Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 276-324]M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, ...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 276-324]
M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276
Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277
The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278
Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279
K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280
Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
XXXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
Chekkutty v State of Kerala. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
Sindhu B S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
R Asokan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
State of Kerala v Azeez, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
Don Paul V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
State of Kerala v Nino Mathew & Connected Cases, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
Musthafa & Others v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 305
Dr Rema M v The Director Of Collegiate Education And Others & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 306
Sobhin Sunny v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 307
Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Abu @Abdulla v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 309
Dr Haritha H S v The State Police Chief, Joseph Chacko v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 310
P. A. JOSE Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
Lekha Komath V Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 313
Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 314
T Jacob Armory v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 315
Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 316
The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala ,2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 318
Pradeep @ Kannan v State of Kerala, Babu and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 319
Shyamala Bhasker v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 320
Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321
Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 322
Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder and Others v M. A. Anidas and Another, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 323
Union of India and Others v Sunny Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 324
Judgment/Orders This Month
Case Title: M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276
The Kerala High Court was considering whether an executing court while enforcing an International arbitral award could direct payment of interest on the amount awarded from the date of the award till the date of payment, even when the award itself does not contemplate payment of any interest.
Justice T R Ravi held that the executing court cannot add or review the foreign award for providing payment of interest when the arbitral award itself does not mention anything about post-award interest.
Case Title: Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the provision for refund under Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 will only apply if the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for a vehicle.
“A reading of Section 6 of the 1976 Act indicates beyond doubt that the provision for refund will apply only when the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for the period specified and the vehicle is not intended to be used during the whole of that period or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month” observed a Single Judge bench of Justice Gopinath P.
Case Title: The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278
The Kerala High Court has held that extending benefits of better terms of gratuity has to be decided by the employer based on various factors and the employees cannot claim better terms of gratuity as a matter of right.
The Court was considering whether retired employees of Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd were entitled to get the benefit of the amendment dated 24.5.2010 to Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, increasing the ceiling limit from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs.
Justice M A Abdul Hakhim stated granting enhanced gratuity benefits was within the employer's discretion. It stated that the employer can decide whether to extend the better terms of gratuity to employees or not.
Case Title: Sulochana v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279
The Kerala High Court held that a person in jail is exempted from appearing in person at the registration office for registration of any document as per Section 38 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that the District Registrar is duty-bound to visit the jail where the convict is confined and examine him or issue a commission for his examination to complete the registration process.
Case Title: K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280
The Kerala High Court held that the investigating officer is not obliged to act exclusively based on the opinion of the 'District Level Expert Panel' and 'State Level Apex Body' for criminal investigation. Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the investigating office could take additional expert opinion from any other source if he wishes to do so to complete the investigation.
“ The Doctors cannot have any objection against the processes now put in place by the Government of Kerala through their various orders…..even going by the said order, it does not make it obliged on the Investigating Officer to act exclusively as per the views of the 'Expert Panel/Apex Body', but, on the contrary, enjoins him to continue the investigation using other expert opinion, if required, thus culminating it as per law, before the competent Court. It is eventually the Court which takes the final call either way because, even if the Investigating Officer is to refer the complaint against a Doctor, the the complainant would nevertheless obtain the right to file a 'private complaint' or 'protest complaint', as the case may be; thus leading the processes forward, which would then be completed without any reference to the opinion of the 'Expert Panel' or the 'Apex Body'”, ordered the Court.
Case Name: Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the employer was provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim before the authority ccannot approach the High Court alleging that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the claim.
The High Court underscored the welfare objectives of the Minimum Wages Act which aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for various employments. Section 20 of the Act outlines the adjudication process for claims, under which the respondent Inspector had filed the claim. The High Court held that the Petitioner was provided ample opportunity to contest the claim before the Authority but failed to avail herself of such opportunities. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: XXXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
The Kerala High Court has held that a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who sexually assaulted her. The Court thus permitted a sixteen-year-old rape victim, studying in standard 11th to medically terminate the pregnancy which reached 28 weeks of gestation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that denying permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would equate to imposing forced motherhood and deprivation of the right to life with dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
The Kerala High Court has permitted a married couple to undergo medical termination of pregnancy that reached 27 weeks of gestation due to substantial abnormalities of the foetus.
Justice Kauser Edappagath relying upon the report of the Medical Board observed that even though the foetus does not have a life-threatening condition, it has multiple major congenital abnormalities to the brain and spinal cord, indicating a high risk of neurodevelopment impairment, health complications and mortality.
“It is further opined that even though this is not a life-threatening condition, the child is likely to have permanent and significant neurological disabilities and handicaps. Hence, the Board recommended termination of pregnancy. It is a case squarely falling within the exception carved out by clause (2B) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 inasmuch as the Medical Board diagnosed substantial abnormalities in the foetus.”
Case Title: Chekkutty v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
The Kerala High Court held that an accused cannot be imposed with a lesser sentence merely because he appeared before the Court through his counsel and pleaded guilty. The Court stated that punishment imposed upon the accused should find a balance between the offence committed and the injury suffered by the victim.
