Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495-553]DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497 Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew, 2024...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495-553]
DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
Sunil P P v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
Prakash v Vandana, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
State v R. Baiju, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
C K Sasidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
Bar Council of Kerala and Others v Unnikrishnan H. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
Indian Space Research Organization V M/S.Roopam Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Joel Joji v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
Chandra Babu v Vidya Pushpan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Jacky and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
Salim and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
C. Shukkur v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
Suhail M A v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v Joy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Of Mr. Mattummel Kunhiraman Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
Global Distributors Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
K P Aliyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
Shaji M. v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
Shiyas S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Sham P S v State Bank of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
Mary Queens Mission Hospital Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
P.C. Varghese Muthalali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
Mary Baby v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
Ibnu Shijil v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
Abdul Jaleel v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
Amal Babu v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Nazeer K. T. v The Manager Federal Bank and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Ankitha Joy v Joy Augustine @ Augusthy, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
G.Gopan @ Gopakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 547
Benzy Martin v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 548
Muhammed Ramees v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 549
Ibrahim v Administrator, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
Fact United Employees Liberation V The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 551
Chirakkal Sankaran Nair v Ponguzhi Parambath Sreedharan Nair, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 552
Suneera T v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
Judgments/Orders This Month
Kerala High Court Says It Lacks 'Supervisory Jurisdiction' Over NCDRC
Case Title: DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court has held that it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only over Courts and Tribunals falling within its territorial jurisdiction.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu stated that NCDRC falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition as not maintainable under Article 227. “….a close reading and comprehensive analysis of the precedents leads us to the conclusion that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 only over those courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, over the NCDRC, falling falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”
Case Title: Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate Court cannot direct a party to deposit part of the amount covered by impugned verdict, as a prerequisite to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The delay condonation plea and the appeal filed by the revision petitioner were dismissed by the Sessions Court citing non-compliance with its order to pay maintenance arrears.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that it was legally impermissible for the First Appellate Court to impose a condition directing payment of any amount covered in the impugned appeal for considering the delay condonation petition.
Case Title: Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court has held that 'Group of Companies' doctrine is not applicable when the third party is not even referred to the arbitration. The Supreme Court adopted the 'Doctrine of Group of Companies' in Cox and Kings Ltd. v SAP India Private Limited and Other (2023).
The Apex Court held that a non- signatory affiliate or a sister or parent company can be a party to the arbitration agreement, if there is mutual intention of the signatories and non-signatories to this effect. The Supreme Court observed that the non-signatory's casual connection with the negotiation and execution of the contract is a factor to determine the mutual intent to arbitrate.
Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court has quashed the decision of the Director of General Education in so far as it makes 25 Saturdays as working days out of 35 Saturdays in an academic year. The Court observed that the decision to implement a six day working week with Saturdays working was made without considering its adverse effects on the mental health of students.
In this case, several writ petitions were filed by teachers, their associations, students and parents challenging the competence of the Director of General Education by publishing the academic calendar for 2024-25 by making 25 Saturdays as school working days.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the decision was taken without hearing the views of students, teachers, parents and other stakeholders. The Court observed that the decision was made without considering its advantages and disadvantages through any expert studies.
Case Title: Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court has stated that the untimely death of the husband is sufficient reason to condone 20 days delay in filing an application seeking leave under Section 394 of CrPC.
Section 394 of CrPC provides for abatement of criminal appeal on the appellant's death. As per the provision, near relatives can apply for leave to continue the appeal within 30 days of the death of the appellant against the sentence of death or imprisonment.
Here, the wife filed an application seeking leave to continue appeal after 50 days of her husband's death.
Case Title: Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
The Kerala High Court held that a Trial Court can compare the disputed handwriting and prove the handwriting of a person in a case where the accused had already admitted his signature in a cheque dishonour case.
In the present case, the accused was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had claimed that while the signature on the offending cheque was his, the contents on the cheque were not filled by him.
Justice K. Babu invoked the trial court's power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, and held: “Therefore if the accused makes a request for comparison of his admitted or proved writings with disputed writings, the Trial Court shall invoke Section 73 of the Evidence Act.”
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
The Kerala High Court has stated that serious offences alleged against the accused like rape cannot be quashed merely based on a settlement affidavit filed by the defacto complainant.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the petition filed by the accused stating that whether the relationship was consensual or not were matters to be decided in a trial. It was held that: “Whether the relationship is consensual, is a matter to be decided during evidence and merely relying on the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, this Court cannot quash the proceedings, holding that there are no materials, prima facie, to go for trial.”
