Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589-608] Naseema Beevi v Ameer Shahul @ Ameer P.S. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589Kuthiralamuttam Saji v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 590Kurien E. Kalathil v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 591 Viju P Varghese v The Cochin Port Trust 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 592Shamsudheen v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 593M/S Sama Rubbers & Ors....
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589-608]
Naseema Beevi v Ameer Shahul @ Ameer P.S. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
Kuthiralamuttam Saji v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Kurien E. Kalathil v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
Viju P Varghese v The Cochin Port Trust 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
Shamsudheen v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
M/S Sama Rubbers & Ors. v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
Ex-Sub Inspector/Exe. Biju K.A. v Additional Director General CISF 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
Philip Mathew v P Jayarajan & Connected Case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
Johnson Stephen v. Chinchumol & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
Mukesh v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
Justin O.S v The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
K. Babu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
D. Ieda Bhai & Ors. v. K. Ashokan & Ors. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd v Vijayan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 602
Ramachandran & Ors. v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
K.B. Ganesh Kumar v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
X & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
Vijay Kirgandur v State of Kerala & connected cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
M/S. South Coast Spices Exports Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Naseema Beevi v Ameer Shahul @ Ameer P.S.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Sub Court in Kerala has the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit for compensating for a wrong committed in Delhi, since as per the broader interpretation of "wrong done" under Section 19 of CPC, the effects of the wrong justified establishing jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff resided.
Justice Basant Balaji observed that though the death of the woman took place within the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi, the effect of that death was felt by the appellant-mother in Kerala who lost her daughter and only earning member of their family.
“In a suit for compensation for wrong done, mere injury or wrong done without anything more would not suffice to sustain claim of compensation. The wrong done cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense but has to be understood in the broader amplitude. It takes in both the act and effect to put it differently, the death of the plaintiff's daughter might have happened in Delhi, but its effect is felt by the plaintiff within the local jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Nedumangad.”
Case title: Kuthiralamuttam Saji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
The Kerala High Court has held that power under Section 323 CrPC to commit a case to the Sessions Court after commencement of inquiry/ trial may be invoked by the Magistrate only after recording its reasons by way of a speaking order.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed,
“Since the words “it appears to him at any stage ..............” is used in Section 323 CrPC, it is clear that when a Magistrate invokes the powers under Section 323 CrPC, the reason for the same should be recorded. In other words, the Magistrate is required to give reason for thinking that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, while invoking Section 323 CrPC. Therefore, according to me, a speaking order is necessary before invoking the powers under Section 323 CrPC.
Case Title: Kurien E. Kalathil v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
The Kerala High Court recently held that the determination of whether the bank had knowledge of the amount remaining in the borrower's account at the time of granting the One Time Settlement, and whether the bank could therefore exercise the 'Right of Recompense,' is a matter to be decided by the bank itself.
‘Right of Recompense’ is a tool used by banks and financial institutions to recover the sacrifice they make on the debts for stressed assets.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that any decision to be arrived at by the respondent Federal Bank would have to be edificed on proven factual circumstances, including, whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), was aware of the amount in question remaining in credit in the account of the petitioner at the time when One Time Settlement, and if not, whether it was kept away from their information by the latter through covert means.
"This is crucial because, the Right of Recompense can be exercised only in certain specific circumstances, as is well established in law; and until the 3rd respondent assesses these, a decision, akin to the one recorded in Ext.P14, could not have been taken, especially because it concludes that no 'regulatory intervention' by the Reserve Bank is warranted," the Court observed.
Case title: Viju P Varghese v The Cochin Port Trust
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the unauthorized absence of an employee will be counted as non-duty for all purposes, except for the purposes of pension.
Justice Anu Sivaraman added that the treatment of unauthorised absence as "non-duty for all purposes except pension" has a clear implication: it cannot be counted for seniority.
“Ext.P3 order was passed on 08.02.2016 and it was found that the 5th respondent was unauthorisedly absent from 01.05.2015 to 18.05.2015 and penalty of censure was also imposed on the 5th respondent. Further, his absence for that period was found to be unauthorised and treated as “non-duty for all purposes other than pension”.
