Kerala High Court Half-Yearly Digest: January To June 2022 [Citations 1-313]
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 - 313]Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1Rajeswary vs State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v....
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 - 313]
Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
Rajeswary vs State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
V. G. Thankamani & Ors & National Highway Authority of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
Dr PC Beenakumari v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
S.K. Pavithran & Ors. v. Laisy Santhosh & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Sanju Simon & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
Thomas P. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
Subramaniyan N.N. v. Anwar C.K. & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Sumith V. Kumar & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
Riyasudheen K. & Ors v. Inspector General of Registration & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
Union of India v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
Akhil & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Mohammed Rafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Aroon Purie v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Suo Motu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Mohammed Suhail v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
Dr. George Thomas & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
K. Jayarajan & Ors v. Sambasivan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
P.A. Noushad v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Dr. Jibin C.P & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
T.K.Sundaresan v. District Police Chief, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
Jyothsana A v Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Devarajan v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Abhijith v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Teena v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Mangala v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Manual v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Suo motu case 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
State of Kerala & Nowfal, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
xxx v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
YYY v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Sabeena E.K v. District Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Ukkash A .v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Suo motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
K.A John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Nisha Haneefa v. Abdul Latheef & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
Leelamma Eapen v. District Magistrate & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
Vijayakumar v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Bibin K. B. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh Jayaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
Minor v. Ministry of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Lloyed Insulations (India) Ltd versus Foremexx Space Frames, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
Suryansh Broadcasting Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
Muhammed Hasheer Poolakkal v. United Arab Bank & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
Reji K. Joshy & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
T.N. Suraj v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
T.N. Suraj v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
M/s Bativala and Karani v. K.I. Johny & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
Deepa Srinivasan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
Suresh George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
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
Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
X. v State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
Sobhana v. President & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Pius C. Mundadan & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Thampi VS v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
State of Kerala v. Raseena K.K, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
Naziya & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
Kiran David v. Assistant General Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
Mujeeb Rahiman v. Thasleena & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
Bhasy v. Thomas & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
Philip K.J v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
Principal v. Addl. Registering Authority & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
Uma Murthi v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
Dr. Sree Hari N. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
Ratnamani George & Ors. v. Authorised Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
Vakiyath Koya & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Treasa K.J & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
Saju A.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Eraj v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
Aswin Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
E.K. Rajan v. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
P.C. George v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
Indo-Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd. v. T.N. Suraj & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
X v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Renjith Maheshwary v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
Ravis Exporters v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Dr. Parvathy S v. Director General of Health Services & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
State Of Kerala vs Bijesh Kumar M, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Saji Thomas Vs Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
P.C. George v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
SNDP Yogam & Anr v. G. Krishnamoorthy & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
Adhila v Commissioner of Police & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Vijith Vijayan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
Aboobacker K.A & Ors v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
State of Kerala & Anr. v. P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
T.A Ansad v. Sanjay Kumar Thunjhunwala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
Abdul Gafoor @ Kunhumon v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
Nushath Koyamu v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
Sharafudheen V.T v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
Manager, KPM Higher Secondary School & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
Anzar v. Sreedeviyamma & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
K.P. Sasikala & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
Ayshommabi AM @ Aysha Sulthana v Union Territory of Lakshadweep, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
K.M. Abdul Jaleel v. Thazhe Iravath Rabiya & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
S. Dhanalakshmi v. Sahal V.J & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
Swapna Prabha Suresh & Anr. v. Station House Officer & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
Anoop v State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Antony v. V.K. Suresh & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
Dhruv Sai Kiran v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Arjun Reghu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
K.K Ibrahim v. Cochin Kaagaz, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
Rajan J. Pallan & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. V. Babu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
K. Sumangala Devi v. Binu P.N & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
Rilgin V. George & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
Malli v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
Raveendran A v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
Shibily Sahib & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
C.C Joy v. C.D Mini & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
Neethu v. Trijo Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
T.K Pradeep v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
XXX v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
M/S C.S Company & Ors v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
Subaida Ebrahim v. Moosa C & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Arun P. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Sister Sephy v CBI, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
Rakhi Bose & Anr. v Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Furseen Majeed & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Sujith Narayanan v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Southern Dredging Co (P) Ltd v. K. Muhammed Haji, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Rev. T.G. Johnson v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
Zerita Ashlen Rocha & Anr v. Ann Mary Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
Amir & Anr v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
Gopika Jayan & Anr v. Faisal M.A, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
Suo Motu v. The Managing Committee & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
K.B. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
X v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
Jose Kuruvinakkunnel v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
Jayachandran v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
Monthly Digests:
Judgments:
Kerala High Court Upholds 10% EWS Reservation For Veterinary & Dental Courses Under KEAM
Case Title: Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Court upheld the 10% reservation earmarked for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) for Veterinary and Dental Courses under Kerala Engineering Architecture ad Medical (KEAM).
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan closed the writ petition upon noticing that a Government Order dated 20.03.2020 had established the said reservation, and after the Government Pleader endorsed that it was a policy decision of the State. The Director of Medical Education also submitted an affidavit stating that as per the said Government Order, 10% of seats are set apart for candidates belonging to EWS.
Case Title: Rajeswary vs State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
The Court observed that a convict in a cheque bounce case can pay the fine amount directly to the complainant. It is not necessary to deposit the fine amount in court. In this case, while disposing of the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused, the High Court had affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment as a sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,17,000/-. The accused was granted a period of six months to remit the amount of fine in the trial court.
District Court Can Only Appoint Guardian For Minor's 'Property', Not 'Person'
Case Title: K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
The Court ruled that while District Courts are empowered to appoint a guardian for a minor's property, only Family Court can appoint a guardian for the person of a minor. While partly allowing an appeal, a Division Bench comprising Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas set aside the proceedings of the District Court to the extent of appointing a guardian for the person of the minor.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
The Court ordered the Devaswom Commissioner to institute disciplinary action against employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board who failed to report for special duty at Sabarimala, Pampa and Nilakkal. While issuing the directive, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar recorded that it is the surplus income from the Sabarimala Temple that aids the functioning of over a thousand other temples under the Board. The Court also directed the Devaswom Commissioner to obtain the names and take action against the staff in the establishment wing and class-4 employees who failed to report for special duty, except on genuine medical grounds.
Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Husband, Releases His Parents
Case Title: Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Court refused bail to the accused husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. However, his parents, who are co-accused in the case, were granted bail. During the proceedings, the de facto complainant (Mofiya's father) also brought to the fore that the accused husband was diagnosed with sexual perversion and personality disorders during a counselling session he had attended with the deceased. In her complaint, she had also mentioned her ordeals of having been forced to perform unnatural sexual acts by the accused husband.
Case Title: Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
The Court observed that it is prima facie of the view that the notification issued by the Registrar in charge appointing a new board of studies at the Kannur University was not in consonance with the statutory provisions. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also issued notice to the Registrar and Board Members on the appeal filed against a Single Bench's order. The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition challenging the reconstitution of the board of studies.
Case Title: Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
While acquitting a man accused of murder on the ground of negligent evidence collection, the Court ruled that the satisfaction of the Court cannot be substituted by expert opinion. In the criminal appeal, the preliminary question before the Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was whether there was sufficient material before the trial court to find the accused guilty. It was noted that the case against the accused was largely based on fingerprints and chemical evidence. However, the Court noted that there wasn't sufficient reliable evidence for the trial court to have found the accused guilty of the crime.
Case Title: V. G. Thankamani & Ors & National Highway Authority of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Court has ruled that non-compliance with principles of natural justice is a good ground to set aside an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, while allowing an appeal, set aside the order of the Additional District Court and the impugned award. The Court also added that only an adjudicator not favouring one party more than another, unprejudiced, disinterested, equitable and just, can be said to be an impartial adjudicator.
Case Title: Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
The Court dismissed a plea moved by MBBS graduates challenging a circular issued by the State government increasing reservation for the socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) from 9% to 27% in medical postgraduate courses. After having elaborately heard the matter over the course of the past couple of months, Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Court dismissed the bail applications moved by the prime accused in the infamous Walayar case that had built up public outrage in the State. Noting that the final report had already been filed before the trial court, Justice P. Gopinath asked the applicants to approach the trial court with their bail applications since that would be the appropriate forum to consider the same:
Kerala High Court Directs Treasury To Hand Over KR Gouri's Savings To Her Niece
Case Title: Dr PC Beenakumari v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
Coming to the rescue of K.R Gouri's niece, who was her caretaker till her death, the Court ordered the Department of Treasuries to release her entire treasury savings amounting to over Rs 30 lakh. Justice N Nagaresh issued the order on a petition filed by Beenakumari, the daughter of Gouri's younger sister, challenging the treasury secretary's order rejecting the request to release the money deposited in the Pension Treasury savings account in two District Sub-treasury savings accounts.
Case Title: S.K. Pavithran & Ors. v. Laisy Santhosh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
The Court reversed a Single Bench judgment that held that establishing a toddy shop in a residential locality would be in derogation of right to privacy. A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the view taken by the Single Judge is that "anything and everything that affects the peaceful residence of a person would affect its privacy rights". Disagreeing with this view, the Division Bench recorded in its judgment.
Case Title: Sanju Simon & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
While restraining private medical colleges in the State from collecting fees for any academic year other than the one currently being taught, the Court has held that collecting annual fees from students for the next year in advance when the previous year's studies have not been completed by an institution would amount to "profiteering". A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. justified its stand observing that conceptually a fee was remuneration for a service already rendered.
Temporary Shift Of Residence By Itself Not A Valid Ground For Transfer Of Cases: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
While considering a series of transfer petitions moved by a woman, the Court ruled that shifting from permanent residence to a temporary residence by itself is not a ground to transfer cases pending within the jurisdiction of the permanent residence of both parties. Justice A. Badharudheen dismissed the transfer petitions observing that allowing such pleas would result in cases being transferred frequently.
Case Title: Thomas P. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Court recently laid down that the Family Court with the respective territorial jurisdiction is empowered to give a child in adoption. After perusing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the 2014 Rules framed thereunder and the Adoption Regulations 2017, Justice M.R. Anitha observed: "In the said circumstance, the finding of the learned District Judge that the court is not a proper forum and they have to approach the Child Welfare Committee is illegal and perverse."
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Court dismissed the appeal challenging a Single Judge decision that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. During the previous hearing of the case, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly had refused to stay the single bench decision while issuing notice to the respondents.
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Appointment Of Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Subramaniyan N.N. v. Anwar C.K. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
The Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator since such grievances could be redressed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ruling that there should not be any judicial interference in the course of the arbitral proceedings for redressal of such grievances, Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar recalled that Section 5 of the Act which begins with a non-obstante clause provides that in matters governed by Part I of the Act, there shall not be any judicial interference except where so provided in the said Part.
Case Title: Sumith V. Kumar & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Court ruled that the State government was authorised to recognise classes of persons with distinct attributes and treat them differently under law while upholding that the different quantum of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and persons with disability in the NEET-2021 do not violate their right to equality. While dismissing a petition, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that persons with disabilities constituted a separate homogenous class by themselves and that their disability was physical rather than pertaining to social backwardness.
Non-Commercial Associations Can Use 'Kerala', 'India' In Their Names : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Riyasudheen K. & Ors v. Inspector General of Registration & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Court recently ruled that an association formed by private individuals cannot be prevented from naming after 'Kerala' or 'Bharat' or 'India' under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 if their activities are not related to any trade or business. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the said Act only banned the naming of commercial entities after India or Kerala: "Since the petitioners' Association is not an Association related to any trade, business, calling or profession, it is declared that the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 cannot be applied to the petitioners."
Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) Of Municipality Rules On Property Tax Fixation
Case Title: K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Court has set aside Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year if the property tax arrived at on computation as per the Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year. Justice N. Nagaresh pointed out that Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 does not permit the fixation of a property tax over and above the upper limit fixed by the Government.
Case Title: Union of India v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
Ruling that balance of convenience should be considered while deciding interim custody of seized articles under Section 451 of CrPC, the Court released unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs to the Income Tax Department. Allowing a petition filed by the Department, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A observed that the balance of convenience was in favour of the IT department rather than Abdul Razak, the person found possessing the cash. The Judge noted that since the Income Tax Department was a statutory authority armed with various powers under Sections 132-A, 132-B and 153A of the Income Tax Act, preference should be given to the Department in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 3 Accused In SDPI Leader Shan's Murder
Case Title: Akhil & Ors v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
The Court granted bail to three of the accused in the shocking political murder of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary K.S Shan who was hacked to death in December 2021. Justice Gopinath P. released the accused on bail citing that the only offence made out against them was under section 212 (harbouring an offender) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court recorded that since the release of the accused on bail may result in a retaliatory attack and that the law and order situation is still volatile in Alappuzha district, where the attack took place.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
In a significant judgment, the Court ruled that before recording witness depositions under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it should be established that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was called upon to answer an intriguing question on the interpretation of Section 299 of the CrPC. The Bench added that proof of the accused absconding is a condition precedent to record witness deposition for the purpose of Section 299; enabling its use in the subsequent trial against those absconded but later apprehended.