Case Title: Sunil P P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor and hospital staff who approached the Court to quash proceedings initiated against them for allegedly taking and sharing videos and images of a woman undergoing a cesarean operation to deliver three children, through WhatsApp.
The crime was registered against the doctors under Section 354(C) (Voyeurism) of IPC, Sections 66(E) (Punishment for violation of Privacy) and 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case was made out against petitioners involving serious allegations.
Case Title: Prakash v Vandana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
The Kerala High Court quashed a defamation case against media persons of Reporter Channel who aired a show called 'Big Story' that discussed a book about Mata Amritanandamayi and her Math. The Court stated that media persons can conduct discussions about books available in the public domain and doing so would only constitute fair comment or criticism, which falls under their freedom of speech.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted that the book 'Holy Hell' is available on Amazon and other public domains, and it has also been translated into Malayalam. The Court stated that petitioners being media persons cannot be expected to stay mum and not discuss about a book available on the public domain. The Court also observed that if Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees were not taking action against the author or publisher of the book, they could not pursue defamation claims against media personnel for discussing the book which is available on public domain.
Kerala High Court Alters Murder Conviction Of Ex-CPI(M) Leader Who Was Sentenced To Death
Case Title: State v R. Baiju
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
The Kerala High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded to former CPI(M) local leader and Chairman of Cherthala Municipal Standing Committee, R. Baiju convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha of murdering Divakaran, a member of the Indian National Congress.
A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice M. B. Snehalatha found that the charge of murder was not proved against him and held he could be found guilty of only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, Employee Of Licensee, Not An Employer: Kerala High Court
Case Name: C K Ssidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, while deciding writ petitions held that an employee who is merely associated with the conduct of business and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf, cannot be said to be an employer.
The definition of “employer” under Section 2© of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 was examined by the court. It was noted that the definition included any person who employs, directly or indirectly, other persons in the establishment. However, it was concluded by the court that the employee did not meet this definition since he was merely an employee and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf.
Based on the above findings, the writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders that held the employee liable for the welfare fund contributions were set aside by the court. It was concluded that he was merely an employee and not an employer, as defined under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
The Kerala High Court has stated that it will not be feasible to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to shift 15 bio toilet units kept at Sabarimala to relief camps at Wayanad due to the anticipated large number of pilgrims for Chingamasapooja from August 16, 2024.
Case Title: Bar Council of Kerala and Others v Unnikrishnan H. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
The Kerala High Court held that it cannot interfere with the timeline fixed by the Bar Council of Kerala for enrollment. The Court noticed that the Bar Council fixed the timeline based on the instructions of the Bar Council of India and the Court should not interfere with it.
Case Title: K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
The Kerala High Court has allowed a plea to quash the final report and stay further proceedings in a case of rape. The Court observed that the complainant being a social worker ought to have raised a complaint against the alleged sexual assault without much delay. Reportedly, there was a delay of three and a half months in filing the F.I.R.
Case Title: Indian Space Research Organization V M/S.Roopam Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
The Kerala High Court has held that the Writ Court does not always lack jurisdiction to address disputes involving a 'State' entity under Article 12 when it enters into a purely contractual relationship with a private party.
Case Title: P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
The Kerala High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on an advocate who filed a 'frivolous' contempt petition against a judicial officer. The contempt petition was filed alleging that the judicial officer colluded with an advocate and parties in disobeying the directions of the High Court in a case being contested by the contempt applicant.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
The Kerala High Court held that when prosecution allegations make out prime facie case, then whether a sexual relationship took place after obtaining consent on the misconception of fact on the promise of marriage has to be decided during evidence.
Case Title: Joel Joji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
The Kerala High Court has held that the criminal antecedents of the accused would not stand in the way of compounding an offence that is otherwise compoundable under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Chandra Babu v Vidya Pushpan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Kerala High Court held that a couple who did a marriage ceremony when their previous marriages were subsisting and lived together for a considerable period of time cannot be said to have a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' as mentioned in the definition of 'domestic relation' in Section 2(f) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act).