Case title: Shamsudheen v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Executive Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate cannot acquit an accused under Section 256 CrPC while invoking powers under Section 133 to 138 of CrPC by issuing conditional orders for the prevention of nuisance.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also clarified that the Section 133 proceeding empowered the District, Sub-divisional or Executive Magistrate to issue a conditional order for the removal of nuisance based on a police report or other information, but not based on a complaint.
“In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Section 256 of the Code cannot be invoked by an Executive Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate, while invoking the powers under Sections 133 to 138 of the Code. The upshot of the above discussion is that Annexure-A7 order passed by the Executive Magistrate closing the case invoking the powers under Section 256 of the Code is unsustainable.”
Case Title: M/S Sama Rubbers & Ors. v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
The Kerala High Court recently held that an order passed in an interim application is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act ('Appeal to Appellate Tribunal').
It thus proceeded to declare that Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked by the High Court, when the Tribunal had considered the matter before it in the proper perspective.
Justice K. Babu, reminded that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution could be exercised only when there is grave injustice or failure of justice and when (i) the Court or the Tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.
"It is trite that whenever the Tribunal has considered the matter in its proper perspective and where the impugned order shows the application of mind by the Tribunal, this Court will not entertain a petition under Article 227 merely because another view could have been taken," the Court observed.
Case title: Ex-Sub Inspector/Exe. Biju K.A. v Additional Director General CISF
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court recently permitted a CISF personnel who could not report for duty to rejoin duty at ASG Ranchi within ten days since he was in home quarantine after his parents tested positive for COVID-19.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that the respondents had not applied their minds while rejecting the application of the petitioner and that he was in an unusual situation because of which he could not report for duty.
“However, the fact remains that the petitioner faced an unusual situation wherein his parents had tested positive, and for unusual situations such as in the case of the petitioner, exceptions will have to be made. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Resultantly, this writ petition will stand partly allowed. Exts.P17 and P18 orders by which the petitioner was refused to rejoin the service after withdrawal of the resignation will stand quashed. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty if he appears at the ASG Ranchi within a period of ten days.”
Case title: Philip Mathew v P Jayarajan & Connected Case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court while quashing the criminal complaint filed against Ex-MLA from Azhikode Constituency KM Shaji for alleged defamatory statements in connection with the Ariyil Shukoor murder case observed that a people's representative merely expressing concern over the conduct of probe cannot be said to be defamation.
The complaint filed two-time member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and the Kannur District Committee Secretary of CPI(M) P. Jayarajan also named Malayala Manorama Daily's Managing Editor and Publisher for carrying Shaji's statements.
Justice C.S. Dias observed KM Shaji has not made defamatory statements against P. Jayarajan but, being a representative of the people, has only appealed to the Government for a comprehensive investigation into death of Sarish, who was the accused in Ariyil Shukoor murder case. The bench observed,
“...Annexures 2 and 3 news items prima facie substantiate that the first accused [Shaji] had only demanded the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the purported suicide of one Sarish, an accused in a murder case, and seriously look into the increasing numbers of murders occurring in Kannur, and he expressed his concern in the accused in such cases, including the complainant, being charged with minor offences. It is to be remembered that the first accused was an elected representative (MLA) of the people of Azhikode constituency , one of the assembly constituencies in Kannur District. Being a representative of the people of his constituency, he appealed to the Government, for and on behalf of the masses, to take strict action against the perpetrators, to deter such persons from indulging in gruesome murders.”
Case Title: Johnson Stephen v. Chinchumol & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
The Kerala High Court laid down that mere filing of an application by the complainant for compounding of offences alleged does not automatically result in acquittal of accused.
Bench of Justice K. Babu noted that Section 320 CrPC categorizes offences into two parts- Under Sub-section (1), certain offences have been listed which can be compounded without the permission of the Court. Under Sub-section (2), certain offences are listed, which can be compounded only with the permission of the Court.
The judge explained that composition of a compoundable offence under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. would be complete as soon as the Court accepts it upon being satisfied that the composition is voluntary, genuine and true. The same would have the effect of acquittal of the accused even if the person by whom offence may be compounded later resiled from the composition.
However, as regards the offences which are compoundable only with the permission of the Court, as under Section 320(2), the composition would not have any effect unless and until the Court grants such composition.
