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial before complying with the order of the Tribunal to finalize the disciplinary proceedings.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) a Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar said:
“Therefore, this court has ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue the direction as above, even if it is not specifically sought in the petition filed before the Tribunal, if it is found necessary.”
Case Title: Joy v C K Manoj
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 792
Dismissing a contempt plea, the Kerala High Court observed that it would be too far fetched to hold that contempt of court proceedings can be initiated on the ground that a particular authority failed to follow a binding precedent.
The court was hearing a contempt plea alleging that despite series of judgments of the High Court, the respondent Sub Registrar Thrissur refused to register a document and insisted on the production of prior documents.
Justice Gopinath P. in his order said: “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that no proceedings can be initiated against the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act on the ground that he refused to follow a precedent, which according to the petitioner decides the matter in favour of the petitioner. While it is true that the law laid down by this Court must be followed by every authority, I am afraid that it is too far-fetched to hold that a Contempt Court proceedings can be initiated under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that a particular authority failed to follow a binding precedent.”
Case Title: XXX and Another v XXX and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 793
The Kerala High Court while reversing a decision of the Family Court granting compensation to the husband for his wife's alleged adulterous behaviour observed that India like many other jurisdictions does not recognize adultery as a ground for claiming damages.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that Indian law does not recognize marriage as a “relationship that creates enforceable propriety rights over spouse's behaviour.”
Case Title: M K Nasar v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 794
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 12) suspended the sentence of M K Nasar (third accused) who was convicted to life imprisonment by the Special Court of Trial of NIA Cases for chopping the hands of Professor T J Joseph.
The matter arose in 2010 when a question in an exam set by Professor Joseph, the former Head of the Malayalam Department of Newman College, Thodupuzha, contained a passage that was alleged to have insulted Prophet Mohammed. Subsequently, on July 4, 2010, a group of armed men attacked Prof. Joseph and his family as they were going to church, and chopped off his right hand for setting the question paper.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan observed that the accused had undergone incarceration for more than 9 years now. The Court found that the accused surrendered on November 6, 2015, but the trial did not begin until June 23, 2021, and the judgment was delivered only in July 12, 2023.
Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines To Ensure Minors Are Not Mistakenly Tried As Adults
Case Title: Mahesh C. and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 795
The Kerala High Court, while handling a case in which two juveniles were tried and punished as adults, issued a set of directives to investigating agencies and the district judiciary to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish said that they cannot consider this as police's fault as there is no dereliction of duty because there is no express provision requiring the authorities to cross-check the minority of the offenders brought before them. The Court also observed that Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh @ Baboo Singh and Anr. V State of UP (2013) has put the responsibility more on judiciary by saying that Magistrate shall order an inquiry if he has a doubt that the accused produced before him is a juvenile.
The Court highlighted the legislative gap, noting that no procedure has been established by the legislature to determine whether an arrestee is a juvenile.
Case Title: Sumith v Sebastian and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 797
The Kerala High Court has held that merely because a person is an advocate, he is not automatically prohibited from being summoned as a witness.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that prohibition under Section 126 of Indian Evidence Act will apply only to confidential communication made to the advocate by his client.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Haridasan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 798
The Kerala High Court has held that an officer would be entitled to full pay and allowances if there were no reasons for keeping him under suspension till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that disciplinary authority must apply their mind and exercise their discretion in deciding whether the employee's suspension should remain in place until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Reports Forming The Basis For Determining EPF Dues Must Be Shared With Parties: Kerala High Court
Case Name: Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 799
Kerala High Court: A single bench of Justice N. Nagresh overturned the orders of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) in two writ petitions filed by Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust. These orders demanded the Trust pay alleged EPF dues. The court ruled that repeated factual errors, procedural issues, and the lack of a fair hearing made the orders invalid. Authorities were directed to issue new orders within four months.
[POCSO Act] Quashing Of Serious Offence To Efface Evidence Already Recorded Cannot Be Done Even At Instance Of Survivor: Kerala High Court
Case Title: xxx v State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 800
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by the victim of a POCSO offence to quash the proceedings saying that serious offences are involved and the trial had reached at the end stage. The Court noted that that the accused is alleged of committing serious offences like aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the minor.
The accused was the father of the victim. He is accused to have committed the offences from the period of April 2013 to 21.02.2016. The prosecution alleges commission of offence under Sections 4 r/w 3, 6 r/w 5(n)(l), 8 r/w 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It is also alleged that he threatened to kill the victim if she reveals the matter to anyone.
Case Title: Balachandra Menon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 801
The Kerala High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Balachandra Menon in a sexual assault case filed against him with 17 years delay, after publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan while granting the relief observed that men also have the right to dignity, not just women. While dictating the order in open Court, the Judge observed,
“It is an admitted fact that the alleged incident happened in 2007. It is an admitted fact that the victim filed the complaint after 17 years of the alleged incident. It is also admitted that the petitioner is a known cine artist, he is also known as a film actor, director, and scriptwriter. He directed about 40 films and obtained two national awards. The nation awarded him by giving a Padma Shri. Based on a statement of a lady, that too after 17 years, this case has been registered…It is true that investigation is going on but everybody must remember that the right and dignity is not only to a woman but to men also. This is a fit case to grant bail to petitioner in the interest of justice."