Case Title: Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
The Kerala High Court has held that war injury pension and disability pension claims are not a bounty but a right available to eligible military personnel. The Court held that provisions of Pension Regulations for military personnel must receive beneficial interpretation.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Jacky and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
The Kerala High Court has acquitted 7 convicts in the murder of gangster Santhosh, also known as Jet Santhosh. Two of the convicts were sentenced to death and others were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge – I, Trivandrum.
The Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran and Justice Syam Kumar V. passed the order after finding the approver, on whom the prosecution case was heavily based, was not reliable.
Case Title: Salim and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The High Court held that the principle of compounding of offence applicable for Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is also applicable to the compounding of offences under Section 67A of the Abkari Act. Section 320(8) of the CrPC says that compounding will have the effect of acquittal.
Case Title: C. Shukkur v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
The Kerala High Court came down heavily on a lawyer who approached the Court with a Public Interest Litigation requesting the establishment of a centralized system for collecting and managing the disaster relief funds meant to aid landslide victims in Wayanad. The petitioner alleged that the funds being collected for the relief of the Wayanad landslide victims, were not reaching the intended beneficiaries.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail applications moved by two boys aged 19 and 20 years old, cousins of a 17-year-old girl who lodged a false POCSO case against them for objecting to her love affair.
Case Title: Suhail M A v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The Kerala High Court has directed that stringent conditions, at least in the form of a bank guarantee must be imposed while directing the release of vehicles dumping waste onto public property.
Case Title: The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v Joy Mathew
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice N. Nagaresh, while deciding a petition, held that an employee is entitled to arrears of salary because the employer could not produce enough evidence to prove that employee was engaged in dual employment.
Case Title: Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Of Mr. Mattummel Kunhiraman Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
The Kerala High Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the first appellate authority's order under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has granted the liberty to the appellant to prefer a statutory revision before the District Collector against the order, by which the First Appellate Authority affirmed the assessment order of the Tahsildar, assessing the buildings belonging to the appellant to building tax.
Case Title: Global Distributors Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the orders of assessment and summary of orders for the years July 2017 and August 2017 under the CGST/SGST Acts. The registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on 12.12.2021 with effect from 30.11.2019, and the petitioner was therefore unaware of the orders passed and did not get an opportunity to file returns.
The orders were uploaded on the portal, which had not been accessed by the petitioner since the registration had been cancelled and the petitioner was no longer continuing with the business.
The Kerala High Court has quashed the assessment orders and remanded the matter back on condition of remitting Rs. 10 lakhs towards the GST liabilities.
Case Title: K P Aliyar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an obscene act is committed to the annoyance of others in any public place in or near any public place attracts an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen added that 'in or near public place' mentioned in Section 294 (b) of the IPC is wide enough to include areas in the vicinity of public places and does not limit its orbit to absolute public place alone.
Case Title: Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
The Kerala High Court has directed the judicial officers of the district judiciary to exercise caution when considering allegations of defamation against newspapers and media personnel.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that unwanted legal prosecutions against newspapers and media persons under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC would amount to violation of Freedom of the Press and people's right to know. The Court thus directed the Trial Courts to be vigilant while considering prosecutions alleging defamation against Press and Media persons.
Case Title: Shaji M. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
The Kerala High Court has held that having carnal intercourse against 'the order of nature' mentioned in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code looks only into the nature of the act and not the relationship of the parties involved.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish was hearing an appeal where the appellant was convicted of raping his daughter by the Sessions Court.
No Fundamental Right To Elect Or Be Elected: Kerala High Court
Case Title: K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
The Kerala High Court has held that the Court have to strictly go by the law and cannot apply rules of equity in an election matter. The Court held that right to elect though fundamental to a democracy is neither a fundamental right neither a common law right.
Justice C. S. Sudha observed: “Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore subject to statutory limitations. An election petition petition is not an action in common law, nor an equity,”
Case Title: Shiyas S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 lacks jurisdiction to consider applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that Gram Nyayalaya cannot deal with applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking maintenance or mahr to be given to the wife at the time of divorce.
Case Title: Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her husband for offence under Section 377 IPC.
The Court observed that after the definition of rape in Section 375 was amended in 2013, forcible acts of oral sex committed by a male accused on a female victim is an offence of rape. However, since a wife can't prosecute her husband for offence of rape, neither section 377 not section 375 will stand against the accused.
