Nominal IndexJiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 51Dr. George Thomas & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 52Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 53M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker)...
Nominal Index
Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
Dr. George Thomas & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
K. Jayarajan & Ors v. Sambasivan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
P.A. Noushad v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Dr. Jibin C.P & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
T.K.Sundaresan v. District Police Chief, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
Jyothsana A v Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Devarajan v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Abhijith v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Teena v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Mangala v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Manual v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Suo motu case 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
State of Kerala & Nowfal, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
Judgments This Month
14. Delay Fatal Only If Parties Attempt To Obtain Any Unfair Advantage : Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Court ruled that a delay in filing an application only becomes fatal if by allowing such application, the applicant obtains an unfair benefit or if any prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath while partly allowing a petition seeking to re-examine 7 witnesses and summon 9 additional witnesses observed that the delay in filing the application could be discounted since the prayer herein was only to produce the original documents which were already marked.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. pronounced the highly-anticipated verdict after two weeks of elaborate hearing. "Your apprehensions regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by conditions", the Court informed the Prosecution while dictating the order. It was also clarified that if these conditions were violated, the prosecution was entitled to apply for arrest.
16. For Abetment By Conspiracy, Mere Agreement Not Enough; Something Must Be Done: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
The Court while granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor Dileep and other accused reiterated the clear distinction between the offences of abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. Upon referring to several decisions on this issue, Justice Gopinath P. decided that while an illegal omission or act is necessary to constitute an offence of abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is sufficient to amount to criminal conspiracy.
17. Excommunication Illegal Under Wakf Act, Infringes Fundamental Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title : PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
In a notable judgment, the Court has held that ex-communication or externment, whether declared or undeclared, is illegal and impermissible under the Wakf Act. The Court further declared that any bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of the Wakf Property authorising ex-communication is also illegal as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice SV Bhatti and Justice A Badharudeen were deciding a civil revision petition challenging the orders of the Wakf Tribunal and the State Wakf Tribunal.
Case Title: V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Court held that the Secretary of a Municipality is empowered to issue notice and initiate suitable action if a building construction is found to be proceeding illegally within their jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while dealing with a set of appeals filed under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the license granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne for broadcast. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel) challenging the Union's decision. Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu case. The incident came to light after a Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi published a report on February 4 citing that such a practice was being followed at the temples as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'.
Case Title: Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Court has ruled that when an Indian citizen intends to solemnise their marriage with an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Cardholder, any declaration evidencing their single status would be sufficient to register their marriage in India if the concerned foreign embassy does not issue certificates to that effect due to prevailing laws. Justice N. Nagaresh also opined that this was deemed necessary since no one can be compelled to perform an unattainable task that hinders the registration of their marriage.
Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Court held that even if a statute does not provide for granting an opportunity of hearing to parties, principles of natural justice have to be read into the statute. While allowing a plea moved by a woman who was terminated from service without personal hearing, Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such a termination order was violative of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Court while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Court while dismissing a petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments on mainstream or social media about a judgment before reading it. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that the lawyers should act as the mouthpiece of the judiciary and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.
Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
The Court ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.
Case Title: Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
In a noteworthy judgment, the Court made several important observations on matrimonial cruelty and the scope of revival of condoned matrimonial offences. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking to reverse the order of a Family Court which rejected her plea for divorce finding that she had failed to prove any form of matrimonial cruelty allegedly meted out on her.
Case Title: Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Court ruled that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies are not permissible in law since it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that the impugned advertisement was only for one post and that the candidate who secured the first rank had already joined the post. Under such circumstances, the bank could not have appointed any further person by preparing a rank list.
Case Title: Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Court held that a teacher who administers a reasonable force on a pupil without any malicious intention to enforce discipline in a classroom should not be fastened with criminal liability. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath discharged a teacher against whom the trial court had framed charges, finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against her.
Case Title: Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Court has held that if one of the spouses is refusing to accord divorce on mutual consent despite being convinced of the fact that the marriage has failed, it is nothing but cruelty to the other spouse. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that once the court is able to form an opinion that due to incompatibility, the marriage failed and one of the spouses was withholding consent for mutual separation, it can very well treat that conduct itself as cruelty.
30. K-Rail Silverline Project | Kerala High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Staying Land Survey
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Court set aside an interim order issued by a Single Judge directing the State to defer steps for the survey taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project of the writ petitioners' properties until the matters are considered again in February. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly allowed a batch of appeals filed by the State noting that Social Impact Assessment cannot be seen as an empty formality and that the public is entitled to know the adverse impact and consequences they are likely to suffer.