Case title: Mukesh v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
Citing prolonged incarceration of over a year, the Kerala High Court has granted bail to a man who allegedly attacked a woman for rejecting his marriage proposal by using a chopper and explosives, leading to loss of her four fingers.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted bail to the accused who has been in jail since June 28, 2022 and observed that further detention would amount to conviction without trial.
“Petitioner was arrested on 28.06.2022 and has been in jail since then. Though the allegations are serious in nature and the petitioner has a history of having absconded earlier, I am of the view that, considering the long period of detention already undergone, further detention would amount to conviction without trial. Since, it is submitted that, the case is already pending before the Sessions Court and is posted for hearing of the charge on 15.11.2023, I am of the view that, further detention ought not to be permitted.”
Case title: Justin O.S v The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the plea moved by a private contract carriage operator against the Tour package services offered by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation using its stage carriages.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said these buses have special area permits to run and operate tour packages under the superclass scheme which was formulated by the state government by notification dated July 16, 2013 for promoting tourism in the State. The bench observed,
“It is not in dispute that the KSRTC buses which are employed for conducting the tour packages had special area permits under the scheme. The petitioner cannot be granted a permit under the scheme for the services for which the scheme has been promulgated, and the exclusive right is of the KSRTC to offer special services under the scheme. Under the area permit, the KSRTC employs its buses for conducting the tour packages. The area permits are special permits as provided under subsection (8) of Section 88 of the MV Act.”
Case Title: K. Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
The Kerala High Court categorically held that admission of confessional statements made by accused to the Police, which are hit by bar under Sections 25 (Confession to police officer not to be proved) and 26 (Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him) of the Evidence Act, can vitiate a trial and lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath criticized the practice of trial courts in continuing to accept entire confession statements of the accused, despite several Supreme Court precedents discouraging this practice.
"The breach of a statutory provision that is designed to protect a citizen from self incrimination and arbitrary deprivation of life and personal liberty must necessarily have serious consequences for the prosecution. Constitutional safeguards cannot be rendered a teasing illusion by the very State that is obliged to uphold them," the Bench observed.
Case Title: D. Ieda Bhai & Ors. v. K. Ashokan & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
The Kerala High Court has laid down that employees cannot claim promotion in his former service for the purpose of reckoning seniority long after the integration of service.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen were of the considered view that any claim regarding promotion in the former service ought to be raised at the time of integration of service, and cannot be done after the same.
"If the process of integration did not provide any room for raising such a claim, the employee cannot sleep over the right to claim and thereafter wake up from the sleep to raise such claim indirectly through another door of his former service. Whatever the claim the employee had at the time of integration ought to have been raised when he entered into the new integrated service. Baggage left in the former service cannot be retrieved through a backdoor entry to open a new door in integrated service. If the claim is not made at the time of integration in relation to any right available in the former service, that right is forgone and foreclosed," the Bench observed.
Case title: M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd v Vijayan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 602
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, granting compensation of Rs.3,18,700 and interest to the children of the deceased mother who died by suicide following a motor accident.
Justice Mary Joseph observed that the deceased suffered head injuries from the accident and was undergoing disappointment and mental dejection since she felt she would not recover from her physical condition.
“Based on the medical evidence discussed above and the records with reference to the criminal case registered, it can safely be concluded that the victim committed suicide due to her mental dejection and disappointment resulted from the serious injuries sustained in the motor accident. Or in otherwords, the ultimate cause of death of Mrs.Santha can be taken as the motor accident met with by her.”
Case Title: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
The Kerala High Court recently refused to condone a delay of 3,366 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by a Munsiff Court in a civil suit.
Justice A. Badharudeen, refused the condonation of delay on taking note that no sufficient reasons had been adduced warranting the same.
"It is true that 'sufficient cause' is the decisive factor while condoning the delay. Though it has been settled that liberal view should be taken while condoning delay, it is equally settled that when the delay sought to be condoned on account of any dilatory tactics without bonafides, with deliberate inaction or negligence, such a concession also is not possible," the Court observed.
Case Title: K.B. Ganesh Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
The Kerala High Court dismissed the plea filed by MLA K.B. Ganesh Kumar seeking to quash the case against him in connection with alleged conspiracy involved in naming late Congress leader and former Chief Minister of the State, Oommen Chandy, in the solar sexual assault case.