The Court also noted that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not have an offence equivalent to Section 377 IPC. The rationale for this omission, the bench said, is not stated in the statute.
Case Title: The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court has ruled that if a Credit Information Company such as TransUnion CIBIL Limited fails to update the credit ratings of its borrowers promptly, it would infringe upon their fundamental rights.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that borrowers reputation is protected under right to dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
The Kerala High Court has called for public debate and discussion to ensure that recommendations made by Justice Hema Committee, to alleviate grievances regarding harassment and discrimination raised by women working in Malayalam film industry, are implemented promptly.
Bench of Justice V. G. Arun thus dismissed the petition filed by producer Sajimon Parayil against publication the Committee report. It also dismissed the apprehensions that unwarranted media coverage about the report would cause irreparable damage to individuals and the industry as a whole.
No Parent Would File False Case Alleging Rape Of Unmarried Daughter: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in normal human conduct, no parent would lodge a false case alleging that their unmarried daughter was raped.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha thus upheld the conviction of a 27-year-old man for raping and sexually abusing the victim and condoned the six-month delay in filing the FIR, given that the victim was a 13-year-old vulnerable teenager.
Case Title: Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 354A of the IPC alleging sexual harassment by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law.
The sister-in-law (3rd accused) and mother-in-law (4th accused) of the de facto complainant had approached the High Court seeking to quash the offences alleged against them under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that when the legislature has used the term 'any man' and not 'any person' under Section 354A of the IPC, overt acts done by women cannot attract the said offence.
Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing criminal activity committed by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Section 111 (1)(i) defines 'organized crime syndicate' and Section 111 (1) (ii) defines 'continuing unlawful activity'.
Justice C S Dias observed that prime facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been filed against him in any Court in the 'preceding period of last ten years' to satisfy the mandate of 'continuing unlawful activity' as defined under Section 111(1) (ii).
Case Title: A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
The Kerala High Court refused to discharge former army officer and Malayalam movie director A. K. Raveendran, also known as Major Ravi, in a criminal case over making sexually coloured remarks against a TV news anchor.
The Court remarked that the petitioner, who is a celebrity and a former army officer, should be careful while making statements as common people watch him and his words.
Compensation To Discontinue Commodity Brokerage Business Chargeable To Income Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
The Kerala High Court has held that the amount received by the assessee is under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business that was carried on by the assessee; it would attract the provisions of Section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act and make the receipt chargeable to income tax under the heading of “Profits and gains of business or profession.”.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that Section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act does not restrict the operation of the provision to only amounts received by way of non-compete fee. The words used in the said provision do not admit any restricted meaning. So long as the amount received by the assessee was received for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business and the amount received was not on account of the transfer of the right to manufacture, produce, or process any article or thing or on account of the transfer of the right to carry on any business, which receipts would have been chargeable under the head “capital gains," there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Authority that brought the amounts received by the assessee from BNP Paribas to tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.
Case Title: Sham P S v State Bank of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Bank of India to release the title deeds of a residential property mortgaged by a petitioner on payment of outstanding debts under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.
The Bank did not confer the benefit of the OTS Scheme to the petitioner, citing a delay in payment of the second instalment within the stipulated time.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Bank did not raise an objection saying that the petitioner delayed the payments of the second instalment or that the OTS Scheme had lapsed. The Court thus observed that the Bank accepted the second instalment paid by the petitioner under the OTS Scheme, even if it was made with some delay.
Applications For Condonation Of Delay, Should Not Be Too Hyper-Technical: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mary Queens Mission Hospital Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court has held that the applications for condonation of delay should have been considered without being too hyper-technical and in a judicious manner.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the delay in filing the audit report in Form-10B can at best be 30 days, as the law only requires that the audit report be uploaded at least a month before the due date for filing returns. The Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone the delay instead of taking a strict view of the matter.
Case Title: P.C. Varghese Muthalali v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court has held that the culpable mental state of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage when the prosecution makes out a prima facie case.The Court was considering whether culpable mental state under the POCSO Act could be considered at the time of discharge or quashment of the proceedings against the accused.
Case Title: Mary Baby v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
The Kerala High Court held that the assignee of Government land is bound by restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed in the patta or other documents of assignment as per the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and rules made thereunder.
Case Title: Ibnu Shijil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
Kerala High Court has held that a person cannot be booked for consuming narcotic drug on the basis that the investigation officer smelt the substance from his breath.