Justice P Somarajan set aside the Trial Court's order by which a sentence of fine was imposed upon the accused. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter for ordering a substantive sentence.
Case Title: Sindhu B S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the India since it is a purely academic matter.
Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. t is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”
Case Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
A single judge bench of the Kerela High Court comprising of Justice G. Girish in the case of Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan has held that the right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by employer.
The court further observed since the ECA, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, its purpose cannot be defeated by circulars or internal orders passed by officers of the Appellant. The court further observed that there was no rationale to say that when an employee suffers an injury in the course of employment, they need to prefer the hospital on the panel of the Appellant instead of the hospital from which they could get the best medical care. The court observed that:
The right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by the officers of the appellant
Case Title: R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Courts should evaluate and decide regarding the acceptability of the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan before proceeding with the trial of the suit when a party to litigation moves an application challenging it.
Justice G. Girish observed that the Trial Courts should not wait to consider the challenge against the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan until the final stage of evidence in the suit since that would cause hardships to the parties, i
Case Title: R Asokan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
The Kerala High Court stated that landowners who surrendered their property for the 'Kottayam Development Corridor Project' would be paid adequate compensation by assessing the land value by initiating proceedings under the LARR Act by issuing gazette notification and not based on the property's market value as on the date of surrender of the property back in 2015.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that it would not be adequate compensation since the land value has increased now. It stated that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, citizens cannot be deprived of their land without sanction of law.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Azeez
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
The Kerala High Court has held that the power to alter or add charges in exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC remains with the Court and cannot be done based on the application of parties.
In the facts of the case, the Public Prosecutor applied to the Trial Court to alter the charge and add the offence of trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC against the accused. The Trial Court dismissed the application since the offence of trafficking of a person under Section 370 was incorporated in the IPC by Amendment Act, 2013 and the alleged offence took place in 2006.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the order of the Trial Court does not warrant interference since the charge cannot be altered at the instance of the parties.
Case Title: State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
The Kerala High Court held that only a provisional pension could be sanctioned to a retired member of the All India Services if he is undergoing departmental or judicial proceedings. It stated that disbursement of DCRG or Commutation of Pension is permissible only after the culmination of departmental or judicial proceedings and not during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M.A.Abdul Hakhim referred to Rule 6 of All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 that outlines the provision regarding the withholding of pension and gratuity for members of the All India Services on pending departmental or judicial proceedings.
Case Title: SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Kerala High Court has held that the notion that Government schools are merely collective property and could be used for other purposes is an outdated concept. It stated that in the modern era, government schools are achieving remarkable educational excellence, equipping students to become citizens of future.
The petitioner SNDP Yogam Sakha approached the Court seeking permission to use Open Air Auditorium of a Government High School for a religious function attached to a temple.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that schools are temples of learning and government schools cannot be used for any other activities other than for students' intellectual and overall development. “Government Schools are ones, normally, accessed by children of ordinary citizens and it is the collective responsibility of the community and the Government to ensure that they are raised to the highest levels of excellence possible. This can be done only if there is a commitment to education, ensuring every facility to each student, no matter what financial strata he/she belongs to. The feeling that Government Schools can be used for any purpose, since it is a collective property, is a thought of the past and cannot be countenanced in the modern era, particularly when, all over the world, such schools are now reaching the zeniths of educational excellence, preparing its students to be the citizens of future.”
Case Title: The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
The Kerala High Court has held that in terms of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) and Kerala Education Act, 1958 (KE Act), the Manager of an aided School cannot collect any charges or fees from students for providing toilet facilities, computer labs with internet facilities and transportation facilities.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed it is only the Headmaster, who can collect any fee from students in an aided school. Thus it held that the Manager of an aided School cannot interfere with academic matters and collection of fees by him for providing additional facilities is unsustainable in law.
Case title: Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
The Kerala High permitted the petitioner to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regarding his grievances against telecasting the Indian Reality Show- Big Boss Malayalam Season 6.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Adarsh S alleging that the show violates broadcasting regulations and advisories issued by the Union Government by telecasting scenes of physical assault on national television.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun permitted the petitioner to withdraw his petition and directed him to submit a representation for redressal of his grievances before the Broadcaster under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act.
Case Title: State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
The Kerala High Court today confirmed the death sentence imposed upon Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, a migrant labourer from Assam for committing the rape and murder of a law student in Perumbavoor on April 28, 2016.
The division bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Manu observed that the case was deeply disturbing and represented a severe violation of human dignity and sanctity of life since after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim was murdered horrendously. The Court found that the case has far-reaching consequences since it creates fear and also vulnerability amongst women.
The Court on applying the Crime Test, Criminal Test and Rarest of Rare Test, dismissed Ameer-Ul Islam's appeal and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Sessions court.
