Nominal IndexMadhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors,...
Nominal Index
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
xxx v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
YYY v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Sabeena E.K v. District Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Ukkash A .v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Suo motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
Judgments This Month
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
The Court dismissed 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 on national security grounds. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting refusing to renew the broadcast license granted to MediaOne.
Also Read: 'Clear, Significant Indications Impacting Public Order & Security' : Kerala High Court While Upholding Telecast Ban On MediaOne
Case Title: C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
The Court recently held that it cannot entertain a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). As such, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate court as per law. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
The Court recently asked an Assistant Passport Officer in Kottayam to shell out litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 25,000 from his own salary for objecting to re-issue passport to a single parent's daughter. In his order, Justice Amit Rawal has also called it a classic case of highhandedness by the Assistant Passport Officer objecting to re-issue the passport of children of a single parent facing a matrimonial discord and directing them to approach the court and obtain the court order.
4. 'Medical Services' Fall Within Ambit Of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
In a significant decision, the Court has ruled that medical services fall within the purview of the term 'service' defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Observing so, Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a plea filed by a group of doctors who prayed to declare that the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service.
Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
The Court has recently ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, one party cannot forfeit the security deposit towards risk liability when they have not suffered any loss or damage. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that it was settled that when the question is one of forfeiture of the security deposit in case of breach of contract, such sum does not ipso facto go to the respondents.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
The Court has recently held that the State Government is justified in notifying all Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats in the State of Kerala under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby refused to interfere with a State notification in that regard and accordingly dismissed an appeal.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
In a judgment that runs beyond 120 pages, the Court has issued a set of directions to ensure road safety and adherence with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the wake of the rising number of accidents reported concerning Sabarimala pilgrims travelling in buses and other contract carriages. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar discovered that despite several guidelines in place, vehicles were being permitted to run on public roads disregarding road safety standards, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of passengers and other road users.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
The Court quashed the proceedings against two nuns for allegedly disclosing the identity of a rape survivor by sharing her photo with the media. The nuns had shared a photograph of the rape survivor along with a few priests via email to three media personnel, however, the name or identity of the survivor was not published in the reports. Moreover, the email contained specific instructions to the recipients to not publish the photograph.
9. Proof Of Will : Onus Is On The Propounder To Remove Suspicious Circumstances : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
The Court has recently ruled that if there exist suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, it is the onus of the propounder to remove all those reasonable doubts in the matter and the test to be applied in this connection is the satisfaction of judicial conscience.Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S Sudha observed that suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the testator's signature or that the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time when the will was made or that the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them.
Case Title: Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Court has quashed the income tax assessment order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Managing Director who was imprisoned in UAE. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients, firstly opportunity to show cause and of being heard should be given, it must be a real opportunity and not an unreal one, the right to a fair hearing is essential and secondly, the orders passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing a proper application of mind.
Case Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.
12. Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.
Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.
Case Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
16. Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Court ruled that the question of maintainability of a writ petition can be raised by the respondents years after its admission and even if an interim relief has been granted on the plea. However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that a high court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should ensure that its decision is equitable to both the parties involved. The Court also suggested some of the relevant factors for high courts to exercise their discretionary power when a petition is admitted, despite there being an alternative remedy available
17. Kerala High Court Directs 5 College Students Accused Of Ragging Their Juniors To Engage In Social Service For 2 Weeks
Case Title: Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
The Court directed five college students of TKM Engineering College to engage in social service for two weeks, to quash the proceedings pending against them for ragging two junior students. Arguing that they had settled the matter among themselves, the accused had sought to quash the proceedings pending against them. While agreeing to quash the proceedings against them, Justice K. Haripal ordered the petitioners to undergo some kind of social service preferably in the General Hospital for two weeks.
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
The Court has held that the failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Court has upheld the appointment of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Director of Legal Studies- Dr. Vani Kesari A, by dismissing a petition challenging the selection process. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that it was up to the court to decide if the procedure followed by the statutory selection committee was legal, even if it was deviant from the one prescribed by the statute.
20. Kerala High Court Aids 10 Year Old Rape Survivor To Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy
Case Title: YYY v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Court came to the aid of a 10-year old girl who was allegedly sexually abused by her father, by permitting her to undergo medical termination of her 8-month (30 weeks) old pregnancy. Finding the plight of the girl who became pregnant at such a tender age 'unfortunate', Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea for medical termination of pregnancy moved by the girl's mother.
Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting such relief would render the provisions of the Act redundant. The Court also noted that this appeal was preferred as early as March 2020, so the liability to make the pre-deposit befalls on the date of filing of the appeal. This liability cannot be eschewed from reckoning on the basis of subsequent events, which as claimed by the petitioner to be beneficial to it, the Judge noted.
22. Suit Filed By Minor Without Appointing Next Friend Is A Curable Irregularity: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Court held that a suit filed by a minor without a next friend need not be taken off from the file since the same is a curable irregularity and by filing a subsequent application, the defect can be cured. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the defect can be cured by filing a separate petition for the same and that the suit can be proceeded thereafter. As such, it was held that the appointment of a next friend subsequent to the filing of the suit is not bad in law.
23. Kerala High Court Reinstates Its Directions On Use Of Flex Boards In State
Case Title: B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The Court has reiterated the extensive set of directions it had issued last year on the issue of the use of plastics/flex boards in the State. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recalled the directions in a petition challenging the State's inaction in taking effective measures to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale and usage of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Flex.
Case Title: Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
The Court recently ruled that even if one of the parents of a minor child refused to give consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled to issue a passport to the minor, provided the requisite form is submitted. While allowing the petition of a minor girl, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that there is no legal prohibition in incorporating a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child.
25. Film Production Units Have To Form ICC Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court Orders In WCC's Plea
Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 34273/2018]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
The Court observed that film production units have the responsibility to form an Internal Complaints Committee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - commonly known as the POSH Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also recorded that AMMA has volunteered to constitute an ICC and added that if AMMA constitutes an ICC as undertaken the same shall be in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act.
Case Title: Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
In a significant decision, the Court observed that political parties are not legally liable to establish Internal Complaints Commitee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so in a PIL moved by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA) seeking directions to constitute Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) within political parties in accordance with the POSH Act 2013.
Case Title: Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
The Court discharged alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the word 'shall' in the Act and the Rules cannot be said to be merely directory and pointed out that Section 45(2) specifically speaks of the recommendation of the authority and the sanction by the appropriate Government 'shall' be within such time as prescribed.
28. Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till March 25
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
The Court extended the validity of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courttill March 25 considering the difficulties lawyers may have to face if the stay on orders is vacated immediately. As such, a full bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P Chaly disposed of the suo motu petition.
29. Ancheri Baby Political Murder: Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Mani And Two Other Accused
Case Title: M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Court allowed the discharge application moved by former minister M.M Mani and two others where they sought to quash the proceedings pending against them in the scandalous Ancheri Baby murder case of 1982. Kuttappan and O.G. Madhavan were the other two accused who have been discharged of all charges today. Justice Sunil Thomas acquitted the trio setting aside the decision of the trial court dismissing their plea to drop the charges against them in the case finding that the witnesses were not credible.
Case Title: The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Court reiterated that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where the juniors are permitted to draw more salary than seniors in the cadre. A Division Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that if such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of the juniors.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Court has recently established that leave to a criminal appeal can only be granted after proper application of mind by the Court to see if arguable points have been raised in the appeal. Justice Kauser Edappagath held so while referring to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475] where it was held that in deciding if leave should be granted, the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
The Court recently upheld a Single bench decision that dismissed a couple of petitions seeking the constitution of an In-House Committee to probe into the alleged judicial misconduct against two judges. While dismissing a couple of appeals, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P held that the In-House Inquiry was not a 'law' for a litigant to ask for its enforcement.
33. Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against K.P Sasikala In Sabarimala Violence Case
Case Title: K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
The Court recently dropped all charges against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K. P. Sasikala for purportedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women in Sabarimala temple in 2018. The said hartal had resulted in large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before this Court to fix liability for the damages caused. Justice K Haripal allowed Sasikala's plea to quash all the proceedings against her, finding no legal evidence to inculpate her in the crime of abetting the unlawful assembly.
Case Title: Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
It was reiterated that courts should steer away from replacing their views in the place of expert opinion in academic matters. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that it is not the domain of courts to trench in the academic pasture and pick holes in it and that it is better to give preference to the opinion of experts in the field in such matters.
35. Quashing Moral Policing Cases On Settlement Sends Wrong Message To Public : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Court recently ruled that moral policing is an offence that involves mental depravity and that such cases cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement between the accused and complainant. Justice K. Haripal was adjudicating upon a case in which a violent mob had attacked an unarmed man for taking a woman belonging to a different community in his car.