The Court observed that if it is allowed, a situation will arise where the investigating officer can prosecute anyone as an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It was noted that since sensory perceptions are subjective, reliance cannot be placed on it to identify a substance.
Case Title: P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a lawyer challenging the Hindi titles given to the new criminal laws, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu observed that citizens have no fundamental right to demand that the title of enactments should be in a familiar language. The Court stated that nothing prevents Parliament from giving Hindi names as the title of an enactment.
Case Title: Abdul Jaleel v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
The Kerala High Court held that an agreement entered between the complainant and accused to withdraw prosecution in an offence of rape is void in the light of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
As per Section 23 of the Contract, if the court regards that the object of an agreement is opposed to public policy, the agreement is void. Here the Court held that the agreement will stifle prosecution of public offence and it is opposed to public policy.
Case Title: Amal Babu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
The Kerala High Court has recently held that for offences relating to marriage under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Magistrate if he intends to take cognizance, can do so only on the original complaint of the aggrieved person even if the police had filed a final report.For context under Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a Court can take cognizance of an offence under IPC Chapter XX–which pertains to offences relating to marriage–only on the complaint of a person who is aggrieved by such an offence.
Case Title: Nazeer K. T. v The Manager Federal Bank and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court has held that the failure to inform the Magistrate about the seizure/freezing of a person's bank account can have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure.The court made these observations while hearing a plea challenging the freezing of a person's bank account and directed the police to inform the concerned bank whether the requirements of Section 102 CrPC had been followed.
Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
The Kerala High Court ruled that the accused who was deliberately protracting the trial was not entitled to bail.The petitioner, who is accused of allegedly brutally attacking and murdering the 7-year-old minor son of the woman he was living with after her husband's death has approached the Court with a bail application.
Case Title: Ankitha Joy v Joy Augustine @ Augusthy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court held that in a suit for maintenance, it is upon the respondent to prove that he does not have enough means to maintain the claimant. The Court observed that evidence to prove the means of a person will be within his exclusive knowledge and therefore, it is upon him to disprove the claim put by the petitioner.
Case Title: G.Gopan @ Gopakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is a basic requirement under the principles of natural justice to give an opportunity of hearing to an investigating officer before the Court making adverse remarks against him, especially when such remarks could affect his future career prospects.
Case Title: Benzy Martin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) is entitled to resort to revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 for recovery of dues from subscribers as it has been designated as a notified institution under Section 71 of the Act.
Case Title: Muhammed Ramees v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that publishing any details which would affect the privacy of a victim of sexual assault is prohibited and to say that since her privacy has been disclosed in public by other publication modes would be enough to give the accused such details, would add "pepper" to the victim's wound.
Case Title: Ibrahim v Administrator
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court has observed that the police lack the power or authority to act as a Civil Court or to adjudicate civil disputes between the parties.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the police cannot adjudicate civil disputes relating to title, possession, boundary, or encroachment of land and it can only refer parties in civil disputes to a competent civil court or ADR for resolution of their disputes.
Case Title: Fact United Employees Liberation V The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 551
The Kerala High Court has held that when there are multiple registered trade unions, it is significant to determine which union must negotiate with the establishment to represent the interests of workmen to maintain industrial peace.
It thus directed the Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) to hold a Trade Union Referendum by secret ballot to determine the representative character of Fact United Employees Liberation, a Trade Union operating in FACT's Cochin Division.
Case Title: Chirakkal Sankaran Nair v Ponguzhi Parambath Sreedharan Nair
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 552
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no absolute rule that prescriptive easement right of way cannot be claimed over ridges of paddy field. However, the Court stated that there is a heavy burden on the user who claims prescriptive easement right of way over ridges of paddy field as a matter of right, rather than as a permissive user.
Case Title: Suneera T v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
The Kerala High Court observed that the State Police uses an 'Integrated Core Policing System' that enables them to collect information about offenders promptly and efficiently without delay. The Court thus stated that with the technological advancements, the government cannot justify the delay in issuing the detention order by claiming that they spent time gathering case details.
Other Important Developments This Month
Police Officer In Kerala Accused In Passport Fraud Case; Matter To Be Investigated By Crime Branch
Case Title: Ansil v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 5853 of 2024
The probe into alleged involvement of two Kerala police officials in a passport fraud will be probed by the Crime Branch, the High Court was told on Friday.