The case is pending before court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) at Kottarakkara.
"Serious allegations are raised against the petitioner who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly by the 2nd respondent in which conspiracy is also alleged stating that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with the 1st accused to implicate the former Chief Minister of Kerala Sri.Oommen Chandi. The former Chief Minister has passed away. Such an allegation should not be in the air because his soul will not forgive the same. The continuation of this case is necessary not only for the soul of the former Chief Minister and his bereaved family, but also to prove the integrity of the petitioner too, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed.
Case title: K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
The Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a petitioner for allegedly employing a 14-year-old child for construction work of a railway platform at Ettumanoor Railway Station.
Justice K. Babu observed that an offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can be made out only when the prosecution has proved that the juvenile was procured for hazardous employment and that he was kept in bondage without paying him adequate wages or salary.
“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to bring forth those ingredients. The resultant conclusion is that the prosecution failed to make out the offence under Sec.26 of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 48/2013 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam, which is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First class-I, Ettumanoor as C.C No. 2597/2017, are liable to be quashed. I order so.”
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Lawyers Accused Of Sexually Abusing Client
Case Title: X & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
The Kerala High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to two lawyers accused of raping and sexually abusing their client on multiple occasions.
Justice Gopinath P. passed the order, on taking note of the fact that while the victim/de facto complainant averred that she had been sexually abused from the moment she had first approached the 1st petitioner to entrust her case, the complaint in this regard had been filed only in June, 2023.
"A cumulative reading of all the complaints preferred by the de facto complainant / victim would indicate that she was abused right from the time she had first approached the 1st petitioner seeking his professional help. However, the first complaint seems to have been filed only on 30-06-2023. While this itself may not be fatal to the prosecution case, it lends credence to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant / victim had actually filed a complaint being aggrieved by the fact that she had not received sufficient compensation in the proceedings before the Family Court," the Court observed.
Case title: Vijay Kirgandur v State of Kerala & connected cases
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal case registered against the producer, direcotr, distributor and music director of the Kannada superhit film "Kantara" under the Copyright Act over the alleged plagiarism of 'Navarasam' song of Thykkudam Bridge band as "Varaharoopam" song in the movie.
The High Court quashed FIR registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in view of the settlement between the petitioners (Kantara makers) and Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Ltd., the complainant in the case who holds the copyright over the "Navarasam" song.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan quashed all the criminal proceedings against the producer of the film, Vijay Kirgandur; director of the film, Rishabh Shetty; distributor of the film in Kerala, Prithviraj Sukumaran and composer of the song, Ajaneesh Loknath as all the disputes were settled between the parties based on a settlement agreement.
Case Title: M/S. South Coast Spices Exports Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
The Kerala High Court has upheld the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act and noted that there is no requirement to have a DIN number in the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Authority.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has dismissed the writ petition and stated, “It cannot be said that the impugned notices and assessment orders are without jurisdiction as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Other Significant Developments This Week
Three Judicial Officers Take Oath As Additional Judges Of The Kerala High Court
Three judicial officers swore in as Additional Judges of the Kerala High Court on Wednesday.
Justices Johnson John, Gopinathan U Girish, and C. Pratheepkumar took oath as Additional Judges of the High Court during the swearing-in ceremony conducted at 10:15 A.M.
Lawyer’s Plea Alleging Police Harassment : Kerala High Court Passes Interim Order Restraining Police
Case Title: Jagadeesh P. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 34594 OF 2023 (Y)
The Kerala High Court issued notice on a petition filed by a lawyer alleging manhandling by police officers earlier this month.
Justice N. Nagaresh passed an interim order directing the respondent police officials not to harass the petitioner pending disposal of his plea.
The petitioner, who is also an acute heart patient who had undergone Angioplasty, alleged that himself and his wife were molested and brutally manhandled by the police officers of Feroke Police Station, on two occasions.
Case title: Adv. Priyanka Sharma M R v State Of Kerala & Anr.
Case number: WP(C) 31882/2023
Kerala High Court remarked that the state has the duty to support junior lawyers belonging to OBC category.
High Court was hearing a plea moved against non-issuance of notification to claim annual grant of twelve thousand rupees to the junior advocates belonging to the OBC category under the OBC Advocate Grant Scheme for purchasing law books, gown and uniform.