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation filed by State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly committing hawala money transactions to the tune of 3.5 crores for use in campaigns during the 2021 State Assembly elections.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the case as non-maintainable.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Case Title: K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against State Congress President, K Sudhakaran in CPM leader P Jayarajan's attempt to murder case.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings initiated against K Sudhakaran (1st accused) and Rajeev (3rd accused) based on FIR No. 148/1997 cannot be permitted to continue since it is a second FIR filed against the parties by E P Jayarajan raising the same allegations based on the same incident itself.
[NDPS Rules 2022] Accused Has Right To Seek Expeditious Testing Of Contraband Within Time Frame Stipulated Under Rule 14: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
The Kerala High Court has held that a delay in testing seized drugs/substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985 would cause prejudice to the accused. The Court further stated that the accused have a right to seek expeditious testing of seized drugs/substances under Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022.
Justice C.S. Dias issued the following directions and also directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to forward a copy of the judgment to Courts dealing with NDPS Cases.
Case Title: Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
The Kerala High Court quashed the nominations made by Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, who is the Chancellor of the Kerala University to the Senate in the category 'Other Members'.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. directed the Chancellor to make fresh nominations in the category of 'Other Members' as per law within six weeks. The Court said: “It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts.”
Kerala High Court Warns Its Officers Of Disciplinary Action On Failure To List Cases As Per Roster
Case Title: Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
The Kerala High Court has held that its officers are duty-bound to ensure that cases are listed before the appropriate bench as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. It stated that officers would face disciplinary action if they posted matters deviating from the roster.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun said, “...the Office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulty to the Hon'ble Judges or Advocates appearing in the matter, will invite disciplinary action against the officials concerned.”
Case Title: Don Paul V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
The Kerala High Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and other decisions stated that preconditions have to be satisfied to seek investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before a Magistrate.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Magistrate should be vigilant in accepting applications seeking investigation in cases relating to the fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal delay/laches.
Case Title: Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 3840 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
The Kerala High Court held that a child witness cannot be recalled for cross-examination by the accused to fill the lacuna or omission in their case as per Section 33 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
It is to be noted that Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act states that a child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that the bar under Section 33(5) is not absolute, but it stated that a child witness can be recalled only when it is absolutely necessary to make a just decision on the case.
Centre's Sanction U/S 188 CrPC Required Only When Entirety Of The Offence Is Committed Outside India: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Section 188 CrPC, which deals with prosecution of offences committed outside India, is attracted only when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India.
The provision requires prior sanction of the Central government to inquire or try such cases in India.
Single bench of Justice K. Babu held there is no need to get previous sanction from the Central Government when the entirety of the offence did not happen outside India. It followed the 3-bench decision of Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand and observed,
“A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321) held that if the offence was not committed on its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. In view of the settled law, the contention of the petitioner relying on Section 188 Cr.P.C. fails.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Nino Mathew, Anu Shanthi v State of Kerala, Nino Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Kerala High Court has declined to impose death sentence upon Nino Mathew for the double murder of his accomplice and lover Anu Shanthi's three year old daughter and mother-in-law. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John converted the death sentence imposed upon Nino Mathew to Life Imprisonment and ordered that he shall not be entitled to remission for a period of 25 years.
The Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Anu Shanthi and confirmed the life sentence imposed upon her by the Sessions Court.
Additional Income Can't Be Treated As Concealed Income: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
The Kerala High Court has held that additional income cannot be treated as concealed income for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that a satisfactory explanation has been offered by the assessee, well before the issuance of a notice to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the admission of additional income made by the assessee has been accepted by the department that that completed the assessment under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. On that basis, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the differential income has to be seen as accepted by the Revenue for the purposes of the explanation under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Musthafa & Others v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 305
Kerala High Court ordered that State of Kerala should not permit any request to cut and remove trees on the roadsides without sufficient reasons.
The Court directed the State to issue necessary orders to see that no trees on the roadsides of the State are cut and removed merely for the reason that it obstructs commercial activities or shade adjacent building.
Trees can be cut only if it is in a damaged condition and it's dangerous to life of people. This should be decided by the committee constituted by an earlier government order, Court said.
Kerala High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fmr Kasargod College Principal, Cites Extraneous One-Sided Inquiry & Indiscipline Of SFI Students
Case title: Dr Rema M v The Director Of Collegiate Education And Others & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 306
The Kerala High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr. Rema, the former Principal in charge of Government College, Kasargod against whom proceedings were initiated for allegedly misbehaving with students belonging to SFI Union.
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner alleging that she spoke about the immoral conduct of girls, drug use amongst students and illegal activities of students belonging to SFI Union in an interview given to Marunadan Malayali Channel. She received show cause notice from the Director of Collegiate Education alleging that her statements during the channel interview lowered the dignity and reputation of the college.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed the petitioner has not violated Government Servants' Conduct Rules because no allegations were made against the government nor about the relationship between government and people in the interview.