Case Title: Dr. Thahiya Thasleem V S & Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 802
The Kerala High Court has upheld Kerala State Medical Commission's decision mandating two year Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship to foreign students who missed offline classes due to COVID-19 and war in Ukraine, observing that it was made in larger public interest.
Justice C S Dias while referring to Supreme Court's judgment in National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh and Ors. (2022) observed that the Kerala State Medical Commission is the appropriate authority for issuing regulations.
Members Of Charitable Society Running Private College Are "Public Servants": Kerala High Court
Case Title: A. K. Sreekumar v The Director and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 803
The Kerala High Court held that the authority which can decide the grant of admission, collection of fees etc. of a private pharmacy college is a 'public servant' as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The Court was dealing with an issue regarding the collection of the capitation amount.
The Court noted that the admission and fixation of fees to the institution is governed by the provision of the Kerala Medical (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Institutions) Act, 2017. Justice K. Babu held that since the authorities are discharging a 'State function' under the obligation of existing laws, they are discharging a public duty and are public servants.
Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Former MP For Allegedly Comparing Lawyers To Street Dogs
Case Title: Sebastian Paul v P. R. Ashokan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 804
The Kerala High Court quashed the defamation case against former Ernakulam MP, advocate and lawyer, Sebastian Paul pending before the Taliparamba Magistrate Court for allegedly comparing the lawyer community with street dogs.
Justice G. Girish noted that even going by the complaint, it can be seen that he did not refer to the entire lawyer community. He only referred to the violent behaviour shown by certain group of lawyers. The Court emphasized that the former MP himself is a lawyer. The Court observed since it cannot be said that he insulted the entire lawyer community, the complainant cannot be considered as a person aggrieved by the statements.
Case Title: Vijith V. C. and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 805
While granting bail to three men accused of entering an advocate's office and causing destruction of property, the Kerala High Court appreciated the participation of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association noting that when a lawyer has a grievance the entire lawyer community and the association come together to lend its support.
Shenoy submitted before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan that if any criminal offence is committed against a lawyer or towards his office, that amounts to interfering the administration of justice.
Case Title: Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni v Station House Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 807
The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the plea filed by Sunil N.S., also known as 'Pulsar Suni', the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case- for recalling two expert witnesses.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the Sessions case was of the year 2018 and trial commenced on January 2020. It noted that the application filed by Suni is frivolous for delaying the disposal of the case.
Case Title: Sadhoo Beedi Enterprises v The Controlling Authority and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 808
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that gratuity could not be paid in instalments as the purpose of gratuity is to serve as a retirement or terminal benefit ensuring immediate financial support to the employees or their dependents.
Case Title: Rollymol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 809
The Kerala High Court underscored the importance of conducting effective investigation by the police by scientific methods of investigation technology, by not just relying on traditional methods of collecting evidence for ensuring a robust and efficient investigation process.
In the facts of the case, the appellant-mother who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Court for murder of her own 1 and half year old son. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the investigating officer failed to gather medical evidence or investigate the appellant's mental health issues.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan while setting aside the sentence and conviction of the appellant stated that the investigating officer was duty bound to investigate her mental condition to determine whether she suffered from any unsoundness of mind or not.
The Court stated that defective investigation could weaken the prosecution case, and hence stated that police must make use of advanced technology to navigate complex cases and to give justice to both the victim as well as the accused and to bring transparency to the investigation.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 810
The Kerala High while dismissing the appeals filed by daughters of M. M. Lawrence against the decision of Single Judge allowing the donation of CPI(M) Veteran to Ernakulam Government Medical College observed that it is “preferable that quietus be reached in this case”. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed in the order that they consider the appeals to be “regretful litigation”.
Case Title: Jamal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 811
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against a public servant for allegedly making "sarcastic comments" on a WhatsApp group concerning the Chief Minister's appeal to government officers to donate their one-month salary to a relief fund after the 2018 floods.
Justice G Girish found that the alleged comments were not intended to cause any injury to the beneficiaries of the flood relief scheme as it did not prevent other people from contributing their monthly salary as appealed to by the CM.
Case Title: Akhil Mohanan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 812
The Kerala High Court has held that remote chance of conviction due to compromise between the accused and the complainant should not serve as a ground to terminate investigation abruptly and to quash the FIR and further proceedings in serious offences involving POSCO Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that prime facie case was made out against the petitioner and declined to quash the criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act based on the girl's affidavit for settlement.
Case Title: Abdul Muthalib T. and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 813
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (18th December) declared the delimitation exercise carried out in 2024 in Padne Grama Panchayat, Panoor Municipality, Mukkom Municipality, Koduvally Municipality, Payyoli Municipality, Sreekandapuram Municipality, Feroke Municipality, Pattambi Municipality and Mattannur Municipality as invalid.
Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. observed that a delimitation exercise was already carried out in these local bodies based on the 2011 census.
