Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72-87]Venugopal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72 Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73 Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74 XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75 Arifa TK...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72-87]
Venugopal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
Jollyamma v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Litty Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
Shine Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Nikson v. Samkutty, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
Sarojam L v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Jose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case title: Venugopal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court stated that the law does not insist that separate sureties have to be produced for different cases to obtain bail.
The petitioner who is an accused in as many as 1726 crimes before different police stations in different districts of Kerala has approached the Court since he was unable to produce different sureties for bail. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases would make the concept of bail illusionary.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the law does prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases if such surety was solvent and inspires the confidence of the Court since the purpose of sureties was only to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.
Case Title: Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Kerala High Court has allowed the refund of additional fees paid towards the Legal Aid Benefit fund under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1949.
It said: Section 69A covers the additional court fee levied under Section 76(1) of the Act. If such refund is to be refused for the purpose of constitution of the fund, then, every other court fee levied also has a purpose, wherefore refund becomes impossible in respect of the same as well, which logic defies the mandate of Section 69A and renders it otiose. The nature and character of the additional fee levied, though for constituting the legal benefit fund, is nothing, but that of a court-fee.
A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran heard the matter.
Case Title: Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
The Kerala High Court has held that KITCO (Kerala Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation) qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that large majority of shares of the company are held by instrumentalities of the Central Government. Even the State government has a "decisive representation" in the Board, it noted.
"It is clear from a reading of the Articles of Association and the documents produced in the writ petition and in this writ appeal that the State and Central Governments themselves specifically consider the 1st respondent [KITCO] as a Central Government company. It is also discernible that the accounts of the 1st respondent are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India treating it as a deemed Government company. It is recognised as an accredited Government agency for the purpose of public works in the State," the bench added.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
The Kerala High Court allowed a bail petition filed by a drawing teacher accused of assaulting six of his students, stating it is doubtful that the incident took place on the same day.
In allowing the petition, Justice Sophy Thomas stated that “it is true that there is a delay of six days in making the complaint by the victim girls. Moreover, the allegation that on the same day, the petitioner sexually assaulted six girl students of the same class also seems doubtful. The petitioner is in judicial custody from December 20, 2023 and the investigation has progressed substantially. So this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail”.
Case Title: Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition arguing for employment assistance by a married daughter on account of her husband losing his job.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that “dependency is a de facto situation, rather than be a de jure doctrine. As such, the appellant had no dependency on her father, since her husband was earning well, it is rather untenable to imagine that her dependency on her father stood 'restored' on her husband allegedly losing his job abroad.”
Case Title: Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Kerala High Court dismissed a pre-arrest bail application by the second accused in the health department job fraud case, referring to their criminal antecedents in its order.
A single judge bench of Justice CS Dias stated that “particularly taking note of the financial transaction between the victim and the petitioner, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the first accused, that the investigation of the case is only at its preliminary stage, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail”.
Case title: Jollyamma v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Kerala High Court today for the second time dismissed the bail applications filed by Jolly Joseph, the first accused in the infamous Koodathayi murders.
Justice C S Dias stated that if the allegations raised against Jolly were true, then she had committed pre-mediated, gruesome, cold-blooded murders without any contrition. It further stated that there were intelligence reports regarding public outrage and potential revolt against Jolly for committing familicide and her release would have a deleterious impact on society.
Case Title: Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the process for securing presence of an accused, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI. is mandatory and an exception from the approach, where accused has not cooperated in the investigation, is available only after the Magistrate ascertains the factum of accused's absence independently.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the SC directions cannot be avoided by a mere statement in the final report that the accused had not co-operated with the investigation or had absconded.
"Even in such cases, the Magistrates are bestowed with the duty to ascertain whether the accused had intentionally kept himself aloof from the proceedings," the bench added.