Violation Of Bail Conditions Akin To Abusing Liberty Granted By Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Order Cancelling Bail
Case Title: Sobhin Sunny v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 307
The Kerala High Court held that violation of bail condition by the accused was akin to misusing the liberty bestowed upon him by the court and was a ground for cancellation of the bail.
Referring to Apex Court decisions, Justice A. Badharudeen held that the Court granting bail after imposing conditions has the power to cancel the bail order if any of those bail conditions are violated.
One Accomplice Cannot Corroborate Another: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Case Title: Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation
The Kerala High Court has held that the court as a matter of practice requires corroboration in material particulars for conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice. The nature and extent of the corroboration required will vary with the circumstances of each case and particular circumstances of the offence alleged in each case.
The Court also deliberated on the requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15.The grant of sanction is not a mere formality but a solemn act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. All the relevant records and materials for the grant od sanction must be made available to the sanctioning authority, which must undertake complete and conscious scrutiny of those records and materials independently applying its mind before deciding whether to grant sanction or not.
Prosecution Must Establish Facts Indicating 'Special Knowledge' To Shift Burden Of Proof On Accused U/S 106 Evidence Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abu @Abdulla v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 309
Granting benefit of doubt, the Kerala High Court recently acquitted a man held guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court for the murder of his 7-year-old daughter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha found that all other persons residing in the house who were present at the time of the alleged incident had stated that the victim suffered injuries from a fall. Thus, it said there is no reverse burden on the father under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain the circumstances of the daughter's death.
Attacks Against Doctors & Hospital Staff Are Continuing: Kerala HC Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea By Accused For Allegedly Attacking Lady Doctor
Case Title: Dr Haritha H S v The State Police Chief, Joseph Chacko v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 310
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail application moved by an accused for allegedly attacking and outraging the modesty of a lady Ayurveda Doctor.
Dismissing the anticipatory bail application, Justice A. Badharudeen stated that a prima facie case was made out against the accused for attacking a healthcare professional. The Court further stated that there is a continuing trend of abusing, assaulting and manhandling doctors and hospital staff for flimsy reasons.
Opening And Closing Stock Of The Year Is To Be Valued By Applying Same Methodology: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. A. JOSE Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
The Kerala High Court has held that the stipulation under Clause 16 of the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for the adoption of first-in, first-out (FIFO) or weighted average cost for valuation of the stock or inventory cannot be applied in the Assessment Year 2017-2018 for the valuation of the opening stock, as the opening and closing stock of the year are to be valued by applying the same methodology.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that the substitution of Section 145A with retrospective effect from April 1, 2017 by the Finance Act, 2018 is to give relief to those assessees who had adopted the FIFO to value their stock in the Assessment Year 2017-18 and to save their returns from being declared incorrect or invalid. This retrospective operation has the same purpose and objective. However, if an assessee did not apply the FIFO to value its opening and closing stock, as it was not mandatory, requiring such an assessee to apply the FIFO to value their stocks for the assessment year 2017–18 would result in an uncalled-for outcome.
Expenditure Incurred By Way Of Addition To Buildings, Electrical Fittings On Leasehold Premises Is Capital Expenditure: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
The Kerala High Court has held that the expenditure that was incurred by the appellant/assessee by way of addition to buildings and electrical fittings on leasehold premises was in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar has observed that the assessing authority and the First Appellate Authority have clearly relied on the written submissions given by the assessee to find that the nature of the expenses incurred by the assessee was capital in nature. Neither in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority nor before the Tribunal was there any material produced by the assessee to show that the expenses incurred by them were revenue in nature. If the assessee had in fact a case that the expenditure incurred by it was revenue in nature, then it was for the assessee to produce materials that would clearly demonstrate that the expenditure was revenue in nature.
Child Must Receive Love And Support From Both Parents Unless Proven Conduct Has Made One Parent Unworthy Of Custody Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lekha Komath V Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 313
The Kerala High Court stated that unless there is proven conduct making one parent unworthy of custody rights, it is in the best interest of the child to receive love and support from both parents.
While hearing a matrimonial appeal preferred by the mother, the Court interacted with the minor child and found that she has no objection to spent time with father but expressed reluctance to stay with the father for longer periods including overnight custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.M. Manoj observed that Courts have to ascertain 'What is the wish/desire of the child', but it must consider 'What would be in the best interest of the child' while deciding custody arrangements. It thus stated that Courts must distinguish between child's wishes and what is genuinely in the best interest of the child.
Courts Not Expected To Form Baseless Apprehensions That Lawyer Will Act Illegally In Discharge Of His Profession: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 314
The Kerala High Court recently quashed a Special Court order directing a lawyer to file an affidavit stating that the copy of witness statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC will not be "misused" by him.
Justice K. Babu said that a lawyer is an officer of the court and Courts are not expected to form an apprehension, without any foundation, that the lawyer may do some illegal acts during the course of his profession. "He is always expected to discharge his duties and responsibilities legally," the bench remarked.