Anzil A., an officer in Thumba Police Station, Trivandrum was booked for hatching a conspiracy with 4 other persons to obtain passports for various persons using forged documents.
Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v Union of India and Others
Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024
While hearing a PIL challenging Hindi titles for the new criminal laws, the Kerala High Court today asked if it has the power to direct the Parliament to change the names of the enactments.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A. M. Mustaque and Justice S. Manu while reserving the matter for orders orally remarked, “Can this Court direct the Parliament to rename the enactments…Can this Court issue mandamus saying that, sort of mandamus…like specific order to change title of the Act?”
Justice CS Dias adjourned Anzil's bail plea after Public Prosecutor informed the Court that the matter is now being investigated by Crime Branch.
Case Name: Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 588/2024
The Kerala government has informed the High Court that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan received no personal gains from the transactions between State-owned Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by his daughter Veena Thaikandiyil.
Director General of Prosecution TA Shaji informed single bench of Justice K. Babu that the transactions were based on a "legal agreement" between the two companies, all properties in relation to the transactions were "legally accounted for" and the CM received no money therefrom.
Case Title: Adv N Sasi And Others v Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24095 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association, the Union Government, and the Registrar of DRT to submit statements with their suggestions on how to best utilize the available space for the benefit of lawyers practising in DRT, Ernakulam
Justice V G Arun directed the parties to specifically address the issue of providing toilet facilities for female lawyers practising in the DRT.
Wayanad Landslides: Kerala High Court To Hold Full Court Reference To Condole Loss Of Lives
The Kerala High Court will hold a reference on 2nd August at 10:15 am to condole the large-scale loss of lives and to express solidarity with the survivors who lost their homes and family members in the landslides in Wayanad. The reference will be held in the court of the Chief Justice.
The Kerala High Court today held a Full Court reference to express condolences for the loss of lives and to show support to the survivors of the landslides in Wayanad, which affected the areas of Mundakkai and Choormala. The death toll from the disaster is nearing 300, with several persons still missing. The Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque expressed his collective solidarity and unwavering support with the victims and survivors of Wayanad landslide that took place in the wee hours of July 30, 2024.
“Today as we pay homage to the victims we acknowledge the unfathomed loss experienced by their families and friends. Each life loss represents a unique story, a beloved member of a family, a cherished friend and a vital being out to the community.”
Case Title: T M Thomas v Union of India & Others
Case Number: WPC 28476/2024
The Kerala High Court has admitted a plea challenging the decision of Kerala State Co-operative Bank to award the tender of supplying 2,000 micro ATM machines to certain companies who are sub-dealers of a Chinese Manufacturer. The plea alleged that the usage of micro ATMs by Chinese Manufacturers in sensitive sectors like banking is a security hazard to the nation. It argues that allowing a Chinese company access to the banking sector undermines the nation's safety, security, integrity, and individual privacy.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V M issued notice to the respondents including the Union Government, State Government, Department of Expenditure, Department of Co-operation, Kerala State Co-operative Bank and Reserve Bank of India.
Case Title: Jyothish P V State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC No. 28547/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by a lawyer stating that there is a shortage of non-judicial stamp papers below the denomination of rupees thousand in the State.
The plea thus seeks a direction to the Director of the Department of Treasuries to implement steps for the implementation of the e-stamp facility for the issuance of non-judicial stamp papers of all denominations in online mode.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas will hear the matter on September 04, 2024.
Case Name: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) 26497/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the plea challenging publication of report submitted by Justice Hema Commission, tasked with studying and suggesting solutions for issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
Bench of Justice VG Arun directed that the report be published within a week.
Kerala High Court Refers Parties To Counselling In Pantheerankavu Domestic Violence Case
Case Title: Rahul P.Gopal V State Of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.MC 5187/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed Rahul P Gopal, accused of attempting to strangle his wife using cable wire after she failed to fulfil his dowry demands, to appear for counselling before the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA). The wife has also been asked to appear before the authority.
Rahul and his family have been charged under Sections 324, 498A, 307, and 212 of the IPC. His wife later uploaded a YouTube video stating that the allegations against her husband are false. He has approached the Court to quash the criminal proceedings stating that the matter had been settled between them and that they were ready to live together.
Justice A. Badharudeen ordered that no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners till the next posting date.
