Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201 - 251]Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201X. v State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203Sobhana v. President & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205Suo Motu...
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201 - 251]
Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
X. v State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
Sobhana v. President & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Pius C. Mundadan & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Thampi VS v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
State of Kerala v. Raseena K.K, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
Naziya & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
Kiran David v. Assistant General Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
Mujeeb Rahiman v. Thasleena & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
Bhasy v. Thomas & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
Philip K.J v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
Principal v. Addl. Registering Authority & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
Uma Murthi v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
Dr. Sree Hari N. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
Ratnamani George & Ors. v. Authorised Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
Vakiyath Koya & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Treasa K.J & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
Saju A.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Eraj v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
Aswin Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
E.K. Rajan v. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
P.C. George v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
Indo-Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd. v. T.N. Suraj & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
X v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Renjith Maheshwary v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
Ravis Exporters v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Dr. Parvathy S v. Director General of Health Services & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
State Of Kerala vs Bijesh Kumar M, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Saji Thomas Vs Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
P.C. George v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
SNDP Yogam & Anr v. G. Krishnamoorthy & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
Adhila v Commissioner of Police & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Judgments This Month:
Case Title: Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
The High Court has recently ruled that a party claiming compensation for illegal acquisition of some property allegedly possessed by him has to establish his title and possession over the same before the court. While allowing an appeal, Justice Mary Joseph observed that in the said case, the plaintiff who sought compensation had failed to produce the document to evidence his ownership over the land.
2. No Legal Embargo Against Superior Courts Intervening With Bail Orders: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X. v State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
The High Court has recently observed that although an order granting bail would not generally be interfered with by the superior Courts, there is no legal embargo against such intervention. Justice Kauser Edappagath thereby observed that a High Court may invoke its inherent powers under S.482 of CrPC in the aid of an order required to secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of any court.
Case Title: Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
The High Court has laid down that when a dispute in a pending civil case is referred to the Lok Adalat and settled thereafter, the entire court fee already paid by the party is liable to be refunded. Justice V.G Arun found that the 7% reduction of the court fee already paid was not sustainable since such cases were governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act and the Court Fees Act, and not the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Board of Revenue) Rules.
Case Title: Sobhana v. President & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
The Court has recently established that the general supervisory power available under Section 17 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act does not empower the District Judge to pass judicial orders directing the civil courts in the district to dispose of matters pending before the subordinate courts in a time-bound manner. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the general control over all the civil courts given to the District Judge within the District is confined to matters of administration and not strictly on the judicial side to pass orders of such nature.
Case Title: Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
The High Court has ruled that when cancellation or declaration of a document as null and void is sought for, the court fee shall be paid valuing the same on the basis of the value shown in the document as long as the subject matter is capable of valuation. However, Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that in a suit for partition seeking a declaration that a settlement deed is invalid or not valid, a separate court fee is not necessary for the said declaration.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
The High Court took suo motu cognisance of the food poisoning incident in Kasargod after a 16-year-old girl died and over 50 people were hospitalised which, as per news reports, is a possible aftermath of consuming shawarma. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar took up the case after media reports threw light on the appalling conditions of some shawarma-making joints in the state. The court later sent notices to the State Food Safety Commissioner, Health Director and other officials.
Case Title: Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
The High Court has held that a District Collector can be notified as the 'appropriate government' mentioned in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Justice Devan Ramachandran found that as per Section 3E of the Act, the State Government can notify a District Collector to be the "appropriate Government" and he shall then be deemed to be such Authority therefrom.
8. RSS Worker's Murder: Kerala High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea For CBI Investigation
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
The Court dismissed the plea filed by the wife of deceased Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith, who was hacked to death in November last year, seeking the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal pronounced the judgment after weeks of elaborate hearing, permitting the State Police to continue with their probe.
Case Title: M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has directed the GST department to facilitate the revising of Form GST TRAN-1 and filing of Form GST TRAN-2 by making necessary arrangements on the web portal. The petitioner/assessee was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel products and other accessories and allied items.
Case Title: M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Pius C. Mundadan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The High Court has established that while taking a decision on an application for condonation of delay, the court should not merely consider the reasons stated in the application alone, but should also consider other attendant and relevant aspects. Justice V.G. Arun observed that having contested the case in a lackadaisical manner and having failed to offer an acceptable explanation for the delay, the petitioners cannot bank upon the elasticity of the term 'sufficient cause' to plead equity or seek permission to contest the suit on merits.