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Court opined that prima facie, the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall was not appropriate while adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan sought a clear response from the Kalamassery Municipality on this question and posted the matter to be taken up after two weeks.
Case Title: Aroon Purie v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Court ruled that Directors of a company cannot be implicated without specific averments indicating their role in the offence, particular because no provision in the Indian Penal Code provides for vicarious liability upon them. While adjudicating upon a batch of applications filed by Directors of the India Today TV news channel, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A held that it is not possible to implicate the Directors, in the absence of specific averments indicating their role in the commission of the offence.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Court partly allowed the application filed by the State government challenging the trial court's order in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, which had rejected the prayer to re-examine certain witnesses and summon additional witnesses. The prosecution had sought before the trial court to re-examine 6 witnesses, 1 witness cited but not examined and 9 additional witnesses who were not cited as witnesses in the final report.
Case Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a proper party in an appeal pending between the licensor and the licensee. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the application filed by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.
Case Title: Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Court while allowing an appeal ruled that a party's defence can be struck off for non-compliance of an order for payment of pendente lite maintenance only as a last resort and if it is found that the default is deliberate and willful. A Division Bench of Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked so while adjudicating upon an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court's order striking off his defence for failing to pay maintenance pendente lite.
Case Title: Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Court has ruled that the consent of an accused is not necessary to acquire their voice sample for the purpose of comparison since it has already been established that obtaining voice samples of the accused do not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a petition alleging that the accused was not given an opportunity of being heard before being directed to produce his voice sample, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused has no right of option in the matter.
Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till February 21 Amid COVID-19 Surge
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the surge in Covid-19 cases and the Test Positivity Rate in the State. As such, the Bench revived an earlier order it had passed on 19, May 2021 in which it had issued directions for the extension of interim orders.
Case Title: Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Court has held that there is a clear distinction between refusing to consider an application and rejecting one with reasons while finding that an officer should specify reasons while denying copies of statements made to the parties in an investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that since it is settled law that reasons should be reflected in the order, the Proper Officer should have given reasons for refusing to grant copies of the witness statements.
Case Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Court ruled that merely because the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 permits appointing Chairperson and members from the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled power infringing rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act and National Commission for Minorities Act observed that such an amendment did not violate any rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Court issued a set of further directions to ensure that no new unauthorised flag posts, banners or boards are installed in the State and to remove the already existing ones within a period of 30 days. Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative to notify such guidelines after observing that people had fallen back to their lackadaisical attitude regarding the erection of illegal boards, banners and flag posts in the State within a few months after the Court issued strict orders against the same.
Maoist Threat In Locality Valid Reason To Deny NOC For Explosive Licence : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
Justice N. Nagaresh while dismissing a petition challenging the decision of a Magistrate held that the presence of a Maoist threat in a locality is a sound reason to deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for an explosive license. It was also held that the fact that there is an Anganwadi or a PWD road nearby is also sufficient for such rejection. The Court further noted that the presence of Maoist terrorists and the perceived threat posed by them is a very relevant factor in the context of public interest.
Case Title: Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Court granted bail to a 33-year-old woman suffering from multiple disabilities who allegedly dropped her newborn into a bucket of water, resulting into the infant's death. The infant was her sixth child, and reportedly a consequence of unintended pregnancy. Justice Gopinath P. released the woman on bail noting that her custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the investigation of the case.
Case Title: Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Court barred all public gatherings exceeding 50 individuals in the Kasargod district for a week citing the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, posing a major setback to the ongoing District Meet of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Court passed the order in a writ petition which alleged that the District Collector had revoked an earlier order that limited attendance in public meetings to facilitate the CPI(M)'s Kasargod District meet.
Case Title: Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
The Court has ruled that a complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a defamatory article published in a newspaper about the RSS is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Sophy Thomas noted that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, any individual member of RSS has the locus standi to maintain a complaint against an article defaming the organisation.
Case Title: V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Justice T.R. Ravi annulled the order issued by the Central Government in 1962 which upheld representation voting at the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam elections. Unlike the past 46 years, now all members will have the right to vote in the elections. This decision comes in the backdrop of the next election scheduled to take place on February 5.
Kerala High Court Holds First Urgent Late Night Hearing To Arrest Vessel In Admiralty Suit
Case Title: Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
In a first, the Court held a late-night hearing of an admiralty suit to arrest a vessel, MV Ocean Rose, from leaving the Cochin Port Trust. Justice Devan Ramachandran convened the hearing at 11.30 pm after the plaintiff in the suit approached the Court to prevent a ship from leaving the Cochin port, which was scheduled to leave at 5 am the next morning.
Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Regulate Crowd Funding For Treatment Of Rare Diseases
Case Title: Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Court has issued a set of directions to the State and the Central governments in an attempt to make available adequate funds for treating patients suffering from rare diseases, particularly for those who cannot afford such expenses, to enforce the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar directed the Centre and State to file affidavits within a month indicating inter alia the progress of the crowdfunding scheme sought to be established in the State.
Case Title: Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Court has recently held that if a judgment debtor appears before the court when served with a notice and contends that he has no means to pay off the decreed debt, the Court is bound to enquire into this contention before issuing a warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code. Justice A. Badharudeen was exploring the procedure to be followed before issuance of an arrest warrant in the execution of a decree for payment of money.
Case Title: Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala & connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Court while acquitting the prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafas in the infamous Kozhikode 2006 twin bomb blast case observed that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) had failed to produce credible evidence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman also found that had it not been for the agency's hurry to wind up the investigation, there may have been more compelling evidence to find the accused guilty.
Case Title: P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Court recently ruled that the multiplier to be used while computing compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on the basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not based on the running age. Therefore, Justice C.S Dias observed that when a person aged 50 years and 7 months dies in a motor accident, the multiplier applicable to the age bracket of 46-50 will apply and not the one applicable to the age bracket of 51-55.
Case Title: Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
While upholding a divorce decree, the Court recently observed that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, amounts to cruelty to the persons at the receiving end i.e., the Spouse.
A bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the wife's appeal as it came to the conclusion that the appellant was treating her husband with cruelty both physical and mental, and in the year 2005, she had deserted him.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Court held that the prosecution has every right to seek that the accused should surrender mobile phones for forensic examination under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act.
Justice Gopinath P. rejected the argument that the surrender of mobile phones will infringe the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India after referring to a couple of landmark decisions in this area.
Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Court found merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner who had sought to quash the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT to apply to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC). Finding the condition prima facie discriminatory, Justice V.G. Arun observed that there was no rationale for precluding candidates like the petitioner from the post.
Delay Fatal Only If Parties Attempt To Obtain Any Unfair Advantage : Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Court ruled that a delay in filing an application only becomes fatal if by allowing such application, the applicant obtains an unfair benefit or if any prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath while partly allowing a petition seeking to re-examine 7 witnesses and summon 9 additional witnesses observed that the delay in filing the application could be discounted since the prayer herein was only to produce the original documents which were already marked.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. pronounced the highly-anticipated verdict after two weeks of elaborate hearing. "Your apprehensions regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by conditions", the Court informed the Prosecution while dictating the order. It was also clarified that if these conditions were violated, the prosecution was entitled to apply for arrest.
For Abetment By Conspiracy, Mere Agreement Not Enough; Something Must Be Done: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
The Court while granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor Dileep and other accused reiterated the clear distinction between the offences of abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. Upon referring to several decisions on this issue, Justice Gopinath P. decided that while an illegal omission or act is necessary to constitute an offence of abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is sufficient to amount to criminal conspiracy.
Excommunication Illegal Under Wakf Act, Infringes Fundamental Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title : PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
In a notable judgment, the Court has held that ex-communication or externment, whether declared or undeclared, is illegal and impermissible under the Wakf Act. The Court further declared that any bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of the Wakf Property authorising ex-communication is also illegal as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice SV Bhatti and Justice A Badharudeen were deciding a civil revision petition challenging the orders of the Wakf Tribunal and the State Wakf Tribunal.
Case Title: V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Court held that the Secretary of a Municipality is empowered to issue notice and initiate suitable action if a building construction is found to be proceeding illegally within their jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while dealing with a set of appeals filed under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the license granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne for broadcast. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel) challenging the Union's decision. Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu case. The incident came to light after a Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi published a report on February 4 citing that such a practice was being followed at the temples as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'.
Case Title: Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Court has ruled that when an Indian citizen intends to solemnise their marriage with an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Cardholder, any declaration evidencing their single status would be sufficient to register their marriage in India if the concerned foreign embassy does not issue certificates to that effect due to prevailing laws. Justice N. Nagaresh also opined that this was deemed necessary since no one can be compelled to perform an unattainable task that hinders the registration of their marriage.
Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Court held that even if a statute does not provide for granting an opportunity of hearing to parties, principles of natural justice have to be read into the statute. While allowing a plea moved by a woman who was terminated from service without personal hearing, Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such a termination order was violative of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Court while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Court while dismissing a petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments on mainstream or social media about a judgment before reading it. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that the lawyers should act as the mouthpiece of the judiciary and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.
Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
The Court ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.
Case Title: Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
In a noteworthy judgment, the Court made several important observations on matrimonial cruelty and the scope of revival of condoned matrimonial offences. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking to reverse the order of a Family Court which rejected her plea for divorce finding that she had failed to prove any form of matrimonial cruelty allegedly meted out on her.
Case Title: Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Court ruled that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies are not permissible in law since it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that the impugned advertisement was only for one post and that the candidate who secured the first rank had already joined the post. Under such circumstances, the bank could not have appointed any further person by preparing a rank list.
Case Title: Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Court held that a teacher who administers a reasonable force on a pupil without any malicious intention to enforce discipline in a classroom should not be fastened with criminal liability. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath discharged a teacher against whom the trial court had framed charges, finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against her.
Case Title: Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Court has held that if one of the spouses is refusing to accord divorce on mutual consent despite being convinced of the fact that the marriage has failed, it is nothing but cruelty to the other spouse. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that once the court is able to form an opinion that due to incompatibility, the marriage failed and one of the spouses was withholding consent for mutual separation, it can very well treat that conduct itself as cruelty.
K-Rail Silverline Project | Kerala High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Staying Land Survey
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Court set aside an interim order issued by a Single Judge directing the State to defer steps for the survey taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project of the writ petitioners' properties until the matters are considered again in February. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly allowed a batch of appeals filed by the State noting that Social Impact Assessment cannot be seen as an empty formality and that the public is entitled to know the adverse impact and consequences they are likely to suffer.
Case Title: Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Court has directed the State Police and Enforcement Officials of the Motor Vehicles Department to initiate stringent measures against vehicle drivers/owners found disregarding the Road Safety Policy guidelines, particularly against those who overload their vehicles or use a government nameplate without the requisite authorisation. Justice Anil K Narendran issued certain directions to reinforce the strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy, Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations in the State as directed by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety.
Case Title: S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Court recently ruled that a government servant who was dismissed from service may not be denied special consideration for compassionate allowance merely for the reason that his wife and children are employed. While allowing a writ petition, Justice V.G. Arun found that although a government servant removed from service is not entitled to pension/ gratuity, the competent authority can sanction compassionate allowance in cases deserving special consideration.
Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Be Followed By Trial Courts While Sentencing
Case Title: Devarajan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Court has recently issued a set of recommendations to be observed by trial courts while sentencing the accused in criminal matters. The guidelines were issued by a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while allowing a criminal appeal, thereby reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by a Sessions Judge on the appellant for murder.
Case Title: Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
The Court recently held that an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act includes the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A of the Act, and that it does not have to be necessarily be done by the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies himself. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha added that merely for the reason that an inquiry under Section 65 can be conducted by the Registrar directly, such a report under Section 65 cannot be placed in a better pedestal than an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer.
Case Title: Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate cannot return a complaint merely on the ground that it was filed by the wife of the complainant. Justice K. Haripal also emphasised that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone and that principle of locus standi does not apply in criminal jurisprudence.
Merely Keeping Tobacco Products At One's Residence Not An Offence: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abhijith v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Court has recently ruled that mere keeping of tobacco products at one's residence does not attract any offence per se. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed a petition filed by an accused who was charged for storing a collection of tobacco products at his residence, allegedly to sell to children. Since there is no prosecution case that the petitioner had given or caused to be given tobacco products to any minor child, charges under Section 77 of the JJ Act were also dropped.
Case Title: J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Court has recently laid down the instances when a co-owner can maintain a suit for injunction to protect his co-ownership right over a property. Justice A. Badharudeen was adjudicating upon a matter where one co-owner was attempting to construct a building in the co-ownership property during the pendency of the final decree proceedings before a trial court. The Court found that construction could not be permitted without the knowledge or consent of other co-owners and added that such construction may cause prejudice to the right of enjoyment of the other co-owners as they wish on separation of shares.
Case Title: Teena v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
'God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers', quoted the High Court while reversing the trial court's conviction of a woman who was accused of killing her 9-year-old son in an attempt to avenge her disturbed marital life. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that in such cases, there is often more than meets the eye, which sensitivity often the investigators lack. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and that the trial court had erred in the marshalling of facts and scrutiny of evidence.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Court recently expressed serious concerns regarding the non-availability of the adjudicatory mechanism of Debts Recovery Tribunal in the State for over ten months despite its efforts to kick start its functioning. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when the fundamental right to have access to justice is denied due to the absence of Presiding Officers of the forum created under a statute, the aggrieved are entitled to approach the High Court.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
The Court held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a nine-day-long 'Ramakatha' recital programme at Pamba area, encroaching upon the pilgrimage path to the Sabarimala temple.
