Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 209-213]M/S De-Fab V Priya Varma 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 209P.T. Sheejish v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 210State of Kerala v. Sanith Jan and State of Kerala v. Arun 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 211St. Mary's Orthodox Church & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 212Kerala Public Service Commission...
Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 209-213]
M/S De-Fab V Priya Varma 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
P.T. Sheejish v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
State of Kerala v. Sanith Jan and State of Kerala v. Arun 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
St. Mary's Orthodox Church & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Disability Commissioner & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Judgments/Order This Week
Case Title: M/S De-Fab V Priya Varma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not obligatory for the court to conduct a joint trial under Section 220 of the CrPC as it is the discretion of the court to allow a joint trial or not.
A single bench of Justice V G Arun was considering a matter pertaining to certain disputes that arose between partners of a firm. The Court had referred the parties to mediation and the matter was settled on the term that one of the partners (2nd Petitioner) would pay Rs. 2 Crores to the Respondent as full and final settlement in 32 instalments.
Case Title: P.T. Sheejish v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea by a lawyer seeking a direction to be issued to the Southern Railways for permitting a stop for the 'Vande Bharat Train Service' at Tirur Railway Station at Malappuram District.
It was alleged by the petitioner that despite Malappuram being a densely populated area, with a large number of people depending on train services for travel, a stop had not been allotted for the district. It was also averred that an earlier proposal to allot a stop at Tirur did not fructify, without any specific reason.
Dismissing the plea which alleged that the failure to allot a stop at Tirur Railway Station was an injustice to the people of Malappuram District, the Division Bench comprising Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that there was no public interest espoused in the present writ petition.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sanith Jan and State of Kerala v. Arun
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Kerala High Court recently elaborated upon the nature of security contemplated under Rule 391A of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter 'Rules, 1989') for the purposes of releasing a vehicle involved in an accident if it was not covered by a valid policy of insurance against third party risks at the time of the accident.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that,
"the word 'sufficient security' in Rule 391A of the Rules means a security from which the amount, when awarded, can easily be recovered, that too without any further litigation".
Elaborating on the same further, the single Judge added,
"Ideally, a cash deposit or a bank guarantee or fixed deposit receipts or other modes of security from which the amount when awarded, can easily be recovered, should be the nature of security to be furnished under Rule 391A. Executing a bond for the amount directed cannot, in the circumstances, be treated as sufficient security".
Case Title: St. Mary's Orthodox Church & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court has ordered adequate protection for vicars and parishioners of the Orthodox faction in a batch of petitions filed by them over hindrance caused by the Jacobite faction and their agents in the various kurisupallies under the respective Churches in performing the religious rites.
The Court was considering petitions filed by the Vicar and Parishioners of different Orthodox Churches - namely, the St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Mazhuvanoor; the St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Odakkali; the St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Poothrikka; the St. John’s Besphage Orthodox Church, Pulinthanam; St. Thomas Bethel Orthodox Church, Karikode; and the St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Attinkunnu, Kakkoor. It has passed separate orders in all the petitions.
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Disability Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Kerala High Court held that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities cannot make an adjudication on a service matter or direct appointment of a person to civil services of the Central Government or the State Government.
Justice N. Nagaresh perused Sections 80-83 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and observed that,
"A reading of Sections 80 to 83 would show that the State Disability Commissioner has power only to advise and make recommendations to appropriate authorities".
Additionally, the Court observed that pursuant to the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, all service matters pertaining to appointment to Central Government and State Government services are to be adjudicated by the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Act.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: Adv Anoop V.R V State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court Tuesday sought the response of the Centre and the Producers of the film 'Kerala Story' in a writ petition filed seeking a stay on its release.
A division bench comprising of Justice N. Nagaresh and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P has posted the matter for further consideration on 5th May.
The court noted the submission of the petitioner that the teaser had not gotten the permission of the CBFC. However, the court in its order stated that when the teaser of the film was released as early as 03.11.2022, the petitioner should have moved the court earlier and not right before its release date on 05.05.2023.
“We also note that at this stage, without viewing the movie, allegations need not be entertained just on the basis of the teaser," the court said in its 2nd May order.
Case Title: In Re: Bruno
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday cited lack of proper waste management as reason for increasing incidents of animals encroaching into human settlements. The Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. while considering the case pertaining to rogue elephant 'Arikomban' observed,
"Waste is piling up and this is attracting the animals. And you say that animals are encroaching into human settlements. We are not addressing the real issue here. Waste management is a big issue. Going by the report of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), there is absolutely no mechanism for waste collection and management. You create and they will encroach since they are attracted by the smell and the taste".
Case Title: Adv Anoop V.R V State of Kerala and other connected matters
The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to stay the release of the controversial film 'The Kerala Story', which hit theatres today.
However the Division Bench comprising Justice N. Nagaresh and Justice Sophy Thomas, recorded the submission of the producer that the teaser of the movie, which claimed that over 32,000 women from Kerala were recruited to ISIS, will be removed from their social media accounts.
Refusing to stay the release of the film the Court observed that the film only says it 'inspired by true events'. The bench also noted that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has certified the film for public viewing. The bench also watched the trailer of the film and opined that there was nothing offensive to any particular community in it. The bench also noted that none of the petitioners has watched the film and that the producers have added a disclaimer that the film is a fictionalised version of events.
Case Title: Adv Anoop V.R V State of Kerala and other connected matters
While refusing to stay the exhibition of "The Kerala Story" movie, the Kerala High Court on Friday granted liberty to two of the petitioners to pursue the complaint filed before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) against the controversial film.
The Division Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh and Justice Sophy Thomas, taking note that one of the petitioners represented by Advocate P.K. Ibrahim in WP(C) 15303/ 2023 had already filed a complaint invoking Rule 32 of The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,1983, before the Board, observed that,
"....the petitioner will be at liberty to prosecute said complaint".
Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, appearing for another petitioner named Anoop VR, also informed the bench that he has also filed a similar complaint. The bench said that he is also at liberty to prosecute the complaint.