Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 398-417] Sajith N.K. v. Jishabai Puthukudi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 398Mattanur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v The Co-operative Arbitration Court 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 399Adv. Hasna Mol N.S. v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 400Managing Director, KSRTC & Anr. v. S.A. Suneesh Kumar & Ors....
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 398-417]
Sajith N.K. v. Jishabai Puthukudi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
Mattanur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v The Co-operative Arbitration Court 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Adv. Hasna Mol N.S. v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
Managing Director, KSRTC & Anr. v. S.A. Suneesh Kumar & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
Pauly v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Ciby George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Gopi v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Lijeesh M.J. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
M A Mohanan Nair v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Prameela L. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Usha Kumari v Santha Kumari 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
B.K. Shyamala Kumari v. Ragi Rajendran & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
X v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Minimol v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
Saiby Jose Kidangoor v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
Jagankumar K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Nandakumar N v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
Faziludeen v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
Rejis Thomas @Vayalar V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Sajith N.K. v. Jishabai Puthukudi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court recently considered the question as to whether an aggrieved party can file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate in relation to offence of perjury (enumerated in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.) and answered the same in the negative.
Thus in this case where the aggrieved party approached the Magistrate Court with a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, instead of approaching the Family Court where the false evidence had been given, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath, observed,
"A party who is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the court, where offences enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was committed, in initiating action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. ('Perjury') can only move to such court with an application under Section 340(1). He cannot directly move the jurisdictional Magistrate Court with a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C".
Case title: Mattanur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v The Co-operative Arbitration Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court overruled the decision of the division bench in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese (2020), which dealt with the interpretation of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) Rules.
A Full Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas, Justice C Jayachandran and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen thus revised the interpretation of Rule 198 and held that appointing authority is not the sole and exclusive authority for framing and issuing memo of charges to the delinquent employees.
“...it is to be held that the view taken by the Division Bench in Kodanchery's case supra [2020 (4) KLT 129], as if the appointing authority (Managing Committee) is the sole and exclusive authority for framing and issuing memo of charges to the delinquent employees, covered by Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, does not reflect the correct legal position.”
Case Title: Adv. Hasna Mol N.S. v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court dismissed the plea by a candidate who sought to be appointed to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, and had also been issued a Hall-Ticket by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) aspirant but was denied the opportunity to take the examination at the examination hall on the ground of her original application being defective.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that since the petitioner herself had conceded that her application did not contain her name or the date on which it was taken, it was thus legally defective.
"The said application, therefore, is legally defective and could never have been acted upon by the PSC; and hence merely because the petitioner was issued a Hall Ticket based on the same by the PSC, being unaware of the said defect, it would not obtain to her any right to write the examination," the Court observed.
Case Title: Managing Director, KSRTC & Anr. v. S.A. Suneesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the Single Judge decision directing KSRTC to deposit both the employees' and employer's contributions to the National Pension Scheme (NPS), and the contributions to State Life Insurance Policy and Group Insurance Accounts within six months.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran found no infirmity in the decision of the Single Judge and upheld the same.
“The primary aspect which weigh with us, is the fact that the appellant-Corporation had effected deduction from the salary of the employees' towards their contribution to the National Pension Scheme, the non-remittance of which could not be justified on any legal premise. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, once such deductions are effected, the Corporation is statutorily bound to remit the same to the Contributory Pension Scheme. Non-remittance of the said funds, after effecting the deduction, could obviously indicate diversion of the same for some other purposes of the Corporation, which action can hardly be justified. The Corporation inheres no right to meet its financial obligation by utilizing the employees' contribution to the National Pension Scheme,” the Bench observed.
Case title: Pauly v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court that reliance on the identification testimony without conducting a test identification parade was fatal if the witnesses were not familiar with the accused at the time of occurrence.
Justice A Badharudeen added that when the witness is not familiar with the accused, a test identification parade corroborates the testimony of the witnesses.
“It is true that if a witness, who doesn't know the accused at the time of occurrence, had an occasion to see the accused, not as a fleeting glance so as to imprint his face and body structures on his mind with certainly and thereafter identifies the accused at the dock, there is no reason to hold that his testimony in the matter of identification could not be relied on for want of corroboration, by way of test identification parade. But the situation is different when the witness identifies the accused, who is not familiar to him, at the dock and he did not give statement before the police regarding the identity of the accused and the manner in which such identification was imprinted in his mind with certainty, in such cases corroboration by test identification parade should have been resorted to and in such cases, non conduct of test identification parade (TIP) is fatal.”
Case Title: Ciby George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a resident of an apartment developed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) challenging land occupation by the Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) observing that the plea had potential adverse effects on public interest.