The observation was made in an appeal filed against the proceedings of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thrissur directing the petitioner to file an affidavit stating the copy of the statements of the victim will not be misused
[S. 17 Arms Act] Place Of Business Of Armory Shop Is Only A Condition Of Licence That Can Be Varied By Licensing Authority: Kerala High Court
Case Title: T Jacob Armory v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 315
The Kerala High held that place of business of Armory Shop is only a condition of licence which can be varied by the licensing authority suo moto or on the application of the holder of licence as per Section 17 of the Arms Act.
Section 17 pertains to variation, suspension and revocation of licences. As per Section 17 (1), the licensing authority may suo moto vary the conditions of licence and as per Section 17 (2), the licensing authority may vary the conditions of the licence based on an application submitted by the licensee.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea Upon Noting State Govt's Assurance Over Appointment Of Judicial Member To Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Case Title: Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 316
The State Government has assured the Kerala High Court that a judicial member will be appointed to the State Real Estate Appellate Tribunal immediately after June O4, 2024.
The Division bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu disposed of the petition based on the assurance given by the state government that selection to the post is over and appointment will also be made after the Lok Sabha Polls.
No Illegal Religious Structures Should Be Allowed On Govt Lands, Encroachments By Religious Groups Would Lead To Disharmony: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
The Kerala High Court has held that the construction of illegal religious structures and buildings in government lands by Hindus, Christians, Muslims or any other religion cannot be permitted since that would lead to religious disharmony in the State.
The Court referred to the Preamble of the Constitution to state that religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean that citizens could encroach upon government land to construct religious structures and disrupt religious harmony.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan issued directions for the identification and eviction of unauthorized and illegal religious structures from government or public lands to uphold communal harmony and to strengthen the country as a 'SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
Office Attached To Residential House Of Advocate Cannot Be Exempted While Calculating Plinth Area For Computing Luxury Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 318
The Kerala High Court held that a room used by an advocate for study and office purposes attached to his residential house cannot be exempted while calculating the plinth area for computation of luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
It is to be noted that as per Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, a luxury tax is charged on a residential building if its plinth area exceeds 278.7 square meters. The plinth area of a residential building is calculated as per Section 6 of the Act. The proviso to Section 6 states that the plinth area of a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for storage of firewood or for any non-residential purpose shall not be calculated while determining the plinth area for the imposition of the luxury tax.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. applied the 'ejusdem generis' rule to state that the legislative intent was only to exclude non-residential rooms used for storage of firewood or garage while calculating plinth area for determination of luxury tax.
[Dying Declaration] Section 32(1) Of The Evidence Act Is In The Nature Of Exception, Circumstances Must Be Established By Party Wishing To Avail It: Kerala HC
Case Title: Pradeep @ Kannan v State of Kerala, Babu and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 319
The Kerala High Court while considering a Criminal Appeal observed that unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The admissibility of the statement depends on two conditions: either the statement should relate to the cause of the death or it should relate to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death.
The High Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to hold that unless the prosecution can prove that the death occurred due to the injuries sustained to the victim, the statement cannot be considered a dying declaration.
Certain Wives Levelling Vague Allegations To Haul Up In-Laws In Non-Bailable Offences: Kerala High Court Asks Courts To Be Careful
Case Title: Shyamala Bhasker v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 320
The Kerala High Court has remarked that many wives misuse Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes to wreak vengeance against the husband and parents, sisters, brothers and other relatives of the husband by raising vague and general allegations, without mentioning any specific instances of cruelty.
It further observed that Section 498 A is misused with an ulterior motive to initiate criminal proceedings and to malign and defame husband and relatives of husband in the society.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus stated that Courts have a duty to scrutinize the allegations raised against the in-laws to find out whether a prima facie case was made out to proceed with the trial or not. It held that if no prima facie case is made out from the allegations, then the Court should invoke its power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321
The Kerala High Court recently came across an "unusual" scenario where the daughter of an employee, insured under the Employee State Insurance Act was denied the "Ward of Insured Person Certificate" since her father owned the institution where her mother is employed.
The question before the Court was that since the ESI scheme is intended for the benefit of low paid employees, whether the daughter in this case will be entitled to such benefit when her father owns the institution.
[Veterinary Student Death] Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 19 Students Accused Of Abetment To Suicide, Assault & Criminal Conspiracy
Case Title: Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 322
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to 19 students accused of committing abetment to suicide, criminal conspiracy and assault of Sidharthan J S, a second-year Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry student at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pookode in Wayanad.
Sidharthan allegedly committed suicide on February 18, 2024, because of ragging and brutal assault from the college.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation as per the orders of the Court. After investigation, the CBI filed their final report before the Court naming 19 students as accused and stated that Sidharthan was subjected to brutal physical assault and public trial by some of his classmates and seniors. The CBI had concluded in their final report that 9 accused persons had committed offences punishable under Section 120B, 341, 323, 324, 355, 306, 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 and substantive offences thereof.