Justice Devan Ramachandran remarked that the state has the duty to support junior lawyers belonging to OBC category.
“We have to support these people. We need the best of lawyers and judges from these people also.”
Case Title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023 and WP(C) NO. 33322 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court called for a 'close watch' on online platforms to ensure that that anonymous and mala fide reviews of films are not allowed to circulate on such platforms.
Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the concerned authorities to take necessary action under the Information Technology Act ('IT Act'), and implement the same scrupulously, against any such anonymous, malicious activities targeting films, or any others in the business sphere, with an intent to blackmail and to extort.
"A close watch on the online platforms shall be maintained to ensure that anonymous, mala fide content is not allowed to circulate, and necessary action under the IT Act shall be taken and implemented scrupulously without any delay," the Bench directed.
Case Title: Anto C.R. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 2972 of 2023
A Kerala Court recently rejected the plea for anticipatory bail moved by the man accused of harassing a renowned Malayalam actress onboard an Air India flight in a dispute over occupation of the window seat.
The Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese observed that,
"...if bail is granted, in the light of alarming number of offences and atrocities against the women and children, that will give wrong message to the society".
Case title: Aboobacker K V v Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services
Case number: WP(Crl.) 882/2023
The Kerala High Court directed the Chairman of Legal Services Authority, Kozhikode or any officer deputed by him to file a report after investigating into alleged harassment in jail meted out to persons arrested in connection with the alleged possession of narcotic drugs in Tanur, Malappuram.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed thus:
“I am of the considered opinion that the Chairman, Legal Services Authority Kozhikode or any officer deputed by him will visit the jail where the petitioner’s son was detained and take his statement. The Chairman, Legal Services Authority shall file the statement with his conclusions before this Court within three weeks.”
Case number: Crl.Rev.Pet 1073/ 2023
Case name: XXXXXX Vs K. C. VENUGOPAL
The Kerala High Court admitted a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant in the solar sexual assault case challenging Congress MP K.C. Venugopal's acquittal in the matter.
When the matter was taken up, Justice C.S. Dias issued notices to Venugopal, CBI and the State Government in the case.
Case Title: Karthik Mohan v. Ministry of Indian Railways & Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 248/ 2018
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ordered the Southern Railway to compensate a passenger for the inconvenience caused to him by the 13-hour delay of the Chennai-Alleppey Express.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N observed that despite being a significant Public Sector Undertaking, the Indian Railways often fails to provide efficient services, and issues such as late trains and unavailability of reserved seats still persist.
"The significance of a passenger's time is undeniable. The unexpected delay caused substantial inconvenience and distress, particularly to the complainant who had a pivotal professional commitment. Although the purpose of the journey was not specified at the time of ticket booking, the railways, as a major Public Sector Undertaking, ought to prioritize timely and efficient service," the Bench noted.
Case title: Peter Joseph v State of Kerala
Case number: CRL.MC NO. 8889 of 2023
The Kerala High Court granted a stay on proceedings against two additional directors of a Company who were facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed that there will be an interim stay of the proceedings against the petitioners as they have made out a prima facie case.
“ After going through the pleadings and after hearing the counsel for the petitioners I think a prima facie case is made out by the petitioners. There will be an interim stay of the proceedings against the petitioners alone for a period of six months. I make it clear that the proceedings against the other accused can continue.”
Case Title: Anto C.R. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 9600/ 2023
The Kerala High Court issued an interim order barring the arrest of the man who was alleged to have harassed a renowned Malayalam actress onboard an Air India flight in a dispute over occupation of the window seat.
Justice Gopinath P. issued the interim direction.
The petitioner, Anto C.R., was alleged to have misbehaved with the actress (the de facto complainant herein) while in transit from Mumbai to Cochin in an Air India flight.
The Kerala High Court has introduced new amendments to the High Court of Kerala (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2018 . The amendments are made for complying with recent directions issued by the Apex Court n Indira Jaising v. Union of India (2023) modifying the norms for senior designation.
As per the amendments, an advocate who mainly practices before the High Court may be considered for designation as a senior advocate. However, concession may be given for advocates who are practising before the Tribunals with regard to their appearances before the High Court.