Justice Gopinath P acknowledged that while it is not disputed that KMRL's occupation of private land without due acquisition process is unlawful, granting relief under Article 226 is discretionary in writs of certiorari and mandamus.
"That KMRL could not have occupied any land belonging to private parties (here, the AWHO / Apartment Owners) without subjecting the said land to a process of acquisition is not in dispute. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, the said finding does not mean that this Court must grant relief to the petitioner since the grant of relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and even if the applicant for a writ has made out a case for grant of the relief sought it can be withheld."
Case Title: Gopi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court recently emphasised the objective nature of determining the legal distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, unrelated to the offender's intention.
A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha added that neglecting the difference between the two can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
"It is trite that if the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is overlooked, it would result in miscarriage of justice."
Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal moved by Malayalam Cine Director Lijeesh M.J. against the Single Judge's dismissal of his plea seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022.
The Director of the Malayalam Movie, 'Aakaashathinu Thaazhe', Lijeesh, had filed the plea alleging that the declaration of the Awards was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism exercised by Ranjith, the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.
Dismissing the plea as 'frivolous', the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan had, on August 11, 2023, observed that the petitioner lacked evidence to prove their allegations of nepotism and bias, and added that the petition need not be entertained based on the hearsay evidence stated by the petitioner.
"...the allegation of bias and nepotism attributed against the 3rd respondent who is the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy are too vague and not specific. No supporting evidence is produced by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition need not be entertained. This is a writ petition filed based on hearsay evidence without any supporting material," the Court had stated while dismissing the plea.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun, while considering the appeal, observed the same to be devoid of merit and that the Single Judge had not committed any error in dismissing the plea.
Case Title: M A Mohanan Nair v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court stated that time bound disposal of anticipatory bail applications is significant for completion of effective investigation.
Justice A Badharudeen directed the Registrar (Judicial) to ensure posting of anticipatory bail applications where ‘not to arrest’ interim orders were passed before appropriate benches for its timely disposal.
The direction was made after the Court noted hundreds of cases, in which after filing anticipatory bail applications and on getting interim protection ‘not to arrest’ the bail applicants avoided arrest in many cases where very serious offences are alleged to be committed by them. It observed,
"It is disgust to note that in view of the interim order passed by this court ‘not to arrest’, the hands of the Investigating Officer have been chained and therefore, proper investigation of serious crimes, where custodial interrogation, recording of statement of the accused, recovery of weapon-facts, at their instance were curtailed and in such a way the possibility of conviction in serious crimes has been given a go-bye as a result of ineffective investigation."
Case Title: Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court has remitted the issue of the classification of Dr.Reddy’s Senquel-AD as a mouthwash or a medicament for fresh consideration.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. has directed the authority to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v/s CIENS Laboratories, in which it was held that if a product's primary function is "care" and not "cure," it is not a medicament. Cosmetic products are used to enhance or improve a person's appearance or beauty, whereas medicinal products are used to treat or cure some medical conditions. A product that is used mainly for curing or treating ailments or diseases and contains curative ingredients, even in small quantities, is to be branded as a medicament.
Case Title: Prameela L. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a Single Judge's finding that a Legal Heirship Certificate cannot be issued in favour of a person in the absence of a valid legal adoption and documents evidencing the adoption, so as to enable them to claim compassionate appointment upon the death of the alleged adoptive parent.
A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that the lack of any evidence supporting the adoption on record justifies denying the requested relief, upholding the Single Judge's order.
"In the absence of a valid and legal adoption, and in any case, in the absence of documents evidencing the factum of adoption, albeit not in terms of law, we cannot find fault with the respondent authorities in not issuing a Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the petitioner. More than the absence of a legal document evidencing a legal adoption, what weigh with us to refuse the relief sought for is the complete dearth of evidence suggesting an inference as to the factum of adoption from the materials on record."
Case title: Usha Kumari v Santha Kumari
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
The Kerala High Court has recently held that pleadings of parties filed in a court partake the nature of a public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Justice Sathish Ninan clarified that private party pleadings, upon submission to the Court, transform into public records due to Court custody and association with a public office, falling within the purview of Section 74 (2).
“Though pleadings of a party are private in character, once filed in Court, the Court is to retain custody of the same. Therefore, it becomes a record maintained by the Court which is a public office. Records held by a public office partake the character of public records. Therefore pleadings, which are private documents, once filed in Court, form part of public records kept in the Court, thus attracting clause 2 of Section 74 of the Act.”
Case Title: B.K. Shyamala Kumari v. Ragi Rajendran & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court has held that although it possesses the authority to ensure that lower courts and tribunals adhere to their prescribed jurisdiction and functions in accordance with the law, this power granted under Article 227 of the Constitution does not grant the High Court the right to intervene in the proceedings of other courts or tribunals merely based on the request of parties to prioritise their case over previously pending matters.