Case Title: P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
The Court has ruled that every transaction by either of the spouse or by both of them with the in-laws or relatives cannot be termed as 'in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship under the Family Courts Act, 1984. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas found that the impugned transaction in the plea was purely a business transaction between the son-in-law and father-in-law, and hence held that it cannot be termed as circumstances arising out of a marital relationship.
Case Title: Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Western Ghats Protection Council seeking a CBI enquiry into the allegedly illegal financial dealings of Kenza Holdings under the guise of a Villa Project. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly refused to entertain the plea noting that the petitioner society had not approached the relevant statutory authorities prescribed by law before seeking an investigation by the CBI.
Case Title: Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
The Court directed the post-office authorities to disburse the amount deposited by a domestic help under the time deposit scheme with full interest till the date of withdrawal within a month. Finding it to be a case of injustice, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the authorities as litigation cost while adding that the constitutional court cannot be a silent spectator in such situations.
Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
The Court ruled that a Special Leave Petition filed by an assessee under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that while an assessment, appellate, and even revisional proceeding qualify as "proceedings under this Act', one instituted under the Constitution did not.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
The Court issued guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities while dealing with applications filed by accident victims or their dependents seeking compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. While disposing of a suo motu petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly accepted the report submitted by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority wherein it had suggested a few mechanisms to establish a proper system for effective consideration of such applications.
Case Title: Sabeena E.K v. District Collector & connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
The High Court held that owners of a portion of a paddy field who purchased it after the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are not entitled to reclaim it for the purpose of residential use. As such, a Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shaji P Chaly and Justice Sathish Ninan overturned the Division Bench decision in Yousuf Chalil v.State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33].
Case Title: Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Court denied anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of injuring a father for questioning him and the other accused for passing lewd comments about his minor daughter. While hearing the matter, Justice Gopinath P. orally remarked that such incidents of father and daughter being subjected to lewd comments while walking on a public road were unfortunate.
Case Title: Ukkash A v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court directed the concerned authorities to take steps to reconstitute the Local Complaints Committee established under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, whenever its term expires. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly disposed of a PIL noting that the provisions of the Act were to be strictly implemented.
Case Title: Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The High Court has ruled that a Panchayat cannot insist on the production of a development permit from an owner of a small portion of land, which is sub-divided from a large plot, to allow the construction of a residential building on his property as per Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly held that the Rules contemplate an entirely different situation from the purchase of a small plot of land by an individual from a larger area, whether the owner of the property had divided it into various plots and sold it or not.
Case Title: P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
The Court ruled that once a client authorises an advocate to conduct a case, the advocate is empowered to file a joint vakalat on behalf of the client. Justice N. Nagaresh added that filing a joint vakalat is not a ground to deny any lawyer his professional fee: "The said authorisation would include authorisation to do all that is necessary to conduct and prosecute the case, including filing joint Vakalat along with junior lawyer in the office of the senior lawyer."
46. Govt Servants Can't Participate In Any Strike; Absence From Work 'Dies Non': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
The High Court barred the government employees from participating in the ongoing two-day nationwide strike organised by the National Convention of Workers against the policies of the Centre while directing the State to declare dies non on the protest days. It declared that the participation of government servants in the ongoing two-day strike is 'illegal'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed the State to issue directions prohibiting the same while adding that no government servant shall participate in the strike as it was against Rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960.
Case Title: M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
The Court held that the State government was justified in acquiring land in furtherance of its K-Rail SilverLine Project invoking provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Railways Act, 1989 would not apply to this case since the Silver Line Project was not yet declared as a Special Railway Project by the Centre.
Case Title: Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Court recently ruled that one cannot prefer an appeal under provide to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a trial court's order, challenging the adequacy of sentence imposed upon the convict. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran dismissed a criminal appeal adding that such an appeal can only be preferred by the State under Section 377 of CrPC.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Court refused to interfere with a long-standing ritual at the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithara, where the temple tantri washes the feet of 12 priests. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar had taken suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in the said Temple, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. However, upon verifying, it was brought out that the news report was incorrect.
50. Actor Sexual Assault Case | Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Prime Accused Pulsar Suni
Case Title: Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant regular bail to Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the sensational 2017 sexual assault case where a prominent actress was abducted and raped in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan rejected the application noting that bail cannot be granted at this stage. It will convey a wrong signal to the society, the Court said.
Case Title: Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Court disposed of the plea filed by Nair Service Society seeking the implementation of the comprehensive survey suggested by the Justice AV Ramakrishna Pilla Commission to ascertain the economically weaker sections (EWS) in the State who are eligible for 10% reservation as per the 103rd Constitutional amendment. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the petition after the State submitted that owing to its financial state and the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, it was not in a position to implement the said recommendation for a comprehensive survey.