Case Title: Aleema A V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 814
The Kerala High Court has held that if a person satisfies the definition of drug offender, then he would automatically come within the definition of goonda under Section 2 (j) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian stated that for a drug offender to be regarded as goonda, it was not essential to prove that he was engaged in an activity that was harmful for the maintenance of public order.
Case Title: xxx v Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 815
The Kerala High Court set aside an order issued by the Child Welfare Committee, which had directed the child to be produced before it without hearing the preliminary objections of the mother. The Court noted that the father filed a parallel petition before the Child Welfare Committee, while his original petition for custody was still pending before the Family Court.
Justice C S Dias observed that shuttling child between two forums would cause inconvenience to the child and would affect its well-being.
Case Title: Omar Abdul Wahab @ Omar Lulu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 816
Kerala High Court on Friday (20th December) granted bail to Malayalam Movie director Omar Lulu in a rape case. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that prima facie, the relationship between the director and the complainant seems to be a consensual one. However, the Court added that the investigating officer may continue investigation into the matter.
Case Title: Nithin Gopi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 817
The Kerala High Court has stated that restrictions have to be imposed while granting bail to persons who are alleged of committing offences under Kerala Healthcare Service persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2012 for criminally trespassing and causing destruction to hospital building or hospital materials.
The Court by relying upon decisions of the High Court in Hemanth Kumar and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another (2011), Hemachandran M. T. @ Kamalesh and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another (2011) observed that persons must be directed to deposit the value of the destroyed property or even more for getting bail under 2012 Act.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of rupees ten thousand, while allowing his bail application.
Case Title: Arshad v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 818
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that an attempt to murder case under IPC Section 307 can be settled between the accused and complainant after filing Final Report if the prosecution materials do not suggest commission of the said offence and after considering the injuries sustained to the victim.
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice A. Badharudeen held that such a case cannot be settled before the filing of final report.
Case Title: Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v State Medical Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 819
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 19) reiterated that medical reimbursement cannot be denied because an insured underwent treatment in a hospital not approved by the insurer.
The petitioner sought reimbursement from the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI), since her husband had to undergo an emergency liver transplantation in a non ESIC hospital. And, his claim for reimbursement was not being processed even after submission of emergency certificate. Justice C S Dias ordered for reimbursement
Case Title: Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 820
The Kerala High Court while quashing the demand order stated that there has been no wrong availment of credit, and that the only mistake committed by the assessee was an inadvertent and technical one, where he had omitted to mention the IGST figures separately in Form GSTR 3B.
Case Title: M/s Fortune Service v. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 821
The Kerala High Court stated that orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts must carry the digital or manual signature of the officer passing the order in order to treat the order to be a valid order.
Case Title: N. Binoj v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 822
The Kerala High Court stated that notice issued against a dead person is invalid and participation of legal heirs of deceased in the proceedings won't make it legal.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction to the assessing authority for initiation of an action which is otherwise illegal and 'non-est'.”
Case Title: The Management Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another v The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 823
The Kerala High Court held that a bank cannot publish the photo and details of defaulting borrowers to coerce them to repay loan. Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that such acts invade a person's right to live with dignity and reputation.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 824
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 24) dismissed a petition by the mother of two girls–who were allegedly raped and killed in Walayar in 2017–against the Integrity Certificate issued by the State to Superintendent of Police MJ Sojan, which is a requirement for conferring an officer with IPS cadre.
Justice CS Dias observed that the State Government's home department had considered the matter in detail before issuing Integrity Certificate to Sojan.
Case Title: M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. v State of Kerala And Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 825
The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 27) held that the State can take over the Nedumbala estate and Elstone tea estates in Wayanad for rehabilitation purposes post the July 30 landslide, under the Disaster Management Act, 2015 (DM Act).
Justice Kauser Edappagath also said that the government shall determine the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners for taking over/acquiring the subject properties as per the provisions in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Chavakkad Service Cooperative Bank vs. ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 826
The Kerala High Court held that circumstances under which AO can absolve a taxpayer from payment of penalty u/s 271B are discernible from a reading of Sec 273B, which states that no penalty can be imposed on an assessee u/s 271B for breach of the provisions, if he proves that there was "reasonable cause" for the said failure.
The Division Bench of Justice Dr. A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice K V Jayakumar observed that no penalty shall be imposed on assessees u/s 271B, if no prejudice is caused to Revenue Department on account of any belated furnishing of audit report as per Sec 44AB.
Case Title: The Kerala State -Ex-Services League State Committee, Thiruvananthapuram v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Trivandrum
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 827
The Kerala High Court stated that services by charitable society who look after socio-economic and welfare matters of ex-serviceman and their families is liable to service tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “for an association like the assessee, the embarking on a transaction that is designed to earn income for its members, would have to be seen as a commercial venture and the assessee who embarks on such a venture, a 'commercial concern'.”
Longevity Of Service Cannot Be Sole Reason For Claiming Regularisation: Kerala HC
Case Title: S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 828
A single bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed petitions by Cochin Port Trust firemen seeking regularisation and pay parity with permanent firemen. The court observed that the firemen were engaged only as Leave Reserve Pool (LRP) workers and were not entitled to regularisation or equal pay. Relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the court ruled that regularisation requires strict adherence to judicial guidelines.