Justice C.S. Dias relied on Shiju Joy.A v. Nisha (2021) and Prema Joy v. John Britto [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235] to add that ‘out-of-turn’ hearings can cause injustice to other litigants and disrupt the order of cases already listed for trial.
"Deviation from the seniority, on the basis of the date of filing, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases and for genuine reasons. Merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage," the Bench reiterated.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court held that the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) is empowered to grant compensation to victims under the amended Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme without a court recommendation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath added that the amended scheme however did not extend this benefit to minor victims under the POCSO Act, who still require Special Court recommendation to seek compensation.
"Even though till 20/2/2021, DLSA/KeLSA did not have the jurisdiction to grant compensation to the victim suo moto or on application made by or on behalf of the victim except for the claim under sub-section (4) of Section 357A of Cr.P.C., after the introduction of Chapter II in the Scheme, the compensation, interim as well as final, as the case may be, can be awarded by the DLSA/KeLSA either suo moto or on application by the victim or the jurisdictional Station House Officer in respect of the offences covered by the said Chapter...the minor victims under POCSO Act cannot file an application directly to the DLSA/KeLSA seeking compensation. They can claim compensation only on the recommendation or direction from the Special Court."
Case Title: Minimol v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the proceedings against a woman accused of traveling abroad in violation of the provisions of the Indian Passport Act, 1962.
The petitioner was alleged to have furnished false documents to procure the passport, and crime had thus been registered against her in the year 2014. Thereafter, pursuant to her application, she was granted permission to travel abroad for a period of five years by the Magistrate in 2021.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, observed that the police had not been able to collect the materials linking the petitioner with the crime, despite the passage of a decade.
"The petitioner's rights to travel abroad are being impeded by the pendency of the crime. She is a mother of two children and her contention is that the pendency of the UN report is impeding her ability to secure better employment as the reference to the crime in the order passed by the learned Magistrate deters her prospective employers from accommodating her in a better job", the Court noted.
Case Title: Saiby Jose Kidangoor v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings against Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, former President of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association, accused of collecting Rs. 5 Lakh from a client's husband for settling the matrimonial dispute between the parties.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. observed that the complainant had filed the complaint in a highly belated manner, and had waited 10 years to file the complaint against the petitioner.
"The complainant cannot plead ignorance to the fact that the petitioner was not representing his wife since 2014. If that be the case, nothing stood in the way of the complainant approaching the police or the court to seek a refund of a sum of Rs 5 lakhs, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a merger amount. It is difficult to believe that the complainant did not attempt to move even his little finger to try and get back the amount. The 10-year wait and lack of clarity in the complainant's stance clearly reveal that the objective of the complainant is something else," the Court noted.
Case Title: Jagankumar K. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that when a student appears for both regular as well as supplementary examinations for 11th and 12th grades, the best marks obtained by the student in both the examinations ought to be considered.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Basant Balaji relied upon the Apex Court decision in Sukriti & Ors. v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. (2022), in passing the Order.
In the said decision, the Apex Court had struck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which stipulated that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams for the last academic year, and proceeded to direct the CBSE to provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results.
Case title: Nandakumar N v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court recently held that there must be strict implementation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act, as majority of such cases coming before it involve young persons, adversely impacting the potential growth of the country.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A pointed that stringent conditions are stipulated by the legislature for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It observed that even for Section 302 of the IPC where death penalty is prescribed as the maximum punishment, no conditions as contained in section 37 of the NDPS Act is stipulated for grant of bail. The Court held that bail is not easily given for offences involving NDPS Act for preventing drug consumption and drug trafficking in the society, which is a menace to the society and is now spreading like an infectious disease.
The bench reasoned,
“This is evidently because of the huge impact of drug abuse and drug trafficking on Society as a whole, as the said impact is not confined to any individual or individuals or his/their family. It is something affecting the society as a whole, by corrupting the minds of the young generation. The consumption of drugs, trafficking thereof and their ill effects are like a contagious disease eating up the youth of the country, thereby causing severe adverse impacts on the potential of the country as such. There is a rampant increase in drug trafficking cases nowadays, and not a single day passes without reports of the detection of drug trafficking cases.”
Case Title: Faziludeen v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that a request for withdrawal of an application for voluntary retirement that is made within five days of submitting such application, as enabled by Rule 48-A(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, cannot be refused on any premise.
Rule 48-A (4) precludes withdrawal of a notice seeking voluntary retirement except with the specific approval of the appointing authority, provided that such request for withdrawal is made before the intended date of his retirement.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that although the petitioner-applicant had sought for waiver of the notice period of three months while submitting his request for voluntary retirement at the first instance, it was axiomatic that the respondent authorities had acted with undue haste, without arriving at a proper satisfaction required as per statute, to waive the notice period.