Case Title: Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Court observed that Section 122 of the Evidence Act requires a revisit since it was a legal weapon used by criminals to suppress their crimes, thereby affecting public interest. The said provision recognises the age-old concept of marital confidence, where all communications between spouses during the wedlock are considered sacrosanct. While appreciating the sacrosanctity attached to communications between spouses as laid down by the English Commission of Common Law Procedure report in 1853, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that perhaps it was time to reconsider the stand in the light of modern times.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
While granting a decree of divorce to a couple, the Court recently ruled that a wife making secret phone calls to a man ignoring her husband's warning against the same amounts to matrimonial cruelty. Justice Kauser Edappagth in his judgment also observed that mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored.
Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Operation Of Unauthorised Street Vendors In Kochi
Case Title: Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Court issued a comprehensive list of directions to ensure strict implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 within the limits of Kochi Corporation and to ensure that only authorised vendors carry on street vending activities therein. Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the directions in a batch of petitions pending before the Court since 2019 concerning the issue of regulation of street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Title: Mangala v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Court recently held that mere permission to work from home is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the employee is working. Justice Sunil Thomas answered the question of jurisdiction for legal claims of remote employees and ruled that merely because they are permitted to work from home and the employer was aware that the employee was within a different jurisdiction was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Kerala High Court Quashes Consumer Forum Proceedings Against Subramanian Swamy
Case Title: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
The Court allowed the petition moved by BJP Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy to quash the non-bailable warrant issued by the Thrissur Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF) against him citing that he had not received any notice of these proceedings. The Court has also quashed the Execution Proceedings pending as against Swamy after accepting his submission that he has neither received any notice of the proceedings nor engaged any lawyer to represent him there.
Case Title: Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Court refused to interfere with the State government's proposal to alter the examination pattern for State Board exam students this academic year as opposed to the last one. In the proposed examination pattern, 70% of the questions will be from the focus area and the rest 30% from the non-focus area. In addition, there will be 50% choice questions for focus area and non-focus area. Justice Amit Rawal opined that such a question pattern and evaluation can identify the most eligible from the rest.
Case Title: Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
The Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. The issue has been gaining momentum in Kerala since this is the first time in the history of the State that a Vice-Chancellor was reappointed. Moreover, it is reported that he was reappointed into office hours after his send-off ceremony as the outgoing VC.
Case Title: Manual v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
In a noteworthy decision, the Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that this was so because vicarious liability in criminal law can only be fastened when a statute prescribes so.
Case Title: P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kerala Football Association since it was a private organisation and was not discharging public functions. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held so in a petition challenging a circular issued by the Association mandating a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with tax as eligibility criteria to participate in the State Championship League.
Case Title: K. Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Court ruled that what is expected from the competent authority while ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the basis of information gathered either on his own or received from other sources is that there shall be an independent and active application of mind as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha reiterated that the only requirement of law in the matter of ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) is that the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind.
Case Title: Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
The Court has ruled that an Interim Development Order (IDO) issued under Section 63 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 will prevail over the previous Master Plan of a city even if a new Master Plan has not been sanctioned yet. Justice T.R. Ravi ruled that although Section 36 says that the older Master Plan shall continue to be in operation until the new one is sanctioned, when an IDO has been issued, that shall take over the old Master Plan.
Claiming Adverse Possession After Encroachment Into Public Road Not Admissible: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Court has ruled that a petitioner claiming the right of adverse possession after encroaching into a public road cannot be treated as a usual plea of adverse possession. Holding so, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking title over property by adverse possession when the petitioners had failed to present a prima facie case in their favour.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
The Court extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the fluctuation in the Test Positivity Rate in the State. A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the validity of its previous order extending all interim orders till 21 February amid the Covid-19 surge in the State.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Nowfal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Court has recently ruled that when a victim of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act makes a request to video record the trial proceedings, a court cannot turn it down even if sexual offences are involved. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that Section 15A(10) of the Act which permits video-recording of all proceedings is in consonance with Section 327(2) of CrPC which provides for in-camera trial in cases involving sexual offences since both of them were enacted to protect the interests of the victim.
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
The Court dismissed the appeal moved by Malayalam news channel MediaOne against the single judge order upholding the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on national security grounds. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting refusing to renew the broadcast license granted to MediaOne.
Also Read: 'Clear, Significant Indications Impacting Public Order & Security' : Kerala High Court While Upholding Telecast Ban On MediaOne
Case Title: C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
The Court recently held that it cannot entertain a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). As such, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate court as per law. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
The Court recently asked an Assistant Passport Officer in Kottayam to shell out litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 25,000 from his own salary for objecting to re-issue passport to a single parent's daughter. In his order, Justice Amit Rawal has also called it a classic case of highhandedness by the Assistant Passport Officer objecting to re-issue the passport of children of a single parent facing a matrimonial discord and directing them to approach the court and obtain the court order.
'Medical Services' Fall Within Ambit Of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
In a significant decision, the Court has ruled that medical services fall within the purview of the term 'service' defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Observing so, Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a plea filed by a group of doctors who prayed to declare that the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service.
Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
The Court has recently ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, one party cannot forfeit the security deposit towards risk liability when they have not suffered any loss or damage. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that it was settled that when the question is one of forfeiture of the security deposit in case of breach of contract, such sum does not ipso facto go to the respondents.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
The Court has recently held that the State Government is justified in notifying all Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats in the State of Kerala under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby refused to interfere with a State notification in that regard and accordingly dismissed an appeal.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
In a judgment that runs beyond 120 pages, the Court has issued a set of directions to ensure road safety and adherence with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the wake of the rising number of accidents reported concerning Sabarimala pilgrims travelling in buses and other contract carriages. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar discovered that despite several guidelines in place, vehicles were being permitted to run on public roads disregarding road safety standards, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of passengers and other road users.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
The Court quashed the proceedings against two nuns for allegedly disclosing the identity of a rape survivor by sharing her photo with the media. The nuns had shared a photograph of the rape survivor along with a few priests via email to three media personnel, however, the name or identity of the survivor was not published in the reports. Moreover, the email contained specific instructions to the recipients to not publish the photograph.
Proof Of Will : Onus Is On The Propounder To Remove Suspicious Circumstances : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
The Court has recently ruled that if there exist suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, it is the onus of the propounder to remove all those reasonable doubts in the matter and the test to be applied in this connection is the satisfaction of judicial conscience.Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S Sudha observed that suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the testator's signature or that the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time when the will was made or that the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them.
Case Title: Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Court has quashed the income tax assessment order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Managing Director who was imprisoned in UAE. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients, firstly opportunity to show cause and of being heard should be given, it must be a real opportunity and not an unreal one, the right to a fair hearing is essential and secondly, the orders passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing a proper application of mind.
Case Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.
Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.
Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.
Case Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Court ruled that the question of maintainability of a writ petition can be raised by the respondents years after its admission and even if an interim relief has been granted on the plea. However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that a high court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should ensure that its decision is equitable to both the parties involved. The Court also suggested some of the relevant factors for high courts to exercise their discretionary power when a petition is admitted, despite there being an alternative remedy available
Kerala High Court Directs 5 College Students Accused Of Ragging Their Juniors To Engage In Social Service For 2 Weeks
Case Title: Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
The Court directed five college students of TKM Engineering College to engage in social service for two weeks, to quash the proceedings pending against them for ragging two junior students. Arguing that they had settled the matter among themselves, the accused had sought to quash the proceedings pending against them. While agreeing to quash the proceedings against them, Justice K. Haripal ordered the petitioners to undergo some kind of social service preferably in the General Hospital for two weeks.
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
The Court has held that the failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Court has upheld the appointment of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Director of Legal Studies- Dr. Vani Kesari A, by dismissing a petition challenging the selection process. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that it was up to the court to decide if the procedure followed by the statutory selection committee was legal, even if it was deviant from the one prescribed by the statute.
Kerala High Court Aids 10 Year Old Rape Survivor To Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy
Case Title: YYY v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Court came to the aid of a 10-year old girl who was allegedly sexually abused by her father, by permitting her to undergo medical termination of her 8-month (30 weeks) old pregnancy. Finding the plight of the girl who became pregnant at such a tender age 'unfortunate', Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea for medical termination of pregnancy moved by the girl's mother.
Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting such relief would render the provisions of the Act redundant. The Court also noted that this appeal was preferred as early as March 2020, so the liability to make the pre-deposit befalls on the date of filing of the appeal. This liability cannot be eschewed from reckoning on the basis of subsequent events, which as claimed by the petitioner to be beneficial to it, the Judge noted.
Suit Filed By Minor Without Appointing Next Friend Is A Curable Irregularity: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Court held that a suit filed by a minor without a next friend need not be taken off from the file since the same is a curable irregularity and by filing a subsequent application, the defect can be cured. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the defect can be cured by filing a separate petition for the same and that the suit can be proceeded thereafter. As such, it was held that the appointment of a next friend subsequent to the filing of the suit is not bad in law.
Kerala High Court Reinstates Its Directions On Use Of Flex Boards In State
Case Title: B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The Court has reiterated the extensive set of directions it had issued last year on the issue of the use of plastics/flex boards in the State. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recalled the directions in a petition challenging the State's inaction in taking effective measures to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale and usage of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Flex.
Case Title: Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
The Court recently ruled that even if one of the parents of a minor child refused to give consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled to issue a passport to the minor, provided the requisite form is submitted. While allowing the petition of a minor girl, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that there is no legal prohibition in incorporating a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child.
Film Production Units Have To Form ICC Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court Orders In WCC's Plea
Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 34273/2018]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
The Court observed that film production units have the responsibility to form an Internal Complaints Committee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - commonly known as the POSH Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also recorded that AMMA has volunteered to constitute an ICC and added that if AMMA constitutes an ICC as undertaken the same shall be in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act.
Case Title: Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
In a significant decision, the Court observed that political parties are not legally liable to establish Internal Complaints Commitee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so in a PIL moved by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA) seeking directions to constitute Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) within political parties in accordance with the POSH Act 2013.
Case Title: Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
The Court discharged alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the word 'shall' in the Act and the Rules cannot be said to be merely directory and pointed out that Section 45(2) specifically speaks of the recommendation of the authority and the sanction by the appropriate Government 'shall' be within such time as prescribed.
Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till March 25
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
The Court extended the validity of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courttill March 25 considering the difficulties lawyers may have to face if the stay on orders is vacated immediately. As such, a full bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P Chaly disposed of the suo motu petition.
Ancheri Baby Political Murder: Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Mani And Two Other Accused
Case Title: M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Court allowed the discharge application moved by former minister M.M Mani and two others where they sought to quash the proceedings pending against them in the scandalous Ancheri Baby murder case of 1982. Kuttappan and O.G. Madhavan were the other two accused who have been discharged of all charges today. Justice Sunil Thomas acquitted the trio setting aside the decision of the trial court dismissing their plea to drop the charges against them in the case finding that the witnesses were not credible.
Case Title: The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Court reiterated that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where the juniors are permitted to draw more salary than seniors in the cadre. A Division Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that if such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of the juniors.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Court has recently established that leave to a criminal appeal can only be granted after proper application of mind by the Court to see if arguable points have been raised in the appeal. Justice Kauser Edappagath held so while referring to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475] where it was held that in deciding if leave should be granted, the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
The Court recently upheld a Single bench decision that dismissed a couple of petitions seeking the constitution of an In-House Committee to probe into the alleged judicial misconduct against two judges. While dismissing a couple of appeals, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P held that the In-House Inquiry was not a 'law' for a litigant to ask for its enforcement.
Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against K.P Sasikala In Sabarimala Violence Case
Case Title: K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
The Court recently dropped all charges against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K. P. Sasikala for purportedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women in Sabarimala temple in 2018. The said hartal had resulted in large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before this Court to fix liability for the damages caused. Justice K Haripal allowed Sasikala's plea to quash all the proceedings against her, finding no legal evidence to inculpate her in the crime of abetting the unlawful assembly.
Case Title: Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
It was reiterated that courts should steer away from replacing their views in the place of expert opinion in academic matters. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that it is not the domain of courts to trench in the academic pasture and pick holes in it and that it is better to give preference to the opinion of experts in the field in such matters.
Quashing Moral Policing Cases On Settlement Sends Wrong Message To Public : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Court recently ruled that moral policing is an offence that involves mental depravity and that such cases cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement between the accused and complainant. Justice K. Haripal was adjudicating upon a case in which a violent mob had attacked an unarmed man for taking a woman belonging to a different community in his car.
Case Title: P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
The Court has ruled that every transaction by either of the spouse or by both of them with the in-laws or relatives cannot be termed as 'in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship under the Family Courts Act, 1984. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas found that the impugned transaction in the plea was purely a business transaction between the son-in-law and father-in-law, and hence held that it cannot be termed as circumstances arising out of a marital relationship.