11. Kerala High Court Sets Aside Interim Order In Favour Of KSRTC In Bulk Diesel Price Case
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Court allowed the appeals moved by state-owned oil marketing companies (OMC) challenging the interim order issued in favour of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) wherein the OMCs have been directed to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps temporarily. A vacation bench of Justice C.S Dias and Justice Basant Balaji thereby set aside the impugned interim order passed in a petition moved by KSRTC through Advocate Deepu Thankan citing that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Court urged the respective authorities to routinely inspect and monitor food safety standards across the State all year round while hearing a suo motu PIL launched after the food poisoning incident in Kasargod. A 16-year-old girl Devananda died and over 57 people were hospitalised which, as per news reports, is a possible aftermath of consuming shawarma from a particular restaurant.
Case Title: M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and nine others in the Kashmir terror recruitment case in a judgment that runs to 205 pages. The Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran however, acquitted the 2nd, 14th and 22nd accused in the case since their role in the conspiracy were not established. The Court also recorded its appreciation for the tremendous work put in both by the Kerala Police and the NIA while remarking, "For those who have such radical thoughts, we can only say that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence, if you just look at history."
Also Read: Kashmir Terror Recruitment Case: Kerala High Court Confirms Conviction Of 10 Accused, Acquits 3
Case Title: Thampi VS v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
The Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to prevent alleged forced vaccination of children across the State finding that the petitioner had moved the Court based on information received through social media. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the plea with interesting comments after the petitioner failed to place on record any specific instance of forced vaccination of minors.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Raseena K.K.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
The Court ruled that once a Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) registration is cancelled, it must be published in at least two major daily newspapers, and the dealer must be notified in accordance with Form No.5 B.Then only will the cancellation of registration be effective. Justice S.V. Bhatt and Justice Basant Balaji observed that as per Rule 19 of KVAT Rules, the application was filed on 20.2.2014. The registering authority, after cancelling the registration, ought to have issued the dealer a notice in Form No.5 B and published the details in at least two dailies in the State and also on the website of the Commercial Tax Department.
Case Title: Naziya & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
The Court held that short artificial breaks in service between successive contracts cannot be used as a device to deny maternity rights to the employees. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that as per the Government Order dated January 2021, the employee should have "actually" worked for a period of not less than 80 days immediately preceding her expected date of delivery or date of miscarriage to be eligible for maternity benefits and that artificial breaks are not a valid ground to deny the same.
17. Low CIBIL Score Of Co-Borrowers Not A Ground To Deny Education Loans: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Kiran David v. Assistant General Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
The Court reiterated that the CIBIL scores of co-borrowers do not play a role in deciding applications for education loans since the eligibility conditions for sanctioning such priority sector loans should have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by these loans. Justice N. Nagaresh also observed that imposing such conditions would defeat the very purpose of granting such loans, thereby discouraging banks from doing so.
Case Title: Mujeeb Rahiman v. Thasleena & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
In a significant judgment, the Court has reiterated that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC until she obtains relief under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act while adding that an order passed under Section 125 shall continue to remain in force until the amount payable under Section 3 of the Act is paid. It was also held that the wife cannot be allowed to circumvent the provisions of the Act by refusing the offer made by the husband to make the payment under Section 3 without any valid reason.
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
The Court while dismissing a plea filed by the wife of deceased Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith seeking the investigation to be transferred to the CBI, observed that the accused belonged to extremist outfits. Justice K. Haripal had pronounced the judgment earlier this month after weeks of elaborate hearing, permitting the State Police to continue with their probe. The Judge remarked, "No doubt, SDPI and PFI are extremist organisations indulging in serious acts of violence. All the same, those are not banned organisations."
Case Title: Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Kerala High Court recently established that there is no prohibition or restrictions in law restraining an assignee or successors-in-interest from cutting or appropriating any trees standing on the assigned land. After an elaborate discussion on the relevant provisions, Justice N. Nagaresh found that since the charge under Section 97(3) of the Land Reforms Act does not exist in the case of the petitioner's land, the prohibition contained in Rule 29(6) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 would not apply in this case.
Case Title: Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Court has observed that a private tomb or cemetery cannot be constructed at the whims and fancies of any private individual, be it on his property or not, without securing an adequate licence from the District Collector. Justice Shaji P. Chaly held so after analysing Section 2(m) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 under which a tomb would qualify as a building, thereby making it clear that without a licence from the concerned District Collector, no burial ground shall be opened, whether it be public or private.