The Court added that the very purpose behind affording a notice period in the statute itself is to enable the applicant to take a well considered decision about his career and reiterate his decision to take voluntary retirement, so that the same is not actuated by any extraneous feelings or emotions, at the spur of a moment.
"That precisely should be the reason for an enabling provision to withdraw a request for voluntary retirement, before the retirement is to take effect in accord with the statute. In the given facts, we are not in the least hesitant to observe that the purpose of notice period is frustrated. We are of the view that the respondents, being representatives of an entity under the Union Government, ought to have acted with all fairness, as a model employer, guided not merely by the letter of the Rules but by its spirit as well, with a topping of compassion and humane considerations, wherever it deserves," the Court observed in this regard.
Case title: Rejis Thomas @Vayalar V State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court held that every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. Court added that mere lack of motive will not bring a case within the ambit of Section 84 of the IPC to take general exception of unsoundness of mind.
A Division bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha held that intent and act must concur for constituting a crime, but in the case of insane persons, no culpability can be fastened on them as they have no free will. Court added that the benefit of unsoundness of mind is available only if it is proved that during the commission of the offence, the accused due to defect of reason and disease of the mind was unable know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was contrary to law.
It observed thus:
“It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to comprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of a plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section.”
Other Significant Developmets This Week
Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 3273 of 2022
The Kerala High Court appreciated the efforts taken by Kerala State Legal Services Authority, State Government and the SCERT in taking various steps to create awareness about sexual offences amongst school going children.
The Kerala High Court was considering a bail application when Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted the increasingly high rate of sexual offences against children, especially amongst teenagers. The Court took note of the fact that school going and teenage students often get into consensual sexual relations with each other, unaware of the severe consequences under the POCSO Act. The Court noted that this is because the children do not have any awareness about the legal provisions under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.A. 1446/ 2023
Malayalam Cine Director Lijeesh M.J. has moved an appeal in the Kerala High Court against the Single Judge's dismissal of his plea seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022.
The Director of the Malayalam Movie, 'Aakaashathinu Thaazhe', Lijeesh, had filed the plea alleging that the declaration of the Awards was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism exercised by Ranjith, the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.
Case Title: Jeko Antony v Galaxy Homes Private Limited
Case Number: CC/21/419
Recently, the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising of D B Binu (President), Ramachandran V (Member) and Sreevidhia T N (Member) ordered a compensation of rupees fifty thousand along with a refund of rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand at an interest rate of 9.5 per cent to a flat buyer aggrieved by lack of a valid building permit.
The Commission held that the flat construction company were liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It held thus:
“The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: Crl.MC 6578 of 2023
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court against the grant of anticipatory bail to a 57 years old man accused of sexually assaulting a minor aged 7 years. The plea has been moved by the mother of the minor victim.
The accused was alleged to have committed the offence in May, 2022. The petitioner averred that in spite of informing the police on the very next day of the incident, the FIR was not registered. The petitioner claims that it was only pursuant to the repeated enquiry from the side of the victim's family that the FIR was registered on July 21, 2023.
Kerala High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Santiago Martin's Appeal Against ED Attachments
Case Title: Santiago Martin & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WA 1450/2023
'Lottery king' Santiago Martin has moved the Kerala High Court with an appeal challenging the Single Judge's dismissal of his plea against ED's attachment orders freezing his and his company's movable assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
When the matter was taken up on Thursday, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun directed the Central Government to file its reply to the appeal.
The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has recommended the appointment of Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court, Justice C.S. Sudha, as a permanent judge.
The Collegium has consulted with Judges of the Supreme Court who were conversant with the functioning of the High Court of Kerala. Based on evaluation, the Collegium noted:
“With a view to assess the merit and suitability of Smt Justice C S Sudha for appointment as permanent Judge, we have scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record. Having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter, the Collegium is of the view that Smt Justice C S Sudha, Additional Judge, is fit and suitable for being appointed as permanent Judge.”
Case Title: Salim P.M. v. State Bank of India
Case Number: C.C. No. 413/ 2019
The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to return an amount of Rs. 85,000/- to a customer from whose account certain money was fraudulently withdrawn.
The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and the two Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. observed that banks owe a duty of care to protect the interests of its customers.
"It is impossible to define exhaustively the duties of care owed by a bank to its customer. It depends on the nature of service extended by the bank to its customers. But one thing is oetain that where a bank is providing service to its customer, it owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the interests of the customer. Needless to say that a bank owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorised withdrawals from their accounts. As a corollary, there is no difficulty in holding that if a customer suffers loss on account of the transactions not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the said loss," the Bench said.