Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 192 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 200]Asha Joseph v. Babu C. George & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 192Greenlights Power Solutions Versus State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 193Jaganadhan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 194S. Raveendranath Pai & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 195Arun Jose v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 192 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 200]
Asha Joseph v. Babu C. George & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
Greenlights Power Solutions Versus State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
Jaganadhan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
S. Raveendranath Pai & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
Arun Jose v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
Chengalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Rajkumar & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
Satyendra Kumar Jha v. Secretary (Transport) & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
Simi C.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
Shameena Siddique & Anr. v. M. Abubekhar Siddiq & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
Judgments This Week
Case Title: Asha Joseph v. Babu C. George & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
The Court has held in a suit for specific performance under the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the plaintiff has not given details of funds in her possession or the manner in which she intended to raise them in the plaint, this is not fatal to the suit since those aspects are matters of evidence which need not be pleaded. While allowing an appeal, Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha observed that although the appellant who was the plaintiff in the suit had not given the details of the funds in her possession or the manner in which she intended to raise them in the plaint, the suit will survive since those aspects are matters of evidence, which as per Order VI Rule 1 of CPC need not be pleaded.
2. Bonafide Error In Format Of Date On E-Way Bill, Warrants Only Minor Penalty: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Greenlights Power Solutions Versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has held that a minor penalty can be imposed for a bona fide mistake in the date on an e-way bill. The petitioner/assessee has a valid GST registration and carries on business in electrical contract work. In connection with the work of a hospital in Assam, some goods were transported by a vehicle after paying the required tax. During the course of transportation from Ernakulam, the goods were intercepted by the department, who detained the goods under section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on noticing an irregularity in the e-way bill.
Case Title: Jaganadhan v. State of Kerala & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
The Court has ruled that persons from whom a fee was collected under a State Circular calling for applications for use of unnotified land for other purposes were entitled to a refund of the amount since the circular was struck down as unconstitutional. Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the issue of whether the claim for refund of amounts which have been collected based on the unconstitutional levy either in the form of fee or in the form of tax or in the form of duty is no longer res integra.
Case Title: S. Raveendranath Pai & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
In a significant judgement, the Court has held that the land principally used for the cultivation of crops of long duration cannot be declared as ecologically fragile land under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act even if it is encircled by vested forests. Upon perusal of Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, a Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha concluded that land which is not a forest does not become an ecologically fragile land.
Case Title: Arun Jose v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
In a major setback to the ongoing strike organised by the KSEB Officers' Association, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday issued an interim order in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to declare the ongoing strike by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) officers as illegal. Justice C.S Dias and Justice Basant Balaji opined that the State Government has an obligation to act as a conciliator between the KSEB, which is a State Public Sector Undertaking, and its employees to settle their differences amicably, without causing any disruption to the normal lives of citizens.
Case Title: Chengalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Rajkumar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
The High Court has held that merely because it may not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the availability of alternative remedy, is not a ground to hold that it has no jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha said that the case appears to be a classic example of the 'fence eating the crop' while adding that the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so.
Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Jha v. Secretary (Transport) & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
The High Court has ruled that the State government is bound to consider the application of the petitioner for registration of his vehicle with a 'Bharat series' number since the Centre had already brought it into implementation. Justice Sathish Ninan also clarified that the fact that the State was yet to finalise the tax payable for such registration was immaterial to consider such applications. "The manner and form of registration in BH series having already been brought in by the Central Government, the State Government is bound to consider the request of the petitioners for registration of the vehicles in BH series," said the Court.
Case Title: Simi C.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
The High Court recently quashed all charges pending against a Village Officer who attempted to commit suicide and was booked under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit suicide). After an elaborate study of the general judicial opinion on the issue, Justice K. Haripal observed that the growing trend was in favour of decriminalisation of the offence since suicidal behaviour is often considered to be a symptom of mental distress.
9. Magistrate Can Decide Validity Of Talaq In Wife's Petition Under DV Act If Husband Disputes Their Marital Status: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Shameena Siddique & Anr. v. M. Abubekhar Siddiq & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
The High Court has ruled that a Magistrate is empowered to decide the pela of talaq raised by the husband in his wife's petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act if he disputes their marital status on that ground. Justice Kauser Edappagath thereby allowed a criminal revision petition holding that the finding of the appellate court that the Magistrate has no power to decide the validity of the talaq is wrong and only to be set aside.
Other Developments
Case Title: Anez Anzare & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to celebrity makeup artist Anez Anzare who has been accused of sexually abusing several women under the guise of applying makeup on them. Justice Gopinath P. held that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail in all the cases registered against him subject to conditions.
The Bar Council of Kerala lashed out at the Crime Branch for leaking privileged communication between a lawyer and his client in the 2017 sexual assault case to the media. A meeting was convened to consider the complaint filed before the Council seeking appropriate legal action against the police officers who allegedly leaked a telephone conversation between Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai and actor Dileep who is accused in the assault case.
Also Read: Lawyer Moves Kerala Court Against Alleged Leak Of Privileged Communication To Media By Police
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
The Court has reserved its order on 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 announced that it will declare its verdict in the case on Monday.
13. Pampa Sand Mining Case: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Vigilance Probe
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Ramesh Chennithala & Ors.
The Court has set aside the vigilance probe which was ordered into the alleged illegal mining of sand accumulated along the banks of river Pampa. In August 2020, the Vigilance Special Court in Thiruvananthapuram had ordered a Vigilance inquiry into the charges of corruption based on a petition filed by Senior Congress Leader Ramesh Chennithala. Justice Sunil Thomas set aside the vigilance court's order on a review petition filed by the State.
With an objective to reduce the pendency in Criminal Appeals, the Court will be holding special sittings during its ongoing summer vacation to hear jail appeals and legal aid matters. This was disclosed through a notification published on the High Court website, which also said that this step was taken after Chief Justice S Manikumar ordered special sittings to be held.
15. Can GST Be Imposed On Royalty Paid To Govt? Kerala High Court To Consider
Case Title: Royal Sand & Gravels Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
The High Court has admitted a plea that has raised significant questions of whether royalty paid to the government qualifies as tax and if GST can be imposed on such royalty. The petitioner has pointed out the settled legal position on the concept of royalty by the Supreme Court where it has been held that royalty is tax. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the royalty payable on the extraction of minerals being in the nature of statutory impost comes under the preview of taxation.
16. Actor-Producer Vijay Babu Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Rape Case
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu has approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. According to him, the defacto complainant is merely trying to blackmail him by filing this false case. He added that while the survivor may be free to raise allegations against anyone, the statutory authorities are duty-bound to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegation before tarnishing or defaming an individual based on a complaint which could not be substantied.
Case Title: M.N. Jayachandran v. Union of India
The Central Government objected to the airstrip being constructed in Idukki and submitted before the Court that the project has not secured the required prior permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest. A Division Bench of Justice C.S. Dias and Justice C. Jayachandran was adjudicating upon a PIL seeking a direction upon the State authorities not to proceed with the construction of the airstrip and the operation of the aircraft in 4.8565 hectares in Idukki District without obtaining clearance under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and Environmental clearance and other allied reliefs.