Case Title: Bhasy v. Thomas & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court recently established that a decree for specific performance cannot be granted based on an oral agreement unless there is cogent evidence to prove such agreement in the first place. Justice K. Babu observed that the plea of an oral contract for reconveyance can be accepted only if there is cogent and convincing evidence to establish it. The Court found that the respondent failed to adduce oral evidence in regard to the nature of the document despite the burden of proof in respect of the property being on him.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayani & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
The Kerala High Court recently held that when a person dies of electrocution from a hanging electric line touching a vehicle, the Kerala State Electricity Board and its employees are equally liable for negligence apart from the driver of such vehicle. Justice M.R. Anitha held that it is the bounden duty of KSEB and its employees to keep electrical equipment and accessories intact and in the proper position to avoid danger to the public.
Case Title: Philip K.J v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
The Kerala High Court recently held that Rule 67A of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 does not curtail a religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs available under Article 26(B) of the Constitution of India in any manner. Rule 67A prohibits any Government Servant from being an office-bearer of any communal or religious organisation or of such trust or society. Justice T.R. Ravi observed that what is protected under Article 26 (B) is the right of a denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and not regarding the election of office-bearers.
Case Title: Principal v. Addl. Registering Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
The Kerala High Court has directed the Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance with its earlier directions issued in 2019, through the concerned officers of the Motor Vehicles Department against motor vehicles which violate the safety standards in the State. Justice Anil K. Narendran laid particular emphasis on the safety standards relating to lighting, light-signalling devices, vehicles fitted with unauthorised name board, emblem, flag and also multi-coloured red, blue and white lights intended for vehicles on designated emergency and disaster management duties; vehicles used on public places without displaying registration marks appropriately; vehicles pasted with cooling films on safety glass or fitted with sliding cloth curtains.
Case Title: Uma Murthi v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court in an unusual move permitted an appellant to be assisted by an engineer of her choice while the statutorily appointed Municipal Level Technical Expert Committee inspects the damage caused to her property by the ongoing construction of the party respondents. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar however made it clear that such engineer shall not interfere with the enquiry conducted by the Committee, and can only assist the appellant.
Case Title: Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
The Kerala High Court has established that the inconvenience of the power of attorney holder of the husband in a case before the Family Court (whether male or female) is not a reason to deny the transfer sought for by the wife. Justice A. Badharudeen found that by appointing a power of attorney, a principal appoints an agent to conduct his case and such an agent can be anybody capable of travelling and contesting the case of the respondent for and on behalf of the respondent.
28. 'Consent Can Be Reasonably Deciphered': Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Doctor In Rape Case
Case Title: Dr. Sree Hari N. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a doctor who was accused of raping another doctor finding that the prima facie evidence shows that it was a consensual relationship. Justice C. Jayachandran held that the question of whether such consent was vitiated by the alleged false promise to marry should be considered by the trial court.
Case Title: Ratnamani George & Ors. v. Authorised Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
The Kerala High Court observed that when the notice of sale based on which the parties bid for property has been set aside, it can be presumed that there is no valid sale under the law. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas thereby dismissed the plea which had sought a direction to the respondent to confirm the sale of the property auctioned by the petitioners after accepting the balance bid amount.
Case Title: Vakiyath Koya & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
The Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions moved by private bus operators seeking an extension of the tax exemption granted to them owing to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. "Since exemption from payment of tax was granted for reasonable periods, it cannot be said that despite the restrictions and regulations brought in due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government had not considered the plight of the stage carriage operators and contract carriage operators."
Case Title: Treasa K.J & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court directed the Secretary of the Cochin Corporation to initiate strict action against those dumping garbage into canals and drains, aggravating the flooding of roads and causing blockage of drains in the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran began the interim order with an observation that as much as the Court did not desire to control the management of the drains or the flood mitigating systems in the city regularly, it was forced to do so because of the large scale inundation witnessed due to the rains.
Case Title: Saju A.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court has recently directed Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to continue to provide the Post Retirement Medical Benefit Scheme (PRMBS) to employees with less than 15 years of service in accordance with the long-term settlement. Justice Sunil Thomas thereby quashed a notification issued by the BPCL in the form of an administrative order to the extent it deprives the benefit of the medical scheme to those who have not completed 15 years.
Case Title: R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court directed the District Police Chief of Alappuzha to ensure that no law and order problems surface at the 'Jana Maha Sammelanam' proposed to be conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI) this Saturday in the district. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan admitted the plea and also directed the 5th respondent Police Chief to consider the representation moved the petitioner alleging that unless the programmes scheduled by the PFI and Bajrangdal are prevented, there is every chance for communal clashes in the district.