Case title: Litty Thomas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that before proceeding to frame charges against the accused, the judge has to form an opinion that there was grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offences alleged against him. It stated that if there were no sufficient grounds, then the judge shall discharge the accused by recording specific reasons for discharge as per Section 227 CrPC. Further, it stated that if the Court was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds, then the judge shall frame charges against the accused under Section 228 CrPC.
Case Title: Shine Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Kerala High Court has allowed an appeal where the accused had taken a plea of insanity as a defence in the case of the murder of his parents.
A division judge bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John allowed the appeal, stating that the “prosecution has not established the motive of the accused to cause the death of his parents. Similarly, the accused has not made any attempt to run away from the scene after causing the death of his parents”.
Case Title: Nikson v. Samkutty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea on a land dispute matter on the premise that the petitioner was yet to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order.
The court added that the parties can seek an order under Article 227 of the Constitution, directing the Execution Court to issue a certified copy of the impugned order and grant an order of injunction in their favour to enable the tenant to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
While allowing a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recently observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'.
NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case title: Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The Kerala High Court has held that though the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a substitute to the remedy of bail under Section 438 or 439 of CrPC, the same may be invoked in exceptional cases for securing liberty.
Justice K Babu observed, “While seeking a relief of bail in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has to exercise its power conscious of the fact that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and in exceptional cases like this a party can seek relief to secure his liberty in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a 59-year-old lady who was alleged to be the close accomplice of the prime accused in the BSNL Co-Operative Society scam.
Justice C.S. Dias was of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail considering that the investigation is in progress and that her custodial interrogation is necessary.
Case title: Sarojam L v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Kerala High Court has taken a humanitarian stand and permitted an 85-year-old abandoned woman to construct a residential house on her only property of waterlogged land.
“Can this Court dismiss such an application stating that the reclamation of a small bit of land out of the 81 cents of land owned by the petitioner will adversely affect the ecological condition and cultivation in the adjoining paddy land?”, it asked while allowing the plea.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that the Constitutional Court has to step in to fulfil the dream of an 85-year-old lady, to make her believe that she was not an orphan and that the Court and every citizen were with her.
Case Title: Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
The Kerala High Court acquitted a husband who was accused of abetting his wife's suicide and stated that mens rea was an essential ingredient for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. On the other hand, while upholding his conviction for cruelty, it stated that proof of cruelty for sustaining a conviction under Section 498A IPC would depend upon the conduct which was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.
The appellant who was convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Justice P G Atjithkumar set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC on finding that the prosecution was unable to establish mens rea required for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide. While upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC, the Court stated that the wife committed suicide unbearable of the acts of the husband, amounting to cruelty.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case title: N Prakash v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 3171/ 2024
A Public Interest Litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court for the prohibition of campus politics in colleges across the state. It seeks direction from the Court that student organizations have no right to carry out political activities or to set up student unions within college premises.
The plea has been moved in the wake of the untoward student union clash between the students belonging to the Student Federation of India (SFI) and Kerala Students Union (KSU) in the Maharajas College, Ernakulam. Allegedly, a murder attempt had taken place inside the college against a student belonging to the SFI. The College was shut down and many students were suspended pending disciplinary proceedings.
Case title: Kerala Voluntary Health Services v Union Of India
Case number: WP(C) 3252/ 2024
"Do you really think people start smoking by seeing it on the screen," the Kerala High Court orally remarked today while hearing a plea against display of tobacco smoking scenes in films and tele-serials.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said smoking is induced more from peer pressure. "It is when your friends start smoking...Smoking is injurious to health, drinking is injurious to health, you cannot expect the whole screen to be shown like this. What about the International movies or movies in other parts of the Country...they are also shown on the OTT platforms", he added.
Case title: Kerala High Court Advocates' Association v State Of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 3543/2024
The Kerala High Court Advocates Association(KHCAA), Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy (President, KHCAA) and Advocate Anoop V Nair (Secretary, KHCAA) have approached the Kerala High Court aggrieved by police brutality and registration of false FIRs against Advocates on frivolous reasons.