Case Title: Shone George v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC 28857/2024
A PIL has been filed by lawyer and BJP leader Shone George before the Kerala High Court alleging illegal mining and exploration of beach sand minerals from Thottappally area of Alappuzha district and other coastal areas in the State under the guise of The Disaster Management Act.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu observed that a detailed hearing of the matter is required and adjourned the case for obtaining statements from the State Government and other party respondents.
On August 16, 2024, there will be the inauguration of Digital Courts and other innovative initiatives relating to the judiciary in the Kerala High Court.
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud will deliver the inaugural address and officially inaugurate various projects including the Country's first exclusive Digital Court for Negotiable Instrument Act Cases in Kollam.
The inauguration of the Online Dispute Resolution System will facilitate online deliberations and ensure efficiency, accessibility and transparency. The CJI will also inaugurate the Model Digital Court Room which is made to overcome the limitations of traditional courtrooms by making use of ICT resources and customized furnishings. The CJI will also inaugurate the Learning Management System of the Judicial Academy, Digital Library and Research Centre in the High Court, Restoration of the project of Ram Mohan Palace and there will also be an announcement of Digital District Courts.
The Kerala High Court has sought information from the State Government about other vulnerable areas in Wayanad that are prone to natural disasters due to the heavy rains.
The division bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. orally stated that news media has reported that due to the heavy monsoon, there are other vulnerable areas in Wayanad which are prone to natural disasters. The Court thus sought information about such vulnerable areas and stated that there should be continuous monitoring to prevent any such natural disasters.
Case Title: Sasha Selvaraj @ Renjini v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WA 1240/ 2024
Malayalam film actress Ranjini has approached the Kerala High Court challenging a decision of a single bench of the Court allowing the publication of Justice Hema Committee Report on the conditions faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
The actress claimed that she had given statements to the Committee under the promise of confidentiality. The appeal was placed before the bench of Acting Chief Justice A. M. Mustaque and Justice S. Manu
Case Title: V K Prakash v State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl No. 7180/2024
Film director V K Prakash has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Kerala High Court over sexual abuse allegations made against him after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report, which deals with issues (including sexual demands) faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 7844/ 2023
The Kerala High Court has suggested the State government to rope in the public in collecting plastic waste by incentivising them for the waste they collect.
The Court said the government can test the viability of this project by starting it in any one place. The government can fix a minimum quantity and the rate at which they want to buy clean plastic (plastic which is cleaned and used for recycling). The court said that based on the result of this project, it can be extended to other areas and to other recyclable materials.
The Registrar of Kerala High Court has issued a letter clarifying that no organisation or association will be permitted to get registered at the address of the High Court or the High Court building, unless they provide a consent letter from the High Court.
The letter issued by the Registrar also states that organisations or associations that have registered at the High Court or the High Court building without consent have to change their address.
Acting Chief of the Kerala High Court, Justice A Muhamed Mustaque, said that the time and resources of Courts must be used for issues concerning larger public interest rather than addressing private disputes. He stated efforts should be taken to resolve private issues using other dispute resolution methods so that Courts can look at matters involving larger public interests.
Justice Mustaque was speaking at the inaugural function of the Arbitration Centre at the Kerala High Court.
Case Title: Sasha Selvaraj @ Renjini v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WA 1240/ 2024
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ appeal filed by actor Ranjini challenging the decision of a single bench of the Court allowing the publication of Justice Hema Committee Report on the conditions faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
Noting that Ranjini was not a party to the writ petition filed by Producer Sajimon Parayil (in which the impugned judgment was delivered), the division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Musatqueand Justice S Manu allowed her to file a fresh writ petition raising her grievances. The Court stated that it will direct the registry to number the writ petition, if it is being filed today to place it before the Single Judge.
Case Title: Shobha v State of Kerala & Another
Case Number: Crl MC 6978/2024
The Kerala High Court today stayed the proceedings initiated against a woman for allegedly posting a Facebook post criticizing the Chief Minister Distress Relief Fund collected for the victims of the Wayanad landslides.
On July 03, 2024, Mathrubhumi published a picture showing that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's grandson donated money towards the Chief Minister Distress Relief Fund in connection with the Wayanad landslides. It is alleged that the picture of CM and his grandson was shared by the petitioner on her Facebook page CM along with a caption criticizing the Disaster Relief Fund Collection.