34. Issuance Of Summons Is A Prerequisite For Issuance Of Warrant & Notice To Sureties: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Eraj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
The Kerala High Court observed that the issuance of summons is a prerequisite for the issuance of a warrant and notice to sureties. Justice Mary Joseph observed that the NDPS Court was unjustified in issuing warrant to the petitioner and notices to the sureties without issuing summons to them first.
Case Title: Aswin Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea preferred by a group of NEET-PG candidates challenging their allotment of examination centres at Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh on short notice. While finding that it would be improper to hamper with the exam or the exam centres a day before the exam, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the candidates owing to the same.
Case Title: E.K. Rajan v. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the three methods of serving, affixing and publishing a notice of 15 days for subsequent sales, as provided under Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, is mandatory in nature and the said requirement cannot be tampered with. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas quashed the sale notice issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the statutory requirement of a 15 days clear notice for subsequent sale was not satisfied. The Court held that the said notice of sale was bad in law and the consequent sale was liable to be set aside.
37. Kerala High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Politician PC George In Hate Speech Case
Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to senior political leader PC George in a hate-speech case over alleged statements against Muslims. A single bench of Justice P Gopinath passed the order, considering the fact that the offences under Section 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code are punishable with less than 3 years imprisonment, and that George has been an MLA for over 30 years and is unlikely to abscond.
Case Title: Indo-Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd. v. T.N. Suraj & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court recently modified the interim ex-parte gag order against Reporter TV restricting it from publishing/broadcasting/telecasting 'any item' concerning actor Dileep's brother in law, Suraj while reporting about the murder conspiracy case or the 2017 actor sexual assault case for three weeks. Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas vacated the impugned order to the extent to which it has restrained the appellant from reporting 'any item' relating to Suraj noting that the said gag order imposed a restriction that was beyond the reasonableness established in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd & Ors v. SEBI & Anr by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
The Kerala High Court on Monday issued a set of suggestions for the State to consider to assist survivors of child abuse or sexual violence, while particularly emphasising the need to take steps to publicize the Toll-Free Number '112' as an Emergency Response Support System. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that the growing number of cases of hapless victims being driven to stages of despondency bears testimony to the suspicion that the measures currently in place are not being implemented properly.
Case Title: Renjith Maheshwary v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday disposed of the plea moved by the Olympian national record holder in triple jump Renjith Maheshwary challenging a press release issued by the Secretary, Department of Sports withholding the Arjuna Award previously conferred to him. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked Maheshwary to submit a representation along with all the documents available with him to the Centre for it to reconsider his grievance within 4 weeks and directed the Centre to decide on the same within 2 months.
Case Title: Ravis Exporters v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The Kerala High Court has held that there was a total lack of application of mind in the order of the Committee of Executives (COE). There was a manifest failure to consider the explanation offered by the borrower/guarantor. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian has observed that the Review Committee also failed to consider or assess the order of the COE independently and failed to appreciate the failure to serve the order of COE on the petitioners.
42. No Quarrying Or Construction Work On Lands Assigned For Cultivation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ruled that no quarrying activities are permitted on land assigned for cultivation and thereby directed the State Government to take steps for the resumption of such land, notify and exempt the provisions of required. Overruling a Single Judge decision, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly in a batch of petitions moved by filed by the quarry owners and the Stated related to quarrying in lands assigned for rubber cultivation at the State's capital.
43. NEET-SS: Kerala High Court Orders Fresh Mop Up Rounds For A Vacant Seat At Kottayam Medical College
Case Title: Dr. Parvathy S v. Director General of Health Services & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued an interim direction to the Director General of Health Services and Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a fresh mop up counselling for the seat of DM Neurology lying vacant in the Kottayam Medical College. This seat had become vacant due to the resignation of a student who had already joined based upon the first round of counselling on getting admission to AIIMS New Delhi within a week.
Case Title: State Of Kerala vs Bijesh Kumar M.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed review petitions filed against its judgment which held that Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee has no authority to contribute any amount from the Devaswom Funds to Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund or to any other Governmental agency. The Full bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman, Shircy V. and M.R. Anitha pronounced the judgment today dismissing Review Petitions filed by the State Government.