Justice C S Dias allowed the bail applications today and held that there is no prima facie material that indicates that the accused students have instigated Sidharthan to commit suicide. It stated that bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.
Only Co-Owners Can Claim Benefit Of Section 44 Of Transfer Of Property Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A. Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder and Others v M. A. Anidas and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 323
The Kerala High Court has held that only co-owners can claim the benefit of Section 44 of the Transfer Of Property Act.
A single bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that only co-owners of a property are entitled to the benefit of the second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act says that where the transferee of a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle him to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the house.
Correction of Date of Birth In Service Records Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Union of India and Others v Sunny Joseph
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 324
The Kerala High Court has held that changing the date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The division bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S. relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court to hold that the correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The issue came up in a petition where the Union of India challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing correction of respondent's date of birth in the service records observing that it would not cause any prejudice to the Department.
Other Significant Developments This Month
[Veterinary Student Death] Accused Students Being Probed By CBI Move Kerala High Court Seeking Bail
Case Title: Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Case Number: Bail Appl. 2306/2024 & Connected Cases
College students implicated as accused in the suicide of Sidharthan J S, a veterinary student, have approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail.
A crime was registered against eighteen persons under Sections 341, 323, 324, 342, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998.
Justice P G Ajithkumar posted the matter for hearing on May 07, 2024.
Case Title: All Kerala Motor Driving School, Instructors and Workers Association V The Transport Commissioner & Connected Cases
Case Number: WP(C) 10615/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court today declined to pass an interim order staying the implementation of the circular dated February 25, 2024 issued by the Transport Commissioner. The circular was issued by the Motor Vehicles Department prescribing additional conditions regarding the usage of vehicles for driving tests.
Justice Kauser Edappagath declined to grant an interim order staying the implementation of the circular and held that prima facie the circular intends to streamline procedure of driving test and is in harmony with the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. The Court also held that the Transport Commissioner being the head of the Motor Vehicles Department is competent to issue instructions which are not in violation to the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
Case Title: Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Case Number: Bail Appl. 2306/2024 & Connected Cases
In the matter of a veterinary student's death in Kerala, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has submitted its final report, naming 19 students as accused. The CBI had taken over the investigation of the matter pursuant to the orders of the Court.
The final report of the CBI stated that the Anti-ragging squad of the college submitted a report to the police after their enquiry concluding that Sidharthan was subjected to brutal physical assault and public trial by some of his classmates and seniors.
[Manjummel Boys] Kerala HC Directs Police Not To Arrest Actor-Producer Soubin Shahir & Producer Shawn Antony In Alleged Cheating Case
Case Title: Shawn Antony v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 3848 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order directing the police not to arrest actor cum producer partner Soubin Shahir and producer Shawn Antony in an allegation of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust regarding the production of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys.
The crime was registered at Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam under Sections 120B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice P G Ajithkumar ordered thus: “Defacto-complainant entered appearance and seeks time to file objection. The learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent. Post on 22.05.2024. The petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the Crime No.449 of 2024 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam till then.”
Case Title: Muhammed Rahi Hussain v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 3633 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court yesterday granted bail to a restaurant chef who made the shawarma that allegedly caused physical ailment to a woman leading to hospitalization.
A crime was registered under Sections 284 (Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison etc.) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
Justice C.Pratheep Kumar allowed the bail application since the accused has been in judicial custody since April 19, 2024.
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 17179/2024
Lawyer and State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson has approached the Kerala High Court with a public interest litigation seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for committing hawala money transactions for political purposes and use in election campaigns.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P and Justice Syam Kumar V M stated that the matter will be considered on May 14, 2024. “The State has filed their charge sheet, I Income Tax Department saying regarding the source of funds they have to find out, ED is acting under the PMLA for the purpose of attaching proceeds of crime to the State, what more should be done, what more can be done”? enquired the Court orally today.
The Court orally remarked, "Our concern is only this. The Court shall not be made a venue for political slugfest. We will not permit it. You may have various reasons but we will not allow that,"
Kerala High Court Reserves Judgment On AAP Member's Plea For ED Probe Against BJP Members In Kodakara Hawala Heist Case
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 17179/2024
The Kerala High Court reserved its judgment in the plea filed by State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson who has approached the Court with a public interest litigation seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly committing hawala money transactions to the tune of 3.5 crores for use in campaigns during the 2021 State Assembly elections.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P and Justice Syam Kumar V M heard the matter and reserved its judgment.
Case Title: Ahana v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP (Crl) 522/2024
A transwoman has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the denial of medical treatment in jail for undergoing gender affirmation surgery. It is submitted that due to the denial of medical treatment in jail, the petitioner is facing gender dysphoria and mental trauma.
Justice Johnson John directed the registry to number the petition and the public prosecutor sought time to get instructions on behalf of the State Government, Law Secretary, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Prison Welfare officer.
Case Title: Rehan Binoy v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Case Number: Bail Appl. 3023/2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court today impleaded the mother of veterinary student Sidharthan, in the bail application filed by those accused of abetting his suicide.