The reliefs sought in the plea are for the issuance of guidelines to be followed while registering cases against Advocates, guidelines to be followed by police officers while interacting with Advocates and a fast-track adjudication of complaints against police officers who misbehaved with Advocates.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice to the respondents. The Court orally remarked that an isolated incident cannot be taken and generalized.
Dr Vandana Das Murder Case: Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Plea For CBI Probe
Case title: K. G. Mohandas v Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)
Case number: WP(Crl.) 641/ 2023
The Kerala High Court today reserved its order on the plea moved by parents of Dr Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon who was stabbed to death by an injured man brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police, seeking transfer of probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The young house surgeon was stabbed sixteen times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas heard the arguments and reserved order.
Case title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter
Case number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023 and WP(C) NO. 33322 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court enquired about the possibility of having a separate portal operated and monitored by a separate unit where people or producers can upload information about malicious review bombings. It stated that the issue now was that a criminal complaint or cyber complaint had to be filed against malicious review bombing.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated thus, “Learned Amicus Curiae Shyam Padman has submitted that has been placed on record by the State Police Chief and suggest whether any fine tuning is required including the creation of a 'dedicated portal' for the producers and the members of the general public to upload information of malicious and blackmailing review bombing.”
Case Title: Biju VR v. Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 2199/2024
The Kerala High Court has asked the Central government whether the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has powers to change the name of a film if it is found to be stigmatic or likely to create law and order issues.
The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a plea concerning Dileep-starrer 'Thankamani' which is apparently based on a real-life incident that occurred in Thankamany village in Idukki district, in October 1986.
The Kerala High Court has introduced a continuous page numbering feature for case documents in the e-filing portal for the purposes of simplifying the process of referencing and navigating through case documents in Courts.
Kerala High Court Introduces Continuous Page Numbering Feature For Easy Reference Of Court Documents
Continuous page numbering feature has thus been resolved to be adopted by the Kerala High Court in a bid to ensure that all subsequent petitions and documents filed in the case file have continuous page numbers and to enable Advocates before appearing in Court to update page numbers in their physical copy of case bundle, in accordance with the 'View Case Bundle' in 'My Case' tab in the Advocate Dashboard in the e-filing portal.
Case title: Sindhu Radhakrishnan Nair v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) NO. 3383 OF 2024 (W)
The Kerala High Court has given an interim stay against the inspection note issued to the owner of an LPG distributorship on the finding that his gas agency would not qualify as a 'motor transport undertaking' and thus the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 will not be attracted.
The inspection note was issued by the Assistant Labour Officer alleging that the gas agency was not registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V stayed the inspection note issued to the petitioner after observing that a case has been made out for interim relief.
Police Officers Accountable To People, Bad Behaviour Will Not Be Countenanced Or Tolerated: Kerala High Court
Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant & Connected Matters
Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021 & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court has today made it clear that the police officers were accountable to the people, and their bad behaviour will not be countenanced or tolerated.
The Court was also informed by the State Police Chief Shaik Darvesh Saheb who appeared online that an additional circular (Circular. 2/2024/PHQ dated 30.01.2024) was issued for ensuring appropriate behaviour from police officers towards the citizens and for preventing usage of abusive vocatives against citizens.
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Thomas Issac v Deputy Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024 & WPC 3719/2024
The Kerala High Court today considered a petition filed by former Finance Minister Thomas Issac challenging the second summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the financial transactions of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) in relation to the masala bonds case.
Kerala HC Seeks State's Response In Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of S.219AD(5) Of Panchayat Raj Act Enacted Through 2023 Ordinance
Case Title: Unnikrishnan & Anr. v. Chief Secretary & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 219AD(5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994'), which had been enacted by an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor on December 7, 2023.
When the matter was taken up on Monday, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen sought the response of the respondent State authorities and posted the same for further consideration at a later date.