Other Developments
Case Title: xxx v. Union of India and connected matters.
The Court declared that it was in the process of drafting an Information Management Policy which could possibly address the issue of masking of the parties' names in its orders and judgments. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas announced so while adjudicating upon a batch of seven petitions seeking the remedy of masking their names in different cases dispised of by this court. The matter has been listed on April 1 for further consideration.
Case Title: Dinesh Menon v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court challenging the manner of appointment of personal staff to ministers in the State and the consequent pension benefits provided to them despite having served only a couple of years in office. Significantly, the plea estimated that the State is currently spending at least Rs. 80 crore per annum for paying pension.
Case Title: Ramesh Chennithala v. Election Commission Of India & Ors.
The Court came down heavily on the special police team constituted to investigate the alleged postal ballot fraud in 2019, for its inordinate delay in winding up the probe. Noting that the team had undertaken to conclude the inquiry within two months from September 2019, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly directed the State Police Chief to explain the reason behind more than two years of delay in completing the investigation.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court came down heavily on the Municipalities and Corporations for their enduring inaction over the unauthorised installations such as banners, boards and flag posts around the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his distress over unauthorised installations being put up in blatant violation of law disregarding all orders of the court and the Kerala Road Safety Commissioner on this issue. "When someone criticised our state recently, you claimed that Kerala upholds rule of law. Is this the rule of law that we boast of?" the court remarked.
59. Full Bench Of Only Women Judges, For The First Time, In Kerala High Court
Incidentally, on international women's day, a full bench comprising only women judges will hear a case in the Kerala High Court. This is the first time in the history of the Court that a full bench comprising only women judges has been constituted. The cause list showed Justices Anu Sivaraman, V Shircy and M.R Anitha as members of the women's only full bench.
60. Hotel No.18 POCSO Case: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused Roy Vayalat
Case Title: Roy J. Vayalat v. State of Kerala
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications moved by No.18 hotel owner Roy J Vayalat and his friend Syju M.Thankachan in a POCSO case where they have been accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl at the hotel. However, the third accused Anjali has been granted pre-arrest bail. Justice Gopinath P granted pre-arrest to the third accused subject to conditions considering the fact that she is a woman aged 24 years.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India
The Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to explain why a couple of writ petitions were not listed before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P sought a response from the Registry having found force in the submission of the petitioner that such delay could be fatal to the litigant's right to access to justice.
Case Title: Edadan Chindan Nair & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court directed the State government to reconsider the application moved by an Indian National Army (INA) veteran for a Central government pension scheme on the ground that his application was rejected for hypertechnical grounds. Justice Murali Purushothaman recorded that the petitioner's application was rejected mechanically without any application of mind. The Court also added that there were many freedom fighters whose sacrifices and names were not known to the common man.
Case Title: A.D. Johnson & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking expeditious distribution of available land to the landless Scheduled Caste and Tribe families at Chengara expressed its apprehension over the State's submission that there was a scarcity of assignable lands. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that this was a cause of concern particularly since these issues arose out of an agitation that had its own sordid consequences and that steps should be taken to prevent such events from happening again.
64. Can State Fix RT-PCR Rates For Private Labs? Kerala High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench
The Court referred the issue relating to the fixation of charges for the RT-PCR test, as he held a divergent view from another judge who ruled that the government had no power to regulate the price of the test to a Division Bench. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that after going through the relevant statutory provisions that there is a sufficient source of power for the State to regulate the price rate of RT-PCR tests, thereby dissenting with a previous decision of a Single Judge.
Case Title: C.C Kunjaru v. State of Kerala
The Court allowed the plea moved by the father of a deceased Twenty20 worker, C.K. Deepu seeking to transfer the bail applications moved by the accused from the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court.The petitioner had argued that he learned from reliable sources that the father of the sessions judge is the district secretary of the CPI(M) in Thrissur and an interested party in the case Justice Mary Joseph thereby directed that the case be transferred to the Sessions Court in Thrissur.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court refused to stay the investigation initiated against actor Dileep by the Crime Branch for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice K Haripal while adjourning to hear the matter on March 28, clarified that there will be no stay on the investigation against Dileep and the other accused in the matter.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr v. Manoj M. & Ors
The Court recently directed the Centre to expeditiously take an appropriate decision on the State government's request to include three State-run medical colleges as centres of excellence for treatment of rare diseases. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also persuaded the Centre to take a favourable stand on the State's request as it would go a long way in benefitting the children suffering from rare diseases.