Case Title: A N Anu v Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 29231 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court recently passed an interim order permitting the wife to extract and cryopreserve gametes of her husband who is unable to give written informed consent and is hospitalized in critical condition.
Case Title: Navas A @ Paichira Navas v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 29846/ 2024
A public interest litigation has been filed before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Director General of Police to initiate criminal proceedings against the offenders who committed sexual offences against women in the film industry based on the Justice Hema Committee Report.
Case Title: Adv. Sunil Kumar A. G. v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No 22966 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has sought a detailed report from the forest officials regarding the requirement to ban the use of plastic in forests, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and tiger reserves in the State. The report should also contain measures which can be taken to ensure that these areas remain non-plastic zones to protect the flora and fauna.
Case Title: Navas A @ Paichira Navas v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 29846/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to make available the entire Justice Hema Committee Report, including the redacted portions before the Court in a sealed cover. The Court also suo moto impleaded the Kerala State Women's Commission.
The Court passed the above order while considering a Public Interest Litigation seeking to initiate criminal proceedings against offenders who committed sexual crimes against women in the Malayalam film industry. The Justice Hema Committee was constituted by the Government in 2017 and was tasked to study issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The report was published on August 19, 2024.
Case Title: Suresh Gopi v State of Kerala and Another
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet 882 & 883 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has exempted actor and Union Minister Suresh Gopi from personal appearance before the trial court until further orders in the luxury cars tax evasion case . The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for MP/ MLA Courts had ordered the actor to appear before the Court for framing of charges. The stay order was passed today by Justice C. Jayachandran.
Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala V State Of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court has expressed its "distress" over banks deducting monthly loan instalments from the funds deposited into the Wayanad Landslide victims' accounts from the Chief Minister Distress Relief Funds.
Case Title: K. K. Abraham v Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: Bail Application 3610/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to K. K. Abraham, former general secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC). Justice C. S. Dias passed the order after considering the health issues of the accused. The Court has not passed any final orders on the bail application.
Case Name: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) 26497/ 2024
Malayalam film producer, Sajimon Parayil submitted before the Kerala High Court that there is no public interest involved in disclosing the contents of the Justice Hema Commission Report.
Case Name: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) 26497/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea challenging the publication of the contents of Justice Hema Commission Report. Justice V G Arun reserved the judgment for August 13, 2024 (Tuesday).
Case Title: The Varappuzha Grama Panchayath v The National Highway Authority Of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16539 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court observed that there must be consultation between the State Government and the National Highways Authority to find out a concrete solution to prevent water logging on the sides of National Highways, leading to hardships faced by those living near these highways which lacked a proper drainage mechanism.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Election Petition Filed By KPM Mustafa Against MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram
Case Title: K. P .Mohammed Musthafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram & others
Case No: El. Pet. 4/ 2021
Kerala High Court today dismissed the election petition filed by KP Mohammed Mustafa, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) candidate in 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly Election from Perinthalmanna constituency.
Case Title: The Secretary v O D Thomas
Case Number: WA NO. 664 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court on the direction of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and in response to requests submitted to the Registry, has registered a suo moto case to prevent and manage natural disasters in Kerala.
The Court has listed the suo moto proceedings along with the writ appeals and connected cases concerning quarrying and construction activities in Wayanad District.
Case Title: C. Shukkur V The State Of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28487/ 2024
The Kerala High Court will be considering a writ petition moved by a lawyer seeking measures from the State Government, Director General of Police, Wayanad District Collector to come up with a centralized mechanism for collection and management of disaster relief funds intended for assisting landslide victims in Wayanad.
Kerala High Court Stops Construction In Hilly Terrain With Steep Slopes
Case Title: S. Unnikrishnan v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 27562 of 2024
Kerala High Court has ordered interim stay on any construction in hilly terrain with steep slopes.The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu said there is no clarity in the rule allowing such construction. The order was passed keeping in mind the ecological imbalances created by such construction.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court has appointed Senior Advocate Ranjith Thampan as Amicus Curiae to assist it in the suo moto case, initiated in the aftermath of devastating Wayanad landslides, to prevent and manage natural disasters in Kerala.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. noted that while there are numerous legislations and authorities involved, there must be effective coordination among them. It emphasized the need for a 'holistic approach' to prevent and manage natural disasters in the State.