Case Title: Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Court has directed the State Police and Enforcement Officials of the Motor Vehicles Department to initiate stringent measures against vehicle drivers/owners found disregarding the Road Safety Policy guidelines, particularly against those who overload their vehicles or use a government nameplate without the requisite authorisation. Justice Anil K Narendran issued certain directions to reinforce the strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy, Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations in the State as directed by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety.
Case Title: S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Court recently ruled that a government servant who was dismissed from service may not be denied special consideration for compassionate allowance merely for the reason that his wife and children are employed. While allowing a writ petition, Justice V.G. Arun found that although a government servant removed from service is not entitled to pension/ gratuity, the competent authority can sanction compassionate allowance in cases deserving special consideration.
33. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Be Followed By Trial Courts While Sentencing
Case Title: Devarajan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Court has recently issued a set of recommendations to be observed by trial courts while sentencing the accused in criminal matters. The guidelines were issued by a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while allowing a criminal appeal, thereby reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by a Sessions Judge on the appellant for murder.
Case Title: Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
The Court recently held that an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act includes the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A of the Act, and that it does not have to be necessarily be done by the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies himself. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha added that merely for the reason that an inquiry under Section 65 can be conducted by the Registrar directly, such a report under Section 65 cannot be placed in a better pedestal than an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer.
Case Title: Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate cannot return a complaint merely on the ground that it was filed by the wife of the complainant. Justice K. Haripal also emphasised that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone and that principle of locus standi does not apply in criminal jurisprudence.
36. Merely Keeping Tobacco Products At One's Residence Not An Offence: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abhijith v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Court has recently ruled that mere keeping of tobacco products at one's residence does not attract any offence per se. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed a petition filed by an accused who was charged for storing a collection of tobacco products at his residence, allegedly to sell to children. Since there is no prosecution case that the petitioner had given or caused to be given tobacco products to any minor child, charges under Section 77 of the JJ Act were also dropped.
Case Title: J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Court has recently laid down the instances when a co-owner can maintain a suit for injunction to protect his co-ownership right over a property. Justice A. Badharudeen was adjudicating upon a matter where one co-owner was attempting to construct a building in the co-ownership property during the pendency of the final decree proceedings before a trial court. The Court found that construction could not be permitted without the knowledge or consent of other co-owners and added that such construction may cause prejudice to the right of enjoyment of the other co-owners as they wish on separation of shares.
Case Title: Teena v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
'God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers', quoted the High Court while reversing the trial court's conviction of a woman who was accused of killing her 9-year-old son in an attempt to avenge her disturbed marital life. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that in such cases, there is often more than meets the eye, which sensitivity often the investigators lack. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and that the trial court had erred in the marshalling of facts and scrutiny of evidence.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Court recently expressed serious concerns regarding the non-availability of the adjudicatory mechanism of Debts Recovery Tribunal in the State for over ten months despite its efforts to kick start its functioning. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when the fundamental right to have access to justice is denied due to the absence of Presiding Officers of the forum created under a statute, the aggrieved are entitled to approach the High Court.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
The Court held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a nine-day-long 'Ramakatha' recital programme at Pamba area, encroaching upon the pilgrimage path to the Sabarimala temple.
Case Title: Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Court observed that Section 122 of the Evidence Act requires a revisit since it was a legal weapon used by criminals to suppress their crimes, thereby affecting public interest. The said provision recognises the age-old concept of marital confidence, where all communications between spouses during the wedlock are considered sacrosanct. While appreciating the sacrosanctity attached to communications between spouses as laid down by the English Commission of Common Law Procedure report in 1853, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that perhaps it was time to reconsider the stand in the light of modern times.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
While granting a decree of divorce to a couple, the Court recently ruled that a wife making secret phone calls to a man ignoring her husband's warning against the same amounts to matrimonial cruelty. Justice Kauser Edappagth in his judgment also observed that mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored.
43. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Operation Of Unauthorised Street Vendors In Kochi
Case Title: Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Court issued a comprehensive list of directions to ensure strict implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 within the limits of Kochi Corporation and to ensure that only authorised vendors carry on street vending activities therein. Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the directions in a batch of petitions pending before the Court since 2019 concerning the issue of regulation of street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Title: Mangala v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Court recently held that mere permission to work from home is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the employee is working. Justice Sunil Thomas answered the question of jurisdiction for legal claims of remote employees and ruled that merely because they are permitted to work from home and the employer was aware that the employee was within a different jurisdiction was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
45. Kerala High Court Quashes Consumer Forum Proceedings Against Subramanian Swamy
Case Title: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
The Court allowed the petition moved by BJP Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy to quash the non-bailable warrant issued by the Thrissur Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF) against him citing that he had not received any notice of these proceedings. The Court has also quashed the Execution Proceedings pending as against Swamy after accepting his submission that he has neither received any notice of the proceedings nor engaged any lawyer to represent him there.