Case Title: Sagar Vincent v. Biju Paulose & Ors.
The Court considered a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, a witness in the 2017 actor sexual assault case alleging that investigating officer in the case Biju Paulose was threatening him. Justice Anu Sivaraman asked the Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter while posting it next week for consideration.
69. KSRTC Challenges Hike In Diesel Prices For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Issues Notice
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved the High Court challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh issued notice to the Centre and the oil companies in the matter.
Case Title: Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court asked the State to explain its delay in appointing a Chief Investigating Officer at the State Police Complaints Authority despite several extensions granted to it. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly disagreed with the submission of the State that it had taken prompt steps to implement the previous directions of the Court in this matter.
71. Diesel Price Hike For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Denies Interim Relief To KSRTC
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court refused to grant interim relief on the plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Oil Marketing Companies to file a statement explaining the present pricing mechanism by the next posting date. The matter will be taken up again on April 4.
72. Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Plea Seeking CBI Probe In RSS Worker's Murder
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
The Court reserved its verdict on the preliminary objections raised in the plea seeking to hand over the investigation involving Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith's murder, who was hacked to death in November last year, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal noted that it had already expressed its view that this is a matter to be investigated by CBI. The observations came in a plea filed by the RSS worker's wife seeking to hand over the case to CBI.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
The High Court said that it was not intimidated by any political party after the State finally took a stance on the erection of flag poles and advertisements in public places after repeated court orders. Justice Devan Ramachandran orally observed that the city of Kochi underwent a substantial transformation after its intervention while clarifying that such orders were passed in the public interest and not to favour any political party.
Case Title: Parents Association of Foreign Medical Graduates v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court will consider a plea filed on behalf of 92 foreign medical students studying in different universities in China seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to provide them with practical training and internship facilities in India till the travel restrictions to China are lifted. Justice N. Nagaresh admitted the matter today while posting it on March 30 for further consideration.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Holds Reference To Condole Demise Of Former CJI Ramesh Chandra Lahoti
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Cochin Refineries Employee's Association & Ors.
The Court restrained five trade unions in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Kochi, from participating in the nationwide strike called by a joint forum of trade unions which has been scheduled to take place on March 28 and 29. Apart from issuing an interim order, Justice Amit Rawal also issued notice to the respondents in the matter before admitting it.
Also Read: CBI Registers FIR To Probe Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Scam
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Court reprimanded the State government over how it was progressing with the survey in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and directed it to justify the manner in which the survey stones were being installed by its instrumentalities. Justice Devan Ramachandran raised concern over the ongoing Social Impact Assessment that the authorities were conducting in many parts of the State by installing yellow boundary stones marked K-Rail on them.
Also Read: 'Why Concrete Poles Engraved With 'K-Rail' Used Instead Of Ordinary Survey Stones?' Kerala High Court Raises Further Queries On SilverLine
Case Title: M.K. Uthaman v. State of Kerala
The Court has declined to grant interim relief in the plea challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Maritime Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that since only one of the Board members had raised a grievance, the matter could be decided after the vacation while adding that a stay was not necessary for the meantime since the Board was not in existence yet.
Case Title: Suma Devi v. S. Sherla Beegam
Pathanamthitta Municipal Corporation Secretary Sherla Beegam was arrested and produced before the Court in a contempt case for her failure to appear before the court despite being summoned several times. After she was produced, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked her not to repeat this behaviour in the future and to seek an appeal or review if she was not content with the order passed in the case instead of refusing to cooperate with the Court proceedings.
79. Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The Judge said that the order will be delivered within a week. The prosecution has undertaken not to file the final report in this case before that.
80. Nun Rape Case : State Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Bishop Franco Mulakkal's Acquittal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Bishop Franco Mulakkal
In a much-anticipated move, the State has filed an appeal against the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal of the Catholic Church in the nun rape case. The Additional District and Sessions Court in Kottayam had in January acquitted Mulakkal in the case finding the survivor's testimony to be unreliable.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Devipriya & Ors.
The State government argued before the Court that the concerned pink police officer who harassed a minor girl and her father last year should pay the compensation ordered by the Single Judge. (Pink police is a special women protection squad of Kerala police). The said officer was found guilty of having harassed them in public gaze casting accusations of theft on the duo and the video of the incident had also garnered public attention.