45. Credit Notes Not Affecting Input Tax Can't Be Treated As Taxable Turnover: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Saji Thomas Vs Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti, Bechu Kurian Thomas, and Justice Basant Balaji has held that credit notes not affecting input tax already deposited cannot be treated as taxable turnover by the extended meaning of Section 2 subsection (iii) Explanation VII of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The court observed that the State Legislature has jurisdiction to define and decide the taxable events, turnover, taxable turnover, total turnover, taxable persons, the measure of tax, and the rate of tax under the Act. As part of its policy of imposing compensatory taxes on the above-stated situations, the Legislature, in its wisdom and experience, defines what constitutes a sale price, purchase price, turnover, etc.
46. 'Organizers Responsible': Kerala High Court Directs Police To Take Action Against The Rally Organisers In Light Of Provocative Slogans By Child
Case Title: R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that rally organisers were equally responsible if any controversial remarks/slogans are made during the rally disrupting the peace of the society. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the police to take appropriate actions against the rally organizers. The court made the observations in a plea for a prohibition on public conferences, marches, mass drills, and motorcycle rallies in the 'Jana Maha Sammelanam' conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI) last Saturday in the Alappuzha district.
47. Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Ex- MLA PC George In Hate Speech Cases
Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to Ex- MLA PC George in both hate speech cases. Justice Gopinath has allowed the petitions filed by P.C George with respect to two cases registered by Kerala Police, for alleged anti-Muslim statements made at two separate events held at Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam respectively.
Also Read: PC George Seeks Regular Bail In Hate Speech Case, Kerala High Court To Consider Today
Case Title: SNDP Yogam & Anr v. G. Krishnamoorthy & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of the Ernakulam District Court that a scheme for the administration of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam shall be framed in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha dismissed the appeal filed by SNDP Yogam, its general secretary Vellappally Natesan and a few others finding no infirmity in the decision of the district court.
Case Title: Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals that assailed the NEET- PG medical prospectus on the ground of incongruity with the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations regarding the incentives given to in-service candidates and a connected appeal seeking weightage to service candidates in the open merit quota. Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that this was a policy decision of the Government to regulate and meet up with the requirements in the respective departments so as to cater for the needs of the public at large and that the appellants had failed to make out any case of arbitrariness, unfairness, malafides or any other legal infirmities susceptible to have been interfered with by the court.
50. Kerala High Court Grants Interim Pre-Arrest Bail To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court granted interim pre-arrest bail until next posting of the case to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea for anticipatory bail in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed so after noting that the actor was willing to submit himself before the jurisdiction of the Court and that he was apprehending immediate arrest from the airport.
50. Kerala High Court Reunites Lesbian Couple Forcibly Separated By Parents
Case Title: Adhila v Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court came to the rescue of a lesbian couple by reuniting them after they were forcibly separated by their parents and family members. A Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran allowed the habeas corpus plea moved by Adhila after her partner, Fathima Noora was taken away by her parents.
Other Developments:
Case Title: Thampi VS v State of Kerala
The Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to prevent alleged forced vaccination of children across the State finding that the petitioner had moved the Court based on information received through social media. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the plea with interesting comments after the petitioner failed to place on record any specific instance of forced vaccination of minors.
Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the State Police Chief (SPC) to clarify whether any order had been issued appointing the new Crime Branch chief as the supervising authority of the special investigation team (SIT) which is currently probing the 2017 actor sexual assault case. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas passed the order in a petition filed by film director Baiju Kottarakara challenging the transfer of ADGP S. Sreejith from the post of Crime Branch chief and the supervising officer of the sexual assault case.
'These Buses Are Your Assets': Kerala High Court Pulls Up KSRTC For Ditching Buses In Depots To Rust
Case Title: N. Raveendran v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court directed the State and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to file an affidavit detailing the measures taken for protecting the 'assets' of the Corporation. The Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas issued the directive on a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleged that valuable assets of the KSRTC were being wasted away on account of negligence and insouciance of the corporation.
Case Title: Raveendran A v. Union of India & Ors.
The mystery deepens as the family of the Indian seafarer who went missing in Tunisian waters approached the Court seeking governmental intervention suspecting foul play in the entire episode. Justice T.R Ravi directed the Centre to get proper instructions in the matter on an urgent basis and file a statement as well. The developments ensued in a petition moved by the father of the 27-year-old seaman who went missing from his vessel.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Make 4 Additional Judges Of Kerala High Court Permanent
The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of the following Additional Judges of the Kerala High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court: Justice Murali Purushothaman, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., Justice Karunakaran Babu, and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath.
Centre Notifies Appointment Of Shoba Annamma Eapen As Additional Judge Of Kerala High Court
The Central Government notified the appointment of Ms.Shoba Annamma Eapen, Advocate, as an additional judge of the Kerala High Court. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju informed this on Twitter recently. With the new appointment, the Kerala High Court will have 40 judges against a sanctioned strength of 47 judges.
Kerala High Court Now Has 7 Women Judges, Highest Ever In Its History
With Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen assuming office, the Kerala High Court now has 7 women judges for the first time in its history. The High Court has now the following women judges: Justices Anu Sivaraman, Sophy Thomas, V Shircy, Shoba Annamma Eapen, MR Anitha, Mary Joseph and CS Sudha. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen who has been sworn in as the Additional Judge of Kerala High Court today was welcomed by the legal fraternity in a brief ceremony held at Chief Justice's Court. With Justice Eapen on board, the Kerala High Court has hit an all-time with 7 women judges for the first time in its history. The High Court has now 38 judges.
Also Read: With Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen Sworn In, Kerala High Court Hits All-Time High of 7 Women Judges
Case Title: Arun Roy v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the 50% reservation for Muslims in the State-run Institute of Career Studies & Research (ICSR) in the Malappuram district. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly issued notice on the plea moved by an advocate practising in the High Court.
Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court was informed by the State that S Sreejith IPS is not in charge of the investigation of the 2017 actor sexual assault case and that following his transfer, a new investigation team was appointed. Sheikh Darwesh Sahib, the head of the new crime branch, is now in charge of the team, it was submitted. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby directed the State Government to submit a report containing the transfer order and information on the new investigation team within seven days.
Case Title: Jeyaprabha R. v. CBI & connected matters
Eight accused in the scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund have moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the case. When the matter was taken up today, Justice K. Babu refused to grant interim protection to the accused and posted the matter on Monday for disposal. By this time, the parties have been directed to produce the relevant materials before the Bench for consideration.
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court orally asked Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu to produce his return tickets to India so that it can hear him and consider his plea for anticipatory bail in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Gopinath P. orally directed the actor to make himself available to the jurisdiction of the court.
Children Being Forced To Voice Provocative Slogans. Is It Legal?": Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Monday expressed concerns about children being used in political and religious rallies and made to raise provocative slogans. A single bench of Justice P Gopinath wondered if using children for such activities was legal. The bench shared these concerns while adjudicating upon a group of cases involving minors and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and opined that steps must be taken in favour of this goal.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday morning recused from hearing the petition moved by the survivor actress in the 2017 actor sexual assault case raising serious allegations against the State and the trial court judge, suspecting foul play in the ongoing investigation in the 2017 actor assault case. Reports suggest that the survivor had sought for the case to be listed under a different Bench before the Registrar yesterday, yet the case was listed to be adjudicated by Justice Edappagath. When the matter was mentioned, the judge recused from hearing the case.
[K-Rail] SIA Conducted Via Digital Means, No More Survey Stones: State Informs Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Kerala High Court was informed by the State on Tuesday that the practice of placing survey marks has been done away with and the social impact assessment (SIA) for the K-rail project was being conducted through digital methods such as geo-tagging wherever the people take objection to lay survey stones for the survey. Justice Devan Ramachandran recorded this submission and observed that the endeavour of the court that it has been attempting to achieve so far through this litigation has now begun to bear fruit even without directions being issued.
Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala
Senior politician P.C George has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the order passed by the Thiruvananthapuram First Class Judicial cancelling his bail granted in the first hate speech case. The case pertains to a speech delivered at a programme organised as part of the Ananthapuri Hindu Maha Sammelan, where he alleged that tea adulterated with drugs was sold to non-Muslims in Muslim-run restaurants to turn people infertile in a bid to seize control of the country. The former MLA had also urged the audience to boycott institutions and restaurants run by Muslims.
Actor Assault Case: Kerala High Court Grants Time To Government To File Statement
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted time to the government to file a statement in the plea moved by the survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case where she raised serious allegations against the State and the trial court judge, suspecting foul play in the ongoing investigation in the case. The matter was listed before Justice Ziyad Rahman where the state sought time to file a statement. Earlier this week, the matter was listed before Justice Kauser Edappagath, but the Judge had recused from hearing the matter upon the petitioner's request. The case was accordingly listed before Justice Rahman on the next day.
Also Read: Kerala Bar Council To Protest Against Police Atrocities On Advocates