Case Title: Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Western Ghats Protection Council seeking a CBI enquiry into the allegedly illegal financial dealings of Kenza Holdings under the guise of a Villa Project. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly refused to entertain the plea noting that the petitioner society had not approached the relevant statutory authorities prescribed by law before seeking an investigation by the CBI.
Case Title: Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
The Court directed the post-office authorities to disburse the amount deposited by a domestic help under the time deposit scheme with full interest till the date of withdrawal within a month. Finding it to be a case of injustice, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the authorities as litigation cost while adding that the constitutional court cannot be a silent spectator in such situations.
Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
The Court ruled that a Special Leave Petition filed by an assessee under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that while an assessment, appellate, and even revisional proceeding qualify as "proceedings under this Act', one instituted under the Constitution did not.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
The Court issued guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities while dealing with applications filed by accident victims or their dependents seeking compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. While disposing of a suo motu petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly accepted the report submitted by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority wherein it had suggested a few mechanisms to establish a proper system for effective consideration of such applications.
Case Title: Sabeena E.K v. District Collector & connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
The High Court held that owners of a portion of a paddy field who purchased it after the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are not entitled to reclaim it for the purpose of residential use. As such, a Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shaji P Chaly and Justice Sathish Ninan overturned the Division Bench decision in Yousuf Chalil v.State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33].
Case Title: Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Court denied anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of injuring a father for questioning him and the other accused for passing lewd comments about his minor daughter. While hearing the matter, Justice Gopinath P. orally remarked that such incidents of father and daughter being subjected to lewd comments while walking on a public road were unfortunate.
Case Title: Ukkash A v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court directed the concerned authorities to take steps to reconstitute the Local Complaints Committee established under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, whenever its term expires. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly disposed of a PIL noting that the provisions of the Act were to be strictly implemented.
Case Title: Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The High Court has ruled that a Panchayat cannot insist on the production of a development permit from an owner of a small portion of land, which is sub-divided from a large plot, to allow the construction of a residential building on his property as per Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly held that the Rules contemplate an entirely different situation from the purchase of a small plot of land by an individual from a larger area, whether the owner of the property had divided it into various plots and sold it or not.
Case Title: P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
The Court ruled that once a client authorises an advocate to conduct a case, the advocate is empowered to file a joint vakalat on behalf of the client. Justice N. Nagaresh added that filing a joint vakalat is not a ground to deny any lawyer his professional fee: "The said authorisation would include authorisation to do all that is necessary to conduct and prosecute the case, including filing joint Vakalat along with junior lawyer in the office of the senior lawyer."
Govt Servants Can't Participate In Any Strike; Absence From Work 'Dies Non': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
The High Court barred the government employees from participating in the ongoing two-day nationwide strike organised by the National Convention of Workers against the policies of the Centre while directing the State to declare dies non on the protest days. It declared that the participation of government servants in the ongoing two-day strike is 'illegal'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed the State to issue directions prohibiting the same while adding that no government servant shall participate in the strike as it was against Rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960.
Case Title: M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
The Court held that the State government was justified in acquiring land in furtherance of its K-Rail SilverLine Project invoking provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Railways Act, 1989 would not apply to this case since the Silver Line Project was not yet declared as a Special Railway Project by the Centre.
Case Title: Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Court recently ruled that one cannot prefer an appeal under provide to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a trial court's order, challenging the adequacy of sentence imposed upon the convict. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran dismissed a criminal appeal adding that such an appeal can only be preferred by the State under Section 377 of CrPC.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Court refused to interfere with a long-standing ritual at the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithara, where the temple tantri washes the feet of 12 priests. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar had taken suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in the said Temple, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. However, upon verifying, it was brought out that the news report was incorrect.
Actor Sexual Assault Case | Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Prime Accused Pulsar Suni
Case Title: Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant regular bail to Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the sensational 2017 sexual assault case where a prominent actress was abducted and raped in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan rejected the application noting that bail cannot be granted at this stage. It will convey a wrong signal to the society, the Court said.
Case Title: Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Court disposed of the plea filed by Nair Service Society seeking the implementation of the comprehensive survey suggested by the Justice AV Ramakrishna Pilla Commission to ascertain the economically weaker sections (EWS) in the State who are eligible for 10% reservation as per the 103rd Constitutional amendment. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the petition after the State submitted that owing to its financial state and the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, it was not in a position to implement the said recommendation for a comprehensive survey.
Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
The Court has ruled that the income tax department is not authorized to retain the title deeds seized by them under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Assessee against the assessment order is pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that since the Income Tax Act confers the tax authorities the power to retain seized documents beyond the assessment order only till proceedings under the Act are completed, therefore documents seized by the department cannot be retained by them on the ground of pendency of Special Leave Petition (SLP) since an SLP filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: KA John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
The Court dismissed an appeal moved by Orthodox parishioners against a single-judge order that refused to intervene in the consecration of new catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church without canonically inviting the Patriarch of Antioch. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas refused to interfere with the impugned order noting that there exists no pubic law element in the issue of the consecration process.
Family Courts Not To Remain A Neutral Umpire, Can Order Enquiry To Find Out Truth: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Nisha Haneefa v. Abdul Latheef & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
In a significant decision, the Court has issued a few observations regarding the foundational function of the Family Courts in India, while asserting that a Family Court is not the mirror of an ordinary Civil Court and that it is empowered with inquisitorial powers as well. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the presiding officer of a Family Court was not expected to remain a neutral umpire while resolving disputes, but was empowered to find out the truth by utilising a fair approach.
Case Title: Leelamma Eapen v. District Magistrate & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Court has ruled that the power of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act is not circumscribed to mere ordering of monthly allowance for the maintenance of senior citizens where their children/relatives refuse to maintain them but to ensure maintenance from their own earnings to lead a dignified life. Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction and powers to issue directions to the children or relative not to deprive the senior citizen of their earnings so that they can maintain themself.
Case Title: Vijayakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
The Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against a Notary Public who is the 5th accused in the murder of Roy Thomas, one of the series of murders popularly known as the 'Koodathayi murder case' where six members of a family were killed over a span of 17 years by administering cyanide in their food. The petitioner was accused of attesting a forged will deed executed by the deceased's father, thereby joining the criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons.
Case Title: Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Court recently reiterated that the marriage of an individual from one caste to another as permitted by law has no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Observing so, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea moved by a woman who had challenged the order rejecting her application for a caste certificate citing that she had married to another caste, and thus not eligible for the same.
Case Title: Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
The Court has delivered a noteworthy judgment explaining when sex on the promise of marriage can amount to rape. Setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of rape on false promise of marriage, the Court clarified merely because the accused contracted another marriage immediately after the sexual act with the victim, it cannot give rise to the presumption of lack of consent.
Case Title: Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Court recently ruled that a serving Government employee, who had earlier secured enrollment as an Advocate and had later suspended his legal practice for taking up the above Government employment, cannot be treated as a "member of the Bar" for the purpose of selection and appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that this was so since as per the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules, a person who was initially enrolled as an Advocate and later voluntarily suspended from legal practice is not entitled to practise as an Advocate.
Kerala High Court Asks State To Revisit The Procedure For Search & Seizure In Abkari Cases
Case Title: Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
While directing the State to compensate two persons who were falsely implicated in Abkari cases, the Court addressed a question concerning the search, seizure and arrest procedure in abkari cases in the State and opined that the State Government should take serious note of the same. The petitioners were arrested and in confinement for more than 50 days in connection with two separate Abkari cases. They were subsequently found to be innocent and were exonerated by the investigating agency by filing subsequent reports before the Court concerned.
Can't Deny Public Employment On Basis Of Place Of Residence/ Domicile: Kerala High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court recently observed that a candidate cannot be denied public employment merely on the ground that she is not a resident or domicile of a particular location. Ruling so, Justice V.G. Arun set aside a resolution and declared that the Panchayat cannot deny an appointment to the most meritorious candidate for the reason that she is not a resident of the Panchayat.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Reschedule KUHS Final Year MBBS Exam
Case Title: Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Court refused to reschedule the dates of the III Professional MBBS Degree Part-II Examinations to be conducted by the Kerala University of Health and Sciences (KUHS) in the plea moved by a large group of medical students from the State. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan however clarified that students who failed to appear for the examination on March 31 should be permitted to appear along with their junior batch in the exams which are tentatively scheduled to be held on 19.9.2022, or such other date as modified by the Board of Examinations.
Kerala High Court Orders Expeditious Appointment Of Veterinary Staff In Lakshadweep
Case Title: Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Court while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) directed the Director of Animal Husbandry to appoint veterinary staff under the Central Government sponsored scheme called 'Livestock Health and Disease Control' in Lakshadweep within three weeks. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly asked the concerned authorities to expeditiously finalise appointments of veterinary surgeons and other staff, empathising with the plight of the animals and birds on the island deprived of medical attention.
Case Title: M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Court quashed all proceedings against two individuals who were accused of forging the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church observing that the matter had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court and the case was an instance of abuse of process of court. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A found that the Apex Court had already clarified that the non-registration or the indicated modifications made in the 1934 Constitution cannot be a valid contention to challenge the validity of the document if any petitioner places reliance on it.
Initiating Litigation Cannot Be Treated As An Act Of Criminal Conspiracy: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
The Court while quashing proceedings against two individuals who were accused of forging the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church observed that Initiating litigation cannot be treated as an act of conspiracy as contemplated under Section 120B of the CrPC. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A found that the offence of criminal conspiracy is not attracted in the case since the offence of forgery was not established in the case and particularly because filing a suit cannot be treated as an illegal act.
Case Title: Bibin K. B. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Court directed the concerned authorities to permit children with an IQ level between 70 and 84 to avail the facilities available to disabled persons in the forthcoming SSLC Examination 2022 pending disposal of a writ petition as an interim relief. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly directed the Government Pleader to communicate the order of this court to the respondents forthwith and also to the District Medical Officer, Thrissur for implementing this order.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
The Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging that the Registry did not list a couple of petitions before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P reminded the Registry that the filing of a case by a litigant before this institution is a manifestation of the confidence reposed by the litigant in the justice delivery system in our country.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
The High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the high court cannot waive the statutory mandate of pre-deposit merely on the plea of financial hardships. The court observed that the amendment to section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, clearly manifests the intention of the legislature that the waiver of pre-deposit, which was being resorted to quite often by the courts of law, needed to be amended to make the pre-deposit mandatory. Thus, after the Amendment Act came into force, no discretion is available to the courts of law to waive the mandatory requirement of a pre-deposit of 7.5% even if it is assumed to be onerous.
Case Title: X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
The Court has established that the promise alleged to have been made by the accused to a married woman that he would marry her before engaging in sexual relations with her is not enforceable in law and thus it cannot be a ground for the prosecution to argue that the woman had consented due to a misconception of fact. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath quashed all proceedings against the accused observing that according to the sequence of events and the survivor's statement, it appeared to be a consensual act.
Case Title: Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
The Court while releasing a man on bail observed that the forensic science laboratories (FSL) in the State were collapsing and required an upgrade upon noticing that the FSL report in the case was not submitted to the Sessions Court despite the passage of two years. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, therefore, suggested that the State government take immediate note of the same and make sure that the system is equipped to submit FSL reports within three weeks of the samples being furnished.
Right Of State To Provide Reservations Unaffected By UGC Regulations: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
The Court has established that the regulations notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) that determine qualifications for selection to various posts in universities in a State do not impact the right of the State government to provide reservations for backward classes. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P stated that it did not see how the UGC Regulations can affect the reservation policy of a State.
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
A vacation bench of the Court granted interim relief in the plea moved by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the respondents to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps while clarifying that this relief was subject to the outcome of the petition.
Party May Not Press Relief But Can't Prevent Family Court From Finding The Truth: Kerala High Court
Case Title: T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh Jayaram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
The Court recently held that the master of the proceedings before the Family Court is the presiding officer of the Family Court and not the parties while reiterating that the Family Court is competent to undertake any enquiry to find the truth. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that a party may be able to not press the relief sought, but they cannot refrain the Family Court from the finding of truth.
Case Title: Minor v. Ministry of Education
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
The Court has established that where a policy decision has been given effect to through a scheme announced by an educational agency, it would not interfere or suggest alternate policies for adoption by the said educational agency. A Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. however permitted a student who attended an urban school to be accommodated in the rural quota of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya since several seats in the quota was found to be vacant despite the admission process being complete, and the student as found meritorious for admission otherwise.
Dissenting Views Of Minority Members Does Not Constitute An Arbitral Award: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lloyed Insulations (India) Ltd versus Foremexx Space Frames
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
The Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal can pass only one arbitral award and not multiple awards. The Bench, consisting of Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, ruled that the dissenting views of the minority member(s) of an Arbitral Tribunal do not constitute an Arbitral Award, and the dissenting views cannot be made the basis of a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for setting aside the arbitral award or proceedings under Section 36 for its enforcement.
Case Title: Suryansh Broadcasting Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
The Court has dismissed an appeal moved by the broadcasting team of the popular Malayalam sitcom 'Uppum Mulakum' seeking an injunction on the telecasting of another programme which was allegedly an imitation of the appellant's programme. Justice P. Somarajan observed that although copyright is intended to protect one's work, that does not stop others from adopting the very same theme so long as the theme has an individual quality of its own with an element of innovation from the creator apart from the general theme and its natural sequences.