Case Title: Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Court refused to interfere with the State government's proposal to alter the examination pattern for State Board exam students this academic year as opposed to the last one. In the proposed examination pattern, 70% of the questions will be from the focus area and the rest 30% from the non-focus area. In addition, there will be 50% choice questions for focus area and non-focus area. Justice Amit Rawal opined that such a question pattern and evaluation can identify the most eligible from the rest.
Case Title: Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
The Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. The issue has been gaining momentum in Kerala since this is the first time in the history of the State that a Vice-Chancellor was reappointed. Moreover, it is reported that he was reappointed into office hours after his send-off ceremony as the outgoing VC.
Case Title: Manual v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
In a noteworthy decision, the Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that this was so because vicarious liability in criminal law can only be fastened when a statute prescribes so.
Case Title: P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kerala Football Association since it was a private organisation and was not discharging public functions. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held so in a petition challenging a circular issued by the Association mandating a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with tax as eligibility criteria to participate in the State Championship League.
Case Title: K. Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Court ruled that what is expected from the competent authority while ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the basis of information gathered either on his own or received from other sources is that there shall be an independent and active application of mind as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha reiterated that the only requirement of law in the matter of ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) is that the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind.
Case Title: Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
The Court has ruled that an Interim Development Order (IDO) issued under Section 63 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 will prevail over the previous Master Plan of a city even if a new Master Plan has not been sanctioned yet. Justice T.R. Ravi ruled that although Section 36 says that the older Master Plan shall continue to be in operation until the new one is sanctioned, when an IDO has been issued, that shall take over the old Master Plan.
52. Claiming Adverse Possession After Encroachment Into Public Road Not Admissible: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Court has ruled that a petitioner claiming the right of adverse possession after encroaching into a public road cannot be treated as a usual plea of adverse possession. Holding so, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking title over property by adverse possession when the petitioners had failed to present a prima facie case in their favour.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
The Court extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the fluctuation in the Test Positivity Rate in the State. A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the validity of its previous order extending all interim orders till 21 February amid the Covid-19 surge in the State.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Nowfal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Court has recently ruled that when a victim of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act makes a request to video record the trial proceedings, a court cannot turn it down even if sexual offences are involved. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that Section 15A(10) of the Act which permits video-recording of all proceedings is in consonance with Section 327(2) of CrPC which provides for in-camera trial in cases involving sexual offences since both of them were enacted to protect the interests of the victim.
Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022
Other Developments
Dileep Case : Kerala High Court Directs Handing Over Of Surrendered Mobile Phones To JFCM Aluva
Murder Conspiracy | Kerala High Court To Pronounce Order On Dileep's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea On Monday
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court will pronounce its verdict on Monday, in the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. heard the prosecution and the accused at length on Friday before reserving its orders.
Monson Mavunkal Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Infamous fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal has approached the Court seeking bail in the case where a woman has accused him of sexually abusing her. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions in the matter and posted it on February 15. According to Mavunkal, the woman was anxious of being implicated as a co-accused in various financial crimes and this prompted her to turn against him.
[MediaOne Ban] Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Appeal
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
The Court reserved its orders in the appeal moved by Malayalam news channel MediaOne against the single judge order upholding the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the matter at length. The Court prima facie opined that from a bare reading of the provisions it seemed that revocation was a penalty.
Plea Against Lokayukta Ordinance: Kerala High Court Seeks State Response
Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala
The Court admitted a plea assailing the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act for allegedly diluting the judicial powers of the Lokayukta introduced by way of an ordinance and sought a response from the State government. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also passed an interim order declaring that any decision taken by the authority constituted by way of the impugned ordinance during the proceedings will be subject to the outcome of the petition.
Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the State to produce on record the letter penned by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan addressed to the Prime Minister apparently seeking permission to disburse amounts from the State Disaster Funds to families of those Indians, who died abroad of Covid-19. Justice N Nagaresh also directed the petitioner to implead the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority in their plea seeking a declaration that the family members of a non-resident of the State, who died abroad due to COVID-19, are entitled to ex-gratia relief of Rs. 50,000.
Case Title: Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association v. State of Kerala
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court alleging that the Kerala State Electricity Board is running on heavy loss due to its unjustified salary structure which is thereby causing the liability to be passed on to the consumers. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly admitted the PIL filed by Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association.
Actor Dileep Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Malayalam actor Dileep has approached the Court yet again, seeking to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for allegedly conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. The plea filed through Advocate Philip T. Varghese has accused the filing of the impugned FIR as a vindictive, ill-motivated, pre-determined and malafide act executed with oblique motives.
Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan along with the DGP has penned a letter to the Registrar General of Kerala High Court accusing a counsel of the Court of forging a case status. On the day the accused was arrested, his counsel approached the Station House Officer alleging that there was an interim order passed by the Court prohibiting coercive steps in the matter. It is alleged that upon enquiry through the Registry, it was confirmed that no such interim order had been issued by the High Court in the said bail application.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr
The plot thickens in the 2017 sexual assault case as developments ensued before the Court as the survivor in the case filed an impleading petition in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 case. Upon the actress seeking to be heard in the matter, Justice Kauser Edappagath adjourned the case to be called on February 21.
In a major setback for the legal fraternity in Kerala, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government has recently addressed a letter to the Chairman of Kerala Bar Council with a proposal to amend the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates in the State. Members of the State Bar Council and the Kerala High Court Advocates Association had declared an All Kerala Protest Day on 17th February to mark their protest against the proposed amendments by wearing protest badges while appearing before the court.
COVID-19 | Kerala High Court To Continue Virtual Hearings For One Month Or Till TPR Drops To 10%
Through a notice issued by the Registrar General, the Court has notified its decision to continue virtual hearing of cases amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. The notice further declared that the earlier arrangements of online hearing will continue for a month or until the Test Positivity Rate drops below 10 per cent, whichever is earlier. At present, the TPR in the State is over 15%.
Case Title: P. Balachandrakumar alias Balu v. State of Kerala
Malayalam film director Balachandrakumar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case where he has been accused of raping a woman in 2010 and recording the incident on his cellphone. The director has been charged under Section 376 (i) of IPC (sexual assault) and Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act (violation of privacy).
Case Title: Prathap P. v. State of Kerala
A plea has been moved in the Court seeking the inclusion of advocate clerks in the new regime of Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and digitalised procedures. Justice N. Nagaresh on Friday admitted the case. The petitioner, who is an advocate clerk himself, has alleged that the introduction of e-filing procedure in the Courts across the State has brought in an adverse impact on the fundamental rights of the clerks guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) g and 21 of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court Asks State To Put A Hold On Its Proposal To Amend Advocate Fee Rule
The Court has decided to request the State government hold off on its proposal to amend the Kerala Advocate Fee Rule till the Court's Rule Committee comes to a conclusion on the same. The intimation was made through a notice issued by the Registrar General of the High Court on Friday, which came as a huge relief to the lawyering community in the State. The notice stated that the Rule Committee had now fixed its meeting on 22 February to consider the matter after consultation with the representatives of the Bar.
Kerala High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From Monday, February 28
The Court has issued a notice communicating its decision to resume physical sitting from Monday, February 28, 2022. This comes days after it issued a notice announcing that virtual hearing of cases shall continue till mid-March amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. However, it was clarified that physical sitting will resume once the Test Positivity Rate in the State drops below 10%.
Case Title: Arun Raj P v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court lashed out at an advocate clerk for filing a second Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging violation of the order issued by Chairperson of State Disaster Management Authority imposing restrictions on political gatherings in the State. Calling it a 'cheap publicity stunt', a Division Bench of Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran pulled up the petitioner and warned him of dire consequences if this was repeated in future.
Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court stayed the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax asking the State Co-operative Bank to pay the outstanding amount for the financial year 2019-20 in a plea moved by the said Bank. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order considering that the matter relating to the collection of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interests by the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before the Court.
The Court impleaded two more parties to the suo motu matter where devotees were allegedly made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar allowed the impleading applications filed by an NGO and Akhila Kerala Thantri Mandalam and directed them to file their affidavits by the next posting date.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
The Court lashed out at the State government for its incapability to prevent unauthorised flag masts being erected at different parts of the State by political parties, despite its specific and repeated orders against the same. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that every flag post put up without the requisite permission is illegal and that influential people should not be allowed to get away with it.
Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has addressed a letter to the Registrar General complaining about the prevailing entry restrictions to the virtual hearings happening at the Chief Justice's court. It has been mentioned in the letter that the Association has been receiving several complaints from advocates, frequently encountering difficulties entering the Virtual Court proceedings of Court 1. This is the Court of Chief Justice S Manikumar, where he presides with Justice Shaji P Chaly.
Kerala Police Notice To Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai Evokes Protest By Lawyers
The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association conducted a protest meeting against the notice issued by the Crime Branch to Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai at the portico of the Court. This comes after the Crime Branch issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC (requiring attendance of witness) to the senior advocate notifying him to be prepared to give a statement in a crime related to witness tampering in the 2017 actor sexual assault case.
Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocate's Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court Advocate's Association (KHCAA) has moved the High Court seeking the repatriation of students from Kerala stuck in Ukraine amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Justice N. Nagaresh permitted the petitioners to pass on whatever information they have regarding the students to the Assistant Solicitor General to do whatever possible to facilitate their expeditious repatriation.