Sidharthan's mother disputed the finding in the final report that her son committed suicide by hanging. She alleged that further investigation is required by the CBI since the local police had tried to portray the brutal and inhumane murder as death by suicide. It was also submitted that granting bail to the accused persons would affect the investigation.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. allowed the mother's impleading application and posted the matter for hearing on May 22, 2024. “The application to implead filed by the mother of the deceased is allowed,” stated the Court.
Case Title: Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 17677/2024
Social Justice Vigilance Forum, a registered society under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking appointment of a Judicial Member in the Kerala State Real Estate Appellate Tribunal due to an expected vacancy that would arise from May 28, 2024.
The plea states that if no direction is issued by the Court, then it would result in a prolonged vacancy causing inconvenience to both the litigants and the public.
The Division Bench comprising Justice T R Ravi and Justice Harisankar V. Menon sought instructions and adjourned the matter.
Case Title: Babu Shahir v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl MC 4169/2024
The Kerala High Court has granted a stay for one month on the proceedings initiated against actor cum producer partner Soubin Shahir, producer Shawn Antony and Soubin's father Babu Shahir in an allegation of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust regarding the production of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys.
The court passed the above interim order in the petition filed by Soubin's father who was arrayed as the third accused.
Justice Viju Abraham stayed the entire proceedings for one month.
The crime was registered at Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam under Sections 120B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Sathybhama v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl A 733/2024
Today, The Kerala High Court passed an order granting interim protection to Mohiniyattam Performer Kalamandalam Sathyabhama, who was accused of allegedly making casteist remarks against fellow artist Dr. RLV Ramakrishnan.
“The Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date.” Ordered Justice K Babu while posting the matter to May 27, 2024 (Monday).
Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 18246/2024
M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist has moved the Kerala High Court seeking Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the President of the United Nurses Association (UNA) who was allegedly involved in hawala deals and swindled crores of money under the pretext of bringing stranded nurses from Middle Eastern Countries, Saudi Arabia to India during the Covid-19 Pandemics.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas sought instructions from the Public Prosecutor and posted the matter on June 13.
The UNA is an organization that represents nurses, advocating for their rights and development. The petitioner alleges that the 5th respondent, the President of the UNA, has collected crores of money for transporting stranded nurses to India. It is alleged that although huge amounts of money were collected, but such expenditures had not been incurred.
Kerala High Court judge Justice Devan Ramachandran, being the Chairperson of the 'Arears Committee' and 'Committee For Making Recommendations For Expeditious Disposal Of Cases Pending In High Court', has sought recommendations from the Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) to expedite the disposal of pending cases.
Justice Ramachandran sought the support and cooperation of the Bar to deal with and resolve the issue of the pendency of cases. The judge assured that the suggestions of KHCAA would be considered and accepted to make the case disposal system efficacious.
Case Title: Janardhana Shenoy K V Kumbakudi Sudhakaran
Case Number: Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 2 OF 2024(S)
State Congress President K Sudhakaran on Monday appeared in person before the Kerala High Court in a criminal contempt case initiated against him for his alleged remarks against the judiciary.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon has directed Sudhakaran to file an affidavit in the matter within four weeks. The case was filed by Advocate Janardhana Shenoy over Sudhakaran's allegedly contemptuous remarks against the judiciary for refusing CBI probe into the murder of Kerala Youth Congress Worker Shuhaib.
Case Title: M/S Kerala Chamber Of Commerce And Industry v Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 3605 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that prima facie, a Resolution Professional appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (IB) Code for carrying the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CRIP) of the Company cannot be hauled up in a criminal proceeding initiated against the Company.
The plea, filed by the first petitioner (Company) and the second petitioner (Resolution Professional of the Company), seeks to quash the complaint insofar it pertains to the Resolution Professional Resolution Professional under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the Special Court.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed that the Resolution Professional was not required to appear in person before the Special Court for PMLA cases, until further orders.
Case Title: Treasa K J v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23911 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court has directed the High Powered Committee constituted by the Court to ensure that the Kochi Municipal Corporation takes measures such as clearing the drains using sucker machines to prevent flooding of the city during this monsoon season.
The Court today noted that due to the rains over the past two days, approximately 15 hotspots were identified as being flooded. It thus directed the Kochi Corporation to ensure smooth water flow in the identified hot spots to prevent flooding.
“List this matter, therefore, on 27.05.2024; within which time, the Committee headed by the District Collector, will ensure that the Corporation clears all the drains, with the assistance of the “sucker machine” and such other facilities, and that water flow is smooth in all the hotspots already been identified”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran
Case Title: Ramesh Chennithala M.L.A. v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 18749/2024
Congress Leader Ramesh Chennithala has moved a plea before the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the recent amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Act, 2022. The plea seeks to quash the amendments made to section 2,3 and 14 of the Act. The Amendment was passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly and the President gave assent to it on February 09, 2024.
The plea will be heard by the division bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun on May 27, 2024 (Monday).
The plea specifically challenges the amendment made to Sections 2, 3 and 14 of the Act and alleges that the amendment interferes with the administration of justice and is against the separation of powers.
Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 18246/2024
M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist has moved the Kerala High Court seeking Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the President of the United Nurses Association (UNA) who was allegedly involved in hawala deals and swindled crores of money under the pretext of bringing stranded nurses from Middle Eastern Countries, Saudi Arabia to India during the Covid-19 Pandemics.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas sought instructions from the Public Prosecutor and posted the matter on June 13.
Will Issue Rules To Regulate Judicial Officers' Conduct While Handling Digital Evidence Containing Sexual Explicit Material: Registry Tells Kerala High Court
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 445/ 2022
The Kerala High Court Registry (District Judiciary) submitted before the Court that the Registry is in the process of issuing directives to regulate the conduct of judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary while handling electronic evidence containing sexually explicit materials.
The Court had laid down the comprehensive guidelines on December 07, 2023 while ordering a 'fact-finding enquiry' on the allegations raised by the survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case regarding unauthorized access and copy and transfer of the visuals from a Memory Card relating to the incident.
The Registrar (District Judiciary) submitted a report before the Kerala High Court stating that the court's judicial directives, which provide comprehensive guidelines for law enforcement agencies, courts, and examining authorities while handling electronic records containing sexually explicit materials, would be adhered to.
'Hindi Names Of New Criminal Laws Create Difficulty For Non-Hindi Speakers' : Advocate's Plea In Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v Union of India and Others
Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024
An advocate, P. V. Jeevesh filed a Public Interest Ligitaion before the Kerala High Court challenging the act of Union of India giving titles in Hindi to the 3 new Criminal Acts – Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The petition was heard by the division bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun on May 29, 2024 (Wednesday).
The plea seeks the Court to declare the action of the respondent giving Hindi/ Sanskrit name to the Acts as ultra vires, direct the respondent to provide English nomenclature to the three Acts and declare that the Parliament cannot give name to the Acts in any language other than English
Whether Nomenclature Forms Part Of An Act?: Kerala High Court To Examine Validity Of 'Hindi' Titles For New Criminal Law Statutes
Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v Union of India and Others
Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024
The Kerala High Court heard a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Hindi-language titles for the three new criminal law statutes.
The petition challenging the Hindi titles given to the 3 new criminal Acts came before the bench of Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun on May 29, 2024. The matter is posted for a detailed hearing on 26th July.
The PIL was filed challenging the Hindi titles given to the three new criminal laws. The petition said the members of the law fraternity in the South may find it hard to pronounce and the names can create confusion, ambiguity and difficulty for them. It therefore violates their right under Article 19(1)(g). The petition also contends that giving Hindi names to the Act goes against Article 348 of the Constitution.
Don't Get Colonial! Kerala High Court Says Police Stations Can't Be "Areas Of Terror", Should Be Approachable For Women & Children
Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant & Connected Matters
Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021 & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court today enquired incredulously as to why the police force in the State were trying to act In Terrorem, to instil fear and terror in the minds of the citizens by using coarse language.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said police officers are public servants and police stations are public offices. Thus, citizens should feel welcome to enter a police station.
Court said the police force should acquire a modern outlook and behave in a civilized manner with the citizens. It said that humility should be the hallmark of the police force and not arrogance. Court added that police officers have wide powers under the statute and if their behaviour is not regulated, it will remain unchecked. It emphasized that police should never use bad language to terrorize citizens.
Whether Disciplinary Action Was Initiated Against Former Deputy Tahsildar For Issuing Bogus Title Deeds: Kerala High Court Asks Govt
Case Title: One Earth One Life v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 1801 OF 2010 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court yesterday sought instructions from the government as to whether any crimes were registered or any disciplinary action was initiated against Devikulam Former Deputy Tahsildar M I Raveendran for issuing bogus title deeds.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S.Manu passed the above order while considering cases about the utilization and encroachment of ecologically sensitive areas in the Munnar and Idukki districts. The leading case is a Public Interest Litigation filed back in 2010 to restrict and prevent illegal constructions in Munnar and Idukki districts. The petition was filed to prevent illegal land encroachments, identify encroachers and to conduct inquiry into the genuineness of title deeds.
The Court perused a Government order issued on January 18, 2022, whereby it revoked more than 530 pattas which was illegally issued by M I Ravindran by misusing his authority as a Deputy Tahsildar.
Kerala High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Film Director Omar Lulu In Alleged Rape Case
Case Title: Omar Abdul Wahab @ Omar Lulu v State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 4562 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to film director Omar Lulu in an alleged rape case. Nedumbassery Police has lodged FIR under Section 376 of the IPC based on the complaint of the de-facto complainant. Omar Lulu had denied the allegations of sexual assault and argued that he was in a consensual relationship with the defacto complainant.