Case Title: Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
The High Court while dealing with a tenancy case, established that simply because a contention was raised in the written statement, there is no necessity for the court to refer it to the Land Tribunal if it prima facie appears to be a baseless assertion. Justice A. Badharudeen held that a civil court is only bound to refer a tenancy matter to the Land Tribunal if it finds sufficient force in the contention raised by the parties.
Case Title: Muhammed Hasheer Poolakkal v. United Arab Bank & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
The High Court has held that the courts in India cannot entertain any request directly from any private parties or institutions to initiate proceedings for attachment of properties in foreign states and added that such requests can only be made by the Centre or appropriate authorities under Section 105 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Upon examining the legislative intent behind incorporating Chapter VIIA of CrPC, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A took the stand that permitting any individual or establishment to file an application would amount to reading into the provision something which was never intended to be contemplated therein.
Case Title: Reji K. Joshy & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
The High Court has upheld the position established by its Division Bench in 2010 by agreeing that Rule 66 (5) of the does not contemplate any opportunity being given by the Registrar before accepting any report or initiating any action based on the report. A Full Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan and Justice C.S. Sudha thereby upheld the law as found in State of Kerala v. Aravindakshan Nair [2010 (3) KLT 11] while adjudicating upon a reference made by the Division Bench doubting the correctness of the proposition of law laid down in the impugned decision.
Case Title: Joseph v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
The High Court disposed of a habeas corpus plea moved by the father of a Christian woman Jyotsna Mary Joseph, who married a Muslim DYFI region secretary Shejin. The father had claimed that his daughter was taken away against her will and was kept in illegal detention while raising 'love jihad' allegations in the matter. A Division Bench of Justice V.G. Arun and Justice C.S Sudha decided to dispose of the petition after hearing the woman who confirmed that she was not illegally detained and that she had taken the decision voluntarily.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
The Court dismissed the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A opined that even if what is revealed from the allegations is a doubtful case for making out the offences at the stage of FIR, the benefit of the doubt should go in favour of the investigation and not to the accused because interference in the investigation at this stage would foreclose all opportunities for the police to collect materials in support of the allegations.
Also Read: Allegations Against Dileep Prima Facie Suggest Intention To Harm Police Officers : Kerala High Court
Case Title: T.N. Suraj v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
The Court issued an interim ex-parte gag order against Reporter TV restricting it from publishing, broadcasting or telecasting any item concerning or relating to actor Dileep's brother in law, Suraj while reporting about the murder conspiracy case or the 2017 actor sexual assault case for the next three weeks. Suraj had moved the Court alleging that the respondent channel was subjecting him to a media trial and resorting to sensationalism and publication of fabricated allegations against the accused and their associates in the said cases. In his plea, he had sought an injunction to restrain the media from reporting court proceedings.
Case Title: T.N. Suraj v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
While temporarily gagging Reporter TV from publishing/broadcasting/telecasting any item concerning or relating to actor Dileep's brother in law, Suraj on the murder conspiracy case or the 2017 actor sexual assault case, the Court commented on the detrimental effect media trial has on the legal system. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P remarked that media trials influence public opinion and that they could often lead to loss of faith in the justice delivery system.
Case Title: M/s Bativala and Karani v. K.I. Johny & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
The Court has held that there is no legal impediment for arbitrating parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the district court sets aside an award on any issue not yet concluded in that award. This implies that the principles of res judicata will have only a limited application in such proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha observed that even if the earlier award was one set aside not on any ground affecting the competency of the Tribunal, the subsequent arbitral proceedings are not hit by the principles of res judicata.
Kerala High Court Permits Couple To Proceed With Non-Commercial Surrogacy
Case Title: Deepa Srinivasan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
The Court came to the rescue of a couple who had approached the Court with a plea seeking permission to a private hospital to facilitate non-commercial and altruistic surrogacy for them. Upon noticing that all necessary precautions were taken by all the concerned parties, Justice N. Nagaresh permitted the couple to proceed with surrogacy while clarifying that further directions are to be given in the case, pending the writ petition. Therefore, the matter will be taken up again on 23 May.
Kerala High Court Asks Travancore Devaswom Board To Take Over Sabarimala Virtual Queue Services
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
The High Court ruled that the control over the virtual queue system for Sabarimala darshan should be transferred from the Kerala Police to the Travancore Devaswom Board. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar delivered its verdict in a suo motu case and two petitioners, including one Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the legality of the Pilgrim Management System, implemented by the Kerala Police.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
The Court held that the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act is bound to keep constant vigil over the sale of vazhipadu (pooja items) in the stalls on the temple premises, to ensure that the Kuthaka holder (successful bidder) is not selling any substandard pooja items to devotees. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar held that a ritual or pooja in the temple has to be performed by using pure pooja items while disposing of a suo motu matter initiated based on a news item that reported serious irregularities in the sale of Vazhipadu items in Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple, particularly in the sale of 'Koovalamala'.
Case Title: Suresh George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
The High Court has annulled the appointment of Nireesh C, the General Manager of Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL), (marketing, alternative revenue and corporate communications) upon finding that he fell short of the minimum age limit fixed for the post when he was appointed. Justice V.G. Arun annulled the appointment holding that an illegal appointment will not get legitimised by the passage of time and that the Court cannot evade its duty merely because there was a delay in pointing out the illegality.
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.
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.
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.
Case Title: Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
The High Court has recently ruled that a party claiming compensation for illegal acquisition of some property allegedly possessed by him has to establish his title and possession over the same before the court. While allowing an appeal, Justice Mary Joseph observed that in the said case, the plaintiff who sought compensation had failed to produce the document to evidence his ownership over the land.
No Legal Embargo Against Superior Courts Intervening With Bail Orders: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X. v State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
The High Court has recently observed that although an order granting bail would not generally be interfered with by the superior Courts, there is no legal embargo against such intervention. Justice Kauser Edappagath thereby observed that a High Court may invoke its inherent powers under S.482 of CrPC in the aid of an order required to secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of any court.
Case Title: Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
The High Court has laid down that when a dispute in a pending civil case is referred to the Lok Adalat and settled thereafter, the entire court fee already paid by the party is liable to be refunded. Justice V.G Arun found that the 7% reduction of the court fee already paid was not sustainable since such cases were governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act and the Court Fees Act, and not the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Board of Revenue) Rules.
Case Title: Sobhana v. President & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
The Court has recently established that the general supervisory power available under Section 17 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act does not empower the District Judge to pass judicial orders directing the civil courts in the district to dispose of matters pending before the subordinate courts in a time-bound manner. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the general control over all the civil courts given to the District Judge within the District is confined to matters of administration and not strictly on the judicial side to pass orders of such nature.
Case Title: Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
The High Court has ruled that when cancellation or declaration of a document as null and void is sought for, the court fee shall be paid valuing the same on the basis of the value shown in the document as long as the subject matter is capable of valuation. However, Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that in a suit for partition seeking a declaration that a settlement deed is invalid or not valid, a separate court fee is not necessary for the said declaration.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
The High Court took suo motu cognisance of the food poisoning incident in Kasargod after a 16-year-old girl died and over 50 people were hospitalised which, as per news reports, is a possible aftermath of consuming shawarma. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar took up the case after media reports threw light on the appalling conditions of some shawarma-making joints in the state. The court later sent notices to the State Food Safety Commissioner, Health Director and other officials.
Case Title: Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
The High Court has held that a District Collector can be notified as the 'appropriate government' mentioned in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Justice Devan Ramachandran found that as per Section 3E of the Act, the State Government can notify a District Collector to be the "appropriate Government" and he shall then be deemed to be such Authority therefrom.
RSS Worker's Murder: Kerala High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea For CBI Investigation
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
The Court dismissed the plea filed by the wife of deceased Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith, who was hacked to death in November last year, seeking the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal pronounced the judgment after weeks of elaborate hearing, permitting the State Police to continue with their probe.
Case Title: M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has directed the GST department to facilitate the revising of Form GST TRAN-1 and filing of Form GST TRAN-2 by making necessary arrangements on the web portal. The petitioner/assessee was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel products and other accessories and allied items.
Case Title: M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Pius C. Mundadan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The High Court has established that while taking a decision on an application for condonation of delay, the court should not merely consider the reasons stated in the application alone, but should also consider other attendant and relevant aspects. Justice V.G. Arun observed that having contested the case in a lackadaisical manner and having failed to offer an acceptable explanation for the delay, the petitioners cannot bank upon the elasticity of the term 'sufficient cause' to plead equity or seek permission to contest the suit on merits.
Kerala High Court Sets Aside Interim Order In Favour Of KSRTC In Bulk Diesel Price Case
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Court allowed the appeals moved by state-owned oil marketing companies (OMC) challenging the interim order issued in favour of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) wherein the OMCs have been directed to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps temporarily. A vacation bench of Justice C.S Dias and Justice Basant Balaji thereby set aside the impugned interim order passed in a petition moved by KSRTC through Advocate Deepu Thankan citing that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Court urged the respective authorities to routinely inspect and monitor food safety standards across the State all year round while hearing a suo motu PIL launched after the food poisoning incident in Kasargod. A 16-year-old girl Devananda died and over 57 people were hospitalised which, as per news reports, is a possible aftermath of consuming shawarma from a particular restaurant.
Case Title: M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and nine others in the Kashmir terror recruitment case in a judgment that runs to 205 pages. The Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran however, acquitted the 2nd, 14th and 22nd accused in the case since their role in the conspiracy were not established. The Court also recorded its appreciation for the tremendous work put in both by the Kerala Police and the NIA while remarking, "For those who have such radical thoughts, we can only say that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence, if you just look at history."
Also Read: Kashmir Terror Recruitment Case: Kerala High Court Confirms Conviction Of 10 Accused, Acquits 3
Case Title: Thampi VS v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
The Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to prevent alleged forced vaccination of children across the State finding that the petitioner had moved the Court based on information received through social media. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the plea with interesting comments after the petitioner failed to place on record any specific instance of forced vaccination of minors.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Raseena K.K.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
The Court ruled that once a Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) registration is cancelled, it must be published in at least two major daily newspapers, and the dealer must be notified in accordance with Form No.5 B.Then only will the cancellation of registration be effective. Justice S.V. Bhatt and Justice Basant Balaji observed that as per Rule 19 of KVAT Rules, the application was filed on 20.2.2014. The registering authority, after cancelling the registration, ought to have issued the dealer a notice in Form No.5 B and published the details in at least two dailies in the State and also on the website of the Commercial Tax Department.
Case Title: Naziya & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
The Court held that short artificial breaks in service between successive contracts cannot be used as a device to deny maternity rights to the employees. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that as per the Government Order dated January 2021, the employee should have "actually" worked for a period of not less than 80 days immediately preceding her expected date of delivery or date of miscarriage to be eligible for maternity benefits and that artificial breaks are not a valid ground to deny the same.
Low CIBIL Score Of Co-Borrowers Not A Ground To Deny Education Loans: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Kiran David v. Assistant General Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
The Court reiterated that the CIBIL scores of co-borrowers do not play a role in deciding applications for education loans since the eligibility conditions for sanctioning such priority sector loans should have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by these loans. Justice N. Nagaresh also observed that imposing such conditions would defeat the very purpose of granting such loans, thereby discouraging banks from doing so.
Case Title: Mujeeb Rahiman v. Thasleena & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
In a significant judgment, the Court has reiterated that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC until she obtains relief under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act while adding that an order passed under Section 125 shall continue to remain in force until the amount payable under Section 3 of the Act is paid. It was also held that the wife cannot be allowed to circumvent the provisions of the Act by refusing the offer made by the husband to make the payment under Section 3 without any valid reason.
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
The Court while dismissing a plea filed by the wife of deceased Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith seeking the investigation to be transferred to the CBI, observed that the accused belonged to extremist outfits. Justice K. Haripal had pronounced the judgment earlier this month after weeks of elaborate hearing, permitting the State Police to continue with their probe. The Judge remarked, "No doubt, SDPI and PFI are extremist organisations indulging in serious acts of violence. All the same, those are not banned organisations."
Case Title: Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Kerala High Court recently established that there is no prohibition or restrictions in law restraining an assignee or successors-in-interest from cutting or appropriating any trees standing on the assigned land. After an elaborate discussion on the relevant provisions, Justice N. Nagaresh found that since the charge under Section 97(3) of the Land Reforms Act does not exist in the case of the petitioner's land, the prohibition contained in Rule 29(6) of the KLR (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 would not apply in this case.
Case Title: Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Court has observed that a private tomb or cemetery cannot be constructed at the whims and fancies of any private individual, be it on his property or not, without securing an adequate licence from the District Collector. Justice Shaji P. Chaly held so after analysing Section 2(m) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 under which a tomb would qualify as a building, thereby making it clear that without a licence from the concerned District Collector, no burial ground shall be opened, whether it be public or private.
Case Title: Bhasy v. Thomas & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court recently established that a decree for specific performance cannot be granted based on an oral agreement unless there is cogent evidence to prove such agreement in the first place. Justice K. Babu observed that the plea of an oral contract for reconveyance can be accepted only if there is cogent and convincing evidence to establish it. The Court found that the respondent failed to adduce oral evidence in regard to the nature of the document despite the burden of proof in respect of the property being on him.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayani & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
The Kerala High Court recently held that when a person dies of electrocution from a hanging electric line touching a vehicle, the Kerala State Electricity Board and its employees are equally liable for negligence apart from the driver of such vehicle. Justice M.R. Anitha held that it is the bounden duty of KSEB and its employees to keep electrical equipment and accessories intact and in the proper position to avoid danger to the public.
Case Title: Philip K.J v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
The Kerala High Court recently held that Rule 67A of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 does not curtail a religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs available under Article 26(B) of the Constitution of India in any manner. Rule 67A prohibits any Government Servant from being an office-bearer of any communal or religious organisation or of such trust or society. Justice T.R. Ravi observed that what is protected under Article 26 (B) is the right of a denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and not regarding the election of office-bearers.
Case Title: Principal v. Addl. Registering Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
The Kerala High Court has directed the Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance with its earlier directions issued in 2019, through the concerned officers of the Motor Vehicles Department against motor vehicles which violate the safety standards in the State. Justice Anil K. Narendran laid particular emphasis on the safety standards relating to lighting, light-signalling devices, vehicles fitted with unauthorised name board, emblem, flag and also multi-coloured red, blue and white lights intended for vehicles on designated emergency and disaster management duties; vehicles used on public places without displaying registration marks appropriately; vehicles pasted with cooling films on safety glass or fitted with sliding cloth curtains.
Case Title: Uma Murthi v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court in an unusual move permitted an appellant to be assisted by an engineer of her choice while the statutorily appointed Municipal Level Technical Expert Committee inspects the damage caused to her property by the ongoing construction of the party respondents. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar however made it clear that such engineer shall not interfere with the enquiry conducted by the Committee, and can only assist the appellant.
Case Title: Mini Antony v. Savio Aruja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
The Kerala High Court has established that the inconvenience of the power of attorney holder of the husband in a case before the Family Court (whether male or female) is not a reason to deny the transfer sought for by the wife. Justice A. Badharudeen found that by appointing a power of attorney, a principal appoints an agent to conduct his case and such an agent can be anybody capable of travelling and contesting the case of the respondent for and on behalf of the respondent.
'Consent Can Be Reasonably Deciphered': Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Doctor In Rape Case
Case Title: Dr. Sree Hari N. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a doctor who was accused of raping another doctor finding that the prima facie evidence shows that it was a consensual relationship. Justice C. Jayachandran held that the question of whether such consent was vitiated by the alleged false promise to marry should be considered by the trial court.
Case Title: Ratnamani George & Ors. v. Authorised Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
The Kerala High Court observed that when the notice of sale based on which the parties bid for property has been set aside, it can be presumed that there is no valid sale under the law. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas thereby dismissed the plea which had sought a direction to the respondent to confirm the sale of the property auctioned by the petitioners after accepting the balance bid amount.
Case Title: Vakiyath Koya & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
The Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions moved by private bus operators seeking an extension of the tax exemption granted to them owing to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. "Since exemption from payment of tax was granted for reasonable periods, it cannot be said that despite the restrictions and regulations brought in due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government had not considered the plight of the stage carriage operators and contract carriage operators."
Case Title: Treasa K.J & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court directed the Secretary of the Cochin Corporation to initiate strict action against those dumping garbage into canals and drains, aggravating the flooding of roads and causing blockage of drains in the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran began the interim order with an observation that as much as the Court did not desire to control the management of the drains or the flood mitigating systems in the city regularly, it was forced to do so because of the large scale inundation witnessed due to the rains.
Case Title: Saju A.R. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court has recently directed Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to continue to provide the Post Retirement Medical Benefit Scheme (PRMBS) to employees with less than 15 years of service in accordance with the long-term settlement. Justice Sunil Thomas thereby quashed a notification issued by the BPCL in the form of an administrative order to the extent it deprives the benefit of the medical scheme to those who have not completed 15 years.
Case Title: R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court directed the District Police Chief of Alappuzha to ensure that no law and order problems surface at the 'Jana Maha Sammelanam' proposed to be conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI) this Saturday in the district. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan admitted the plea and also directed the 5th respondent Police Chief to consider the representation moved the petitioner alleging that unless the programmes scheduled by the PFI and Bajrangdal are prevented, there is every chance for communal clashes in the district.
Case Title: Eraj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
The Kerala High Court observed that the issuance of summons is a prerequisite for the issuance of a warrant and notice to sureties. Justice Mary Joseph observed that the NDPS Court was unjustified in issuing warrant to the petitioner and notices to the sureties without issuing summons to them first.
Case Title: Aswin Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea preferred by a group of NEET-PG candidates challenging their allotment of examination centres at Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh on short notice. While finding that it would be improper to hamper with the exam or the exam centres a day before the exam, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the candidates owing to the same.
Case Title: E.K. Rajan v. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the three methods of serving, affixing and publishing a notice of 15 days for subsequent sales, as provided under Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, is mandatory in nature and the said requirement cannot be tampered with. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas quashed the sale notice issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the statutory requirement of a 15 days clear notice for subsequent sale was not satisfied. The Court held that the said notice of sale was bad in law and the consequent sale was liable to be set aside.
Kerala High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Politician PC George In Hate Speech Case
Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to senior political leader PC George in a hate-speech case over alleged statements against Muslims. A single bench of Justice P Gopinath passed the order, considering the fact that the offences under Section 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code are punishable with less than 3 years imprisonment, and that George has been an MLA for over 30 years and is unlikely to abscond.
Case Title: Indo-Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd. v. T.N. Suraj & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court recently modified the interim ex-parte gag order against Reporter TV restricting it from publishing/broadcasting/telecasting 'any item' concerning actor Dileep's brother in law, Suraj while reporting about the murder conspiracy case or the 2017 actor sexual assault case for three weeks. Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas vacated the impugned order to the extent to which it has restrained the appellant from reporting 'any item' relating to Suraj noting that the said gag order imposed a restriction that was beyond the reasonableness established in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd & Ors v. SEBI & Anr by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
The Kerala High Court on Monday issued a set of suggestions for the State to consider to assist survivors of child abuse or sexual violence, while particularly emphasising the need to take steps to publicize the Toll-Free Number '112' as an Emergency Response Support System. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that the growing number of cases of hapless victims being driven to stages of despondency bears testimony to the suspicion that the measures currently in place are not being implemented properly.
Case Title: Renjith Maheshwary v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday disposed of the plea moved by the Olympian national record holder in triple jump Renjith Maheshwary challenging a press release issued by the Secretary, Department of Sports withholding the Arjuna Award previously conferred to him. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked Maheshwary to submit a representation along with all the documents available with him to the Centre for it to reconsider his grievance within 4 weeks and directed the Centre to decide on the same within 2 months.
Case Title: Ravis Exporters v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The Kerala High Court has held that there was a total lack of application of mind in the order of the Committee of Executives (COE). There was a manifest failure to consider the explanation offered by the borrower/guarantor. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian has observed that the Review Committee also failed to consider or assess the order of the COE independently and failed to appreciate the failure to serve the order of COE on the petitioners.
No Quarrying Or Construction Work On Lands Assigned For Cultivation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ruled that no quarrying activities are permitted on land assigned for cultivation and thereby directed the State Government to take steps for the resumption of such land, notify and exempt the provisions of required. Overruling a Single Judge decision, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly in a batch of petitions moved by filed by the quarry owners and the Stated related to quarrying in lands assigned for rubber cultivation at the State's capital.
NEET-SS: Kerala High Court Orders Fresh Mop Up Rounds For A Vacant Seat At Kottayam Medical College
Case Title: Dr. Parvathy S v. Director General of Health Services & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued an interim direction to the Director General of Health Services and Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a fresh mop up counselling for the seat of DM Neurology lying vacant in the Kottayam Medical College. This seat had become vacant due to the resignation of a student who had already joined based upon the first round of counselling on getting admission to AIIMS New Delhi within a week.
Case Title: State Of Kerala vs Bijesh Kumar M.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed review petitions filed against its judgment which held that Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee has no authority to contribute any amount from the Devaswom Funds to Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund or to any other Governmental agency. The Full bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman, Shircy V. and M.R. Anitha pronounced the judgment today dismissing Review Petitions filed by the State Government.
Credit Notes Not Affecting Input Tax Can't Be Treated As Taxable Turnover: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Saji Thomas Vs Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti, Bechu Kurian Thomas, and Justice Basant Balaji has held that credit notes not affecting input tax already deposited cannot be treated as taxable turnover by the extended meaning of Section 2 subsection (iii) Explanation VII of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The court observed that the State Legislature has jurisdiction to define and decide the taxable events, turnover, taxable turnover, total turnover, taxable persons, the measure of tax, and the rate of tax under the Act. As part of its policy of imposing compensatory taxes on the above-stated situations, the Legislature, in its wisdom and experience, defines what constitutes a sale price, purchase price, turnover, etc.
Case Title: R.Ramaraja Varma v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that rally organisers were equally responsible if any controversial remarks/slogans are made during the rally disrupting the peace of the society. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the police to take appropriate actions against the rally organizers. The court made the observations in a plea for a prohibition on public conferences, marches, mass drills, and motorcycle rallies in the 'Jana Maha Sammelanam' conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI) last Saturday in the Alappuzha district.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Ex- MLA PC George In Hate Speech Cases
Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to Ex- MLA PC George in both hate speech cases. Justice Gopinath has allowed the petitions filed by P.C George with respect to two cases registered by Kerala Police, for alleged anti-Muslim statements made at two separate events held at Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam respectively.
Also Read: PC George Seeks Regular Bail In Hate Speech Case, Kerala High Court To Consider Today
Case Title: SNDP Yogam & Anr v. G. Krishnamoorthy & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of the Ernakulam District Court that a scheme for the administration of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam shall be framed in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha dismissed the appeal filed by SNDP Yogam, its general secretary Vellappally Natesan and a few others finding no infirmity in the decision of the district court.
Case Title: Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals that assailed the NEET- PG medical prospectus on the ground of incongruity with the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations regarding the incentives given to in-service candidates and a connected appeal seeking weightage to service candidates in the open merit quota. Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that this was a policy decision of the Government to regulate and meet up with the requirements in the respective departments so as to cater for the needs of the public at large and that the appellants had failed to make out any case of arbitrariness, unfairness, malafides or any other legal infirmities susceptible to have been interfered with by the court.
Kerala High Court Grants Interim Pre-Arrest Bail To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court granted interim pre-arrest bail until next posting of the case to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea for anticipatory bail in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed so after noting that the actor was willing to submit himself before the jurisdiction of the Court and that he was apprehending immediate arrest from the airport.
Kerala High Court Reunites Lesbian Couple Forcibly Separated By Parents
Case Title: Adhila v Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court came to the rescue of a lesbian couple by reuniting them after they were forcibly separated by their parents and family members. A Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran allowed the habeas corpus plea moved by Adhila after her partner, Fathima Noora was taken away by her parents.
Case Title: Vijith Vijayan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
The Kerala High Court has rejected the bail plea of Vijith Vijayan, the fourth accused in the UAPA case over alleged Maoist links finding that there was prima facie evidence to suggest his involvement in the terror case. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the general purport of the secret documents in his handwriting prima facie establishes his active participation of the accused in the organizational development and propagation of ideology, both running contrary to the established administrative machinery controlled by an elected Government.
Case Title: Aboobacker K.A & Ors v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
The Kerala High Court directed the Police Commissioner and the Regional Transport Authority in Kochi to immediately issue orders prohibiting private transport buses from using horns in city limits and to ensure that they ply only on the extreme left side of city roads. Justice Amit Rawal notified a set of traffic directions for private buses and auto-rickshaws in the Ernakulam district.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
The Kerala High Court asked the State to issue an additional circular or a clarificatory circular specifically communicating that the illegal erection of flag poles and advertisements in any public place or on pedestrian handrails that affects its use by the common man should be acted against. This direction was issued after Justice Devan Ramachandran was informed that the Additional Chief Secretary had issued a circular to all the local self-government institutions as directed by this Court against the illegal installation of any utilities that could block the traffic.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
The Kerala High Court sought the response of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the State on a plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they are not being paid salary promptly. Justice Devan Ramachandran took exception to this situation while finding it to be a 'serious predicament' if found to be true and asked KSRTC to explain how it plans to become self-reliant and take care of its employees.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr. v. P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted the prosecution an extension till July 15 to conclude the further investigation in the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath thereby allowed the plea moved by the Crime Branch. The prosecution had approached the Court on April 8 seeking an extension to wind up the probe claiming that certain voice clips are highly necessary for proper adjudication of the case to satisfy the Court of the necessity to extend the time frame to complete the further investigation.
Case Title: T.A Ansad v. Sanjay Kumar Thunjhunwala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
In an interesting development, the Kerala High Court has ruled that in accident cases where two vehicles are involved, contributory negligence cannot be found against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident solely relying on the recitals in the scene mahazar, ignoring the police charge which attributes negligence only against one driver. Justice A. Badharudeen thereby set aside the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and allowed the appeal challenging the impugned award.
Case Title: Abdul Gafoor @ Kunhumon v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that while considering a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the twin conditions specified in Section 45(1) of PMLA and the general principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC should be considered. After examining Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA, Justice Kauser Edappagath found that PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of the CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act.
Case Title: Nushath Koyamu v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
The Court has recently ruled that failure to supply the documents which were relied upon by the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order affects the rights of the detenus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, particularly when they were specifically requested for by them. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P, therefore, quashed the detention order observing that the non-supply of the documents had vitally affected the right of the detenus under Article 22(5).
Case Title: Sharafudheen V.T v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
The Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband seeking the production of his wife in an interfaith marriage finding that the wife had grave apprehensions about her safety at the petitioner's residence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran dismissed the petition filed by the husband contending that his wife has been illegally confined by her father.
Case Title: Manager, KPM Higher Secondary School & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
The Court stayed the operation of the recent amendments to the Kerala Education Rules (KER) for one month as an interim relief in a plea that challenged certain provisions of the said amendment. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan took the prima facie view that the petitioners had made out a good case on merits.
Case Title: Anzar v. Sreedeviyamma & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
The Court has recently ruled that an amendment application containing inconsistent pleas with that of the original written statement can be submitted without withdrawing wilful admission raised in the statement and that such applications were bound to be admissible. Justice A. Badharudeen thereby set aside the order of the lower court which had dismissed an amendment application finding it to be inconsistent with the petitioner's earlier stand in his written statement.
Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the transfer of ADGP S. Sreejith from the post of Crime Branch chief and the supervising officer of the 2017 actor sexual assault case. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly dismissed the petition noting that the Court cannot interfere in the State's policy matters after the State submitted a report containing the transfer order and information on the new investigation team as directed.
Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against K.P Sasikala, SJR Kumar In Sabarimala Violence Case
Case Title: K.P. Sasikala & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
The High Court recently dropped all charges against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K. P. Sasikala and General Convenor of Sabarimala Karma Samithi SJR Kumar for purportedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women into Sabarimala temple in 2018. The said hartal had resulted in large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before this Court to fix liability for the damages caused. Justice Ziyad Rahman quashed the final report filed against the petitioners finding that the allegations were not properly substantiated by the prosecution.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
The Court has recently held that the use of high-power audio systems with multiple boosters, power amplifiers, speakers and sub-woofers producing loud noise is legally impermissible in motor vehicles. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar added that loud sound produced by such audio systems with a rating of several thousand watts PMPO (Peak Music Power Output) will not only impair the hearing of the driver and the passengers but also cause a distraction to other drivers and road users.
Case Title: Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
The Court has directed the State Government to finalise the appointment of an independent Chief Investigating Officer in the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) within 60 days from April 2022. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly decided so after the State submitted an affidavit seeking 60 days' time in total to scrutinize the applications, shortlist the candidates, fix the date of interview, conduct the interview, verify the documents and for the final appointment.
Kerala High Court Stays Sedition Proceedings Against Filmmaker Aisha Sultana For 3 Months
Case Title: Ayshommabi AM @ Aysha Sulthana v Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Court granted interim relief to filmmaker Aisha Sultana by staying the sedition proceedings pending against her arising from the FIR registered in 2021 by the Lakshadweep Police for a period of 3 months. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A passed the interim order in a plea moved by the filmmaker seeking to quash all proceedings under Section 124A of IPC based on the recent order of the Supreme Court staying all investigations and trials in sedition cases.
Case Title: K.M. Abdul Jaleel v. Thazhe Iravath Rabiya & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Court has ruled that a commission for local inspection can only be set up by a court to ascertain matters which are necessary to elucidate the issues involved in the dispute and not on a mere asking by one of the litigating parties. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the appointment of a commission to ascertain issues irrelevant to the dispute is an abuse of the process of court with intent to protract the matter and that such practices should be well curtailed.
Case Title: S. Dhanalakshmi v. Sahal V.J & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The High Court has recently held that where a defendant raises the question of jurisdiction and an issue is framed in the suit regarding jurisdiction, for the convenience of the parties, the same should be tried as a preliminary issue. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the finding regarding jurisdiction at the final stage would only cause undue hardship to the parties.
Case Title: Swapna Prabha Suresh & Anr. v. Station House Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Court closed the pre-arrest bail plea moved by Swapna Suresh and Sarith P.S in a case registered against Suresh for allegedly spreading false information against MLA K.T Jaleel, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the Government. Justice Viju Abraham closed the plea after recording the Public Prosecutor's submission that the second petitioner (Sarith) was not even implicated in the crime and that an anticipatory bail plea was therefore not maintainable. The Judge also observed that the offences alleged in the FIR registered against Suresh under Section 153 (provocation with the intention to cause riot) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC were both bailable offences.
Case Title: Anoop v State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Court expressed its concerns over adolescents being unaware of the consequences of having sexual relationships with each other, even if they are consensual, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the amended Section 376 of IPC. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was adjudicating upon a bail application when he commented on the alarming rise in the number of sexual offences being committed against school children, most of them being cases where teenagers indulged in sexual relationships, oblivious to the severe consequences under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Antony v. V.K. Suresh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
The Court has recently established that a claimant who was compensated by his own insurer is not entitled to get any compensation again for the very same damages from the owner or insurer of the offending vehicle in cases of motor accidents. Justice A. Badharudeen held so after finding that the Apex Court had held that the law of insurance recognises an equitable corollary of the principle of indemnity; when the insurer had indemnified the insured, the rights and remedies of the insured against the wrongdoer stand transferred to the insurer.
Case Title: Dhruv Sai Kiran v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Court ruled that the decision taken by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to revise and alter the admission guidelines for Kendriya Vidyalayas after the admission process had already started, is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and not taken in public interest. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. added that while the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) may be laudable when adopting and implementing such policies, the State ought to have been careful not to trample upon the rights of minor children while striving to uphold the rights of others.
Case Title: Arjun Reghu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Court has held that courts shall not employ a hypertechnical approach when the accused produces sufficient evidence in support of his argument that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the crime. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the claimant discharging the burden mentioned in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act or its Rules is sufficient to prima facie satisfy the Court to decide the question of juvenility.
Case Title: K.K Ibrahim v. Cochin Kaagaz
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
The Court has recently held that mere reference of a party for settlement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not entitle refund of court fee as provided under Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, unless it has been settled between the parties. Justice A. Badharudeen held that although settlement of disputes dealt under Section 89 of CPC includes `arbitration' as well, a party is not entitled to get a refund of the court fee merely because they were referred to arbitration under Section 69 of the Act.
Case Title: Rajan J. Pallan & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
The Court has held that a request for convening a meeting as per Rule 7 of Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules can be rejected only if the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Rule 7(1) are not complied with or if the request is not made by one-third of the members in the Council existing at that time. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also added that pendency of some cases before the Court is not a ground to reject a request for convening a meeting as per Rule 7(1).
Case Title: Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
The Court held that a Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act can invoke the powers under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to grant pardon to an accused at the post cognizance stage. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also opined that it is always advisable for a Special Court to consider an application for grant of pardon by itself if cognizance is taken directly, though it can be referred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. V. Babu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Court has held that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners must prove not only the negligence on the part of the driver or rider but also prove that the person alleged to have sustained injuries in a motor accident died in consequence of the accidental injuries. Justice A. Badharudeen added that it is the burden of the petitioners to adduce evidence to satisfy the allegations raised by them since grant of compensation therein is based on the principle of `fault' liability.
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
The High Court has closed the proceedings in an anticipatory bail plea moved by actor-producer Vijay Babu in the case for allegedly revealing on social media, the identity of the actress who has accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas closed the matter upon noting that the actor was booked under bailable offences in that case.
CLAT Clearance Mandate For NTPC Law Officer Appointment Violative Of Article 16: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
The High Court has held that the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. However, to avoid upsetting the entire selection process, Justice V.G. Arun directed the respondents to accept the petitioner's application and test her eligibility through a selection process.
Case Title: K. Sumangala Devi v. Binu P.N & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
The Court has ruled that the right to preferential appointment obtained by a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) does not continue to be available to them once this right has been effectuated through an appointment in future vacancies that arise in any category of teaching posts under the same educational agency. A Full Bench of Justice A.K Jayasanaran Nambiar, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P thereby differed with the position in Sandhya T.N v. Jalaja Kumari & Ors [2008 (3) KLT 655] while adjudicating upon a reference made by the Division Bench doubting the correctness of the proposition of law laid down in the impugned decision.
Case Title: Rilgin V. George & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by two lawyers accused of assaulting a police officer in uniform while he was at the Court in relation to an ongoing enquiry against him. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan decided to allow the plea upon suspecting that they were booked under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a deliberate attempt to implicate them in a non-bailable offence, particularly since that was the only non-bailable offence alleged against them.
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
The Court has urged the State government and the Public Works Department (PWD) to expeditiously draw their attention to introducing and implementing safety protocols in the ongoing road work sites across the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran accordingly asked the Senior Government Pleader to ascertain whether there are any protocols with respect to the security and safety measures to be enforced in the ongoing work sites.
Case Title: Malli v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
The High Court stayed until further orders, the trial in the murder of 27-year-old tribal youth Madhu, who was beaten to death by a mob at Kadukumanna hamlet in Attappadi in February 2018 allegedly for stealing rice from a grocery shop. Justice Mary Joseph put the proceedings on hold and sought the response of the State on the matter to be informed within 10 days.
Case Title: Raveendran A v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
The High Court approved the request for a post-mortem and DNA test of the Indian seafarer whose body was found in Tunisian waters after his family raised suspicions of homicide in his death. Justice V.G. Arun also suo moto impleaded the Director General of Police in the plea moved by the father of the 27-year-old seaman who went missing from his vessel.
Case Title: Shibily Sahib & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Court expressed its concern over the inaction of the police to avoid riots at a scheduled election to a Cooperative Society despite specific court orders, which in turn encourages the widespread politicisation of cooperative societies in the State. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha observed that when this Court directs police protection for an election, the police is obliged to ensure that every member willing to cast vote is not obstructed by anyone. It was found that when the Police were informed by the Returning Officer himself that there would be law and order issues on the date of polling, the Police ought to have taken all necessary steps for the smooth conduct of the election.
Intention Of Parties A Key Factor To Ascertain Benami Transactions: Kerala High Court
Case Title: C.C Joy v. C.D Mini & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
The High Court recently ruled that the intention of the parties is a key factor in determining if a transaction was benami or not, which could be ascertained from the tests laid down by the Apex Court for this purpose. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas also laid down that as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, when a husband purchases property joining his wife as a name lender, he is still the beneficiary of such property, but if it was purchased in her favour, then she would be the beneficiary.
Case Title: Neethu v. Trijo Joseph
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
It has been ruled that a Court can strike off the defence of the defaulter if they deliberately or willfully refuse to comply with its order directing payment of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). Justice Kauser Edappagath held so after observing that in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr, the Supreme Court had upheld the power of the court to strike off the defence if there was willful and contumacious non-compliance with the order of payment of maintenance.
Case Title: T.K Pradeep v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
The High Court asked Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to produce a foolproof mechanism it uses to schedule its trips after a plea complained of employees being forced to work more than eight hours. Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the KSRTC to revert back with proper instruction on the same before going into the merits of the case. The Court deemed it appropriate that KSRTC be given time to produce before it a foolproof mechanism for fixing the Schedules of their trips, which does not violate the statutory scheme either.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
The Court has directed the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade to consider compulsory licensing of Ribociclib, a life-saving breast cancer drug considering the alarming number of women who succumb to the disease merely because they could not afford treatment. Justice V.G. Arun found this issue to be demanding serious consideration at the hands of the concerned authorities and issued an interim direction to the Department to pass a reasoned order on this issue after consulting with the relevant authorities.
Case Title: Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Court has held that under Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a pardon can be granted to any person even if they have not been arraigned as an accused in the final report, as long as they were privy to the offence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran opined so after observing that the language employed in Sections 306 and 307 is not 'an accused person' but 'any person', which implies that the person to whom pardon is to be tendered need only be 'directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to' the offence.
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
The High Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the anticipatory bail plea with a condition that limited custody of the actor shall be available to the investigating officer.
Case Title: M/S C.S Company & Ors v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Court has held that a suit instituted by or against a firm is a suit by or against all the partners of the firm and that the firm's name stands for all who were partners at the time when the cause of action arose. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha pointed out that the policy underlying Order XXX (Suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own) CPC, is to avoid a long array of parties and to allow a convenient mode of institution of suits by/against partners collectively, who carry on business under a particular name.
Case Title: Subaida Ebrahim v. Moosa C & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Court recently ruled that under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), when there is an order of rateable distribution for a property in favour of separate decree holders, one of them cannot claim to set-off their entire debt from the sale proceeds. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar held that in a case where rateable distribution is ordered by the Court, the decree-holder only has the right to set off a proportionate amount he is entitled to.
Case Title: Arun P. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of obstructing a doctor from performing her official duty finding that under the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, even an obstruction or hindrance committed on a healthcare person is a grave offence. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that violence against a medical professional was a non-bailable offence and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would defeat the legislative mandate.
Case Title: Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Court has held that a delinquent's right to receive the enquiry report is considered an essential part of a reasonable opportunity to be extended to them and a refusal to furnish the report amounts to a denial of their right to defend themselves in the disciplinary proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P also held that even if such a right is not explicitly stated in the statute, being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, it must be read into every statute.
Case Title: Sister Sephy v CBI
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
The Court allowed the applications filed by convicts Sister Sephy and Father Thomas Kottoor seeking suspension of the life sentence imposed on them in the sensational Sister Abhaya murder case. A Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran thereby granted bail to the convicts with the condition to execute bonds of Rs. 5 lakh each and two solvent sureties. If their conviction and sentence were upheld or even modified, the time during which they are so released was to be excluded in computing the term of their sentence as provided in Section 389(4) CrPC.
Case Title: Rakhi Bose & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Court ruled that the right of a frozen embryo to develop into a foetus and then be born cannot be obstructed by relying on provisions in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Justice V.G Arun observed that the main objective of the Act was to prevent abuse of assisted reproductive procedures and not to pose hurdles in the way of aspiring parents.
In-Flight Protest Against Chief Minister: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 2 Youth Congress Workers
Case Title: Furseen Majeed & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The High Court granted bail to two Youth Congress workers, Furseen Majeed and R.K Naveen, who were arrested and remanded following their protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Justice Viju Abraham granted bail to the petitioners noting that considering the nature of the allegations, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners did not seem necessary.
In-Flight Protest Against Chief Minister: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To 3rd Accused
Case Title: Sujith Narayanan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a Youth Congress worker Sujith Narayanan who has been accused of conspiring to protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Justice Viju Abraham granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner observing that while the first two accused allegedly involved in the incident were arrested, there was no attempt at all to arrest him.
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Stating that reports of attacks on healthcare persons have become a routine, the Kerala High Court on Thursday asked the State government to consider its suggestion of placing police presence in hospitals, at least in the most sensitive areas for now, which can later be extended to other places in due time. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath also said that while statutory provisions provide for stringent penalties, this does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent for the assailants.
Case Title: Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Court recently ruled that a conductor of a stage carriage bus, ringing its bell and signalling the driver to move forward when a passenger was boarding it thereby causing serious injury to the passenger is an act punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 308 punishes the attempt to commit culpable homicide. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held so after finding that the conductor has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of the passengers and that he would thereby have sufficient knowledge that his action of ringing the bell could have fatal consequences.
Plea Of Adjustment Should Be Raised Before Institution Of Suit: Kerala High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Southern Dredging Co (P) Ltd v. K. Muhammed Haji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The High Court has reiterated that a plea of adjustment can be pressed into service only if raised before the institution of the suit and not afterwards, unlike a plea for set-off. Justice A. Badharudeen also noted that leave for filing additional written statements is usually not granted by courts if they are filed after a long delay. The Judge added that to determine whether a plea raised in defence is a plea of set-off or of payment by adjustment it has to be ascertained as to whether a separate action could be maintained by the defendant on the basis of his claim.
Case Title: Rev. T.G. Johnson v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
The High Court recently observed that according to the proviso to Rule 67(7) of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules (KER), sanction to extend the period of suspension of a teacher in Higher Secondary School can only be granted by the officer authorised by the Government, and not by the Director of General Education (DGE). Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas added that though the power of suspension is only with the school Manager and for the first 15 days the said power is absolute, the subsequent power to extend the period of suspension is a regulated power.
Case Title: Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan differed from the law laid down by the High Court's coordinate bench last week wherein it was held that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no restrictive mandate that a person outside India cannot file an application seeking anticipatory bail. While granting anticipatory bail to actor-producer Vijay Babu in a rape case, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had held that a person who is outside India can very well file an anticipatory bail application, as long as before the final hearing, the accused is in India.
Case Title: Zerita Ashlen Rocha & Anr v. Ann Mary Varghese
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
The High Court has ruled that courts should attempt to dispose of matters on merit rather than on default and avoid utilising a hypertechnical approach when presented with a case. Justice C.S Dias held so after observing that a trial court had overlooked the timely submission of a written statement in a money suit merely because it contained certain formal defects.
Case Title: Amir & Anr v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
The High Court has laid down the procedure to be adopted when there is a case and a counter case and the trial court is of the opinion that the counter case is to be discharged. Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan opined that trial courts should refrain from taking shortcuts by dismissing the counter-case on flimsy grounds through non-speaking orders.
Case Title: Gopika Jayan & Anr v. Faisal M.A
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
The Court recently sought an explanation from a Judicial Magistrate for remanding an accused without satisfying if the arrest has been carried out in compliance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen also issued a contempt notice to the Police Officer who carried out the arrest while condemning the lack of response from his side in the proceedings.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. The Managing Committee & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
The High Court recently directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to ensure that any entry restrictions imposed into the Nalambalam of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple are strictly complied with and are not flouted by any individual, including its members, Administrators or former officers. The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar also ruled that a worshipper was bound to exercise their right to worship subject to the traditions and restrictions in place.
Case Title: K.B. Rasheed v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
The High Court has ruled that failure to interpret evidence against the accused in the language they are familiar with, as mandated under Sections 279 and 281 of CrPC, may be a mere irregularity, but the prosecution is not allowed to violate these provisions. Justice PG Ajithkumar observed so in the light of precedents which establish that non-compliance with Sections 279(1), 279(2) or 281(4) is a mere irregularity, and that unless prejudice is caused to the accused, that irregularity will not vitiate the trial altogether.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
The Kerala High Court has suggested introducing child-friendly rooms in all Family Courts in the State after finding that they were operating with inadequate infrastructure and facilities. The Court thereby directed the Registrar of the District Judiciary to submit a report on the number of POCSO Courts functioning in the near vicinity of all Family Courts and to explore the possibility of dedicating a separate room in all the Family Courts. A Division Bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice C.S Dias observed that the congested and overcrowded premises often scar young children who are forced to visit the courts with an averse idea of the justice delivery system in the country.
Kerala High Court Asks Censor Board To Decide Objection Filed Against Prithviraj-Starrer 'Kaduva'
Case Title: Jose Kuruvinakkunnel v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
The High Court asked the Central Board of Film Certification to take a decision on the objection filed before it challenging the proposed theatre release of Prithviraj-starrer Malayalam movie 'Kaduva'. Justice V.G Arun also asked the authority to take an independent decision on the same after personally hearing the parties, dehors the findings of the civil court on the release of the movie.
Case Title: Jayachandran v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
The High Court has ruled that potential cabinet papers which have not yet been brought before the Council of Ministers are exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such exemption is also applicable to "potential" cabinet papers since, if disclosure of information is allowed before it reaches the Council, the provision for exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the Act will stand defeated.
Other Significant Developments:
'Not Sure If All Ambulances Carry Genuine Patients' : Court Calls For Monitoring System
The Court orally commented that perhaps it was time to bring about a monitoring system to regulate ambulances cutting through traffic in the State, particularly in the city of Kochi. While hearing a bail application of a man alleged to have committed an offence in an ambulance, Justice P Gopinath remarked that this was an issue of immense gravity citing the rising number of similar cases being brought to the fore in the State:
[Actor Sexual Assault Case] Sufficient Reasons Required To Recall Witnesses : Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni
Further developments ensued in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, as the Court observed that the prosecution should produce adequate justification for seeking to recall the witnesses in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath reserved orders in the Criminal Miscellaneous case filed by the State against the trial court approving to collect a confidential statement from director Balachandra Kumar, who made some explosive disclosures, on January 12th.
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
The Court suo motu impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement to report if there was any statutory violation in exhibiting the Malayalam movie 'Churuli'. The Court passed the direction in the writ petition filed against the movie citing excessive use of abusive and obscene language. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing the matter also noted that prima facie, he was of the opinion that no statutory provision was violated by the publication of the film
Missing CPM Worker: Kerala High Court Demands Status Report On Police Investigation
Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.
The Court sought a statement from the respondents on the stage of investigation in the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran asked the respondents to file a copy of the investigation so far conducted in the matter by the next hearing date.
Case Title: M.T Thomas v. V.P Joy
In an affidavit filed before the Court, the Chief Secretary to the Government has submitted that its actions taken in pursuance of the Semi High-Speed Railway Line Project (Silver Line Project) were only preliminary in nature and that they were all in public interest. The statement was filed in a petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against K-Rail for allegedly breaching its assurance not to proceed with the Silver Line project before obtaining sanction from the Centre.
Advocates Welfare Fund Scam: Kerala Bar Council Assures Cooperation With CBI Probe
The Bar Council of Kerala issued a press release disclosing that it does not plan to appeal against the High Court's decision to initiate a CBI probe into the Advocates Welfare Fund scam. In fact, it was added that the Council endorses the verdict of the Court.
Bar Council Chairman Advocate Joseph John published the press release pursuant to a recent order where the High Court directed a CBI investigation into a scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund. The amount was allegedly swindled through fake documents from 2007 - 2015.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association
The Court issued notice on an appeal challenging a Single Judge order that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly refused to stay the single bench decision.
The Single Judge had examined the Kerala Essential Articles Control Act 1986 and found that as per Section 3, the power to control production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities are vested with the Centre.
The Court reiterated its stand that survivors of sexual assault have to be thoroughly protected from further harassment or ridicule as it takes a lot of courage to come forward and say they have been attacked, and invited recommendations from all lawyers on how they can be protected from further trauma on account of the investigation process. Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked so while considering the plea of a survivor who alleged harassment from the accused as well as certain police officers.
Uthra Murder: Suraj Prefers Appeal Against His Conviction, Kerala High Court Issues Notice To State
Case Title: Suraj S. Kumar v. State of Kerala
In a further development in the Uthra murder case, the Court admitted an appeal preferred by Suraj, challenging his conviction by the Kollam Additional District and Sessions Court for throwing a starving cobra on his wife while she was asleep, to induce her death by snakebite. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also issued notice to the State in the matter.
Case Title: T.M Azad v State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court came down on the State government for the deficient infrastructure reported in a hospital, despite its highly appreciated Kerala model. Criticizing the State, Justice N Nagaresh pointed out that while it claims of the Kerala model's achievements, it was 'shameful' to see that a Taluk Headquarters hospital did not have a functional maternity ward.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.
The Court asked the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board to maintain constant vigil of the entire activity in the Bhandaram at Sabarimala, after an incident of an employee stealing cash from the Bhandaram was brought to the attention of the Court. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar was adjudicating upon a report filed by the Special Commissioner of Sabarimala regarding the theft of currency notes from the Bhandaram by an employee engaged in Sabarimala duty.
Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Clarify Its Stand On K-Rail SilverLine Project
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the Central government to make its stand clear regarding the K-Rail Silverline project while staying the process of laying boundary stones in violation of the Survey and Boundaries Act on the land identified for the project ahead of a social impact assessment. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that although it is argued by the respondents that the project has been approved in principle, there was no clarity regarding the same from the Centre.
Case Title: M.P. Abu Swalih Koya Thangal v. State of Kerala
The Court suggested that the State government should consider designing roads for the future- amidst all the ongoing discussion about the future with K-Rail project SilverLine. While adjudicating upon a plea alleging that a 14 km stretch of a road development project was being done with a reduced width citing financial constraints, Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked:
The Court impleaded and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the case where an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI) is accused of demanding bribe for the release of two girls from a children's home to their parents. While ordering so, Justice Devan Ramachandran explained why a VACB probe was necessary in the matter and how it could serve as a lesson for other officers in the force.
Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Former Chief Airport Officer In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Giri Madhusudana Rao v. State of Kerala
The Court granted anticipatory bail to former Chief Airport Officer (CAO) of the Trivandrum International Airport, Giri Madhusudana Rao in the case where he was accused of raping a lady staff working under him. Justice P. Gopinath granted the pre-arrest bail considering the age of the petitioner and his ailments. The pe-arrest bail was granted with a condition that the petitioner, although currently placed under suspension, shall not enter the workplace until the filing of the final report.
Case Title: Adivasi Dalit Munneta Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court directed the State government to inform the time frame required to allot inhabitable land to the landless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes individuals at Chengara who have been fighting for their land for two decades, which soon shaped a campaign and came to be known as the 'Chengara land agitation'. While requiring the State to disclose the name of the officer who had been entrusted with identifying and allotting such land, Justice Devan Ramachandran also reflected on the disproportionate hold up in granting benefits to those who lost their land to State acquisition:
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala
The Court directed the State government to explain its actions taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and to justify the manner in which the survey is conducted by its instrumentalities. Upon being informed that a survey was being conducted before a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was drafted, Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative for the State to explain its actions within the framework of statutory formalities.
The Court directed the State Police Chief to enquire into the allegations raised by actor Dileep that the media was flouting the trial court's order restricting the publication of matters related to the 2017 actor assault case till the conclusion of the trial. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the allegations if found to be true, should be handled with prompt action as prescribed by law. The Judge also issued notice to ReporterTV and posted the matter to be heard after 3 weeks.
Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Single Judge order that rejected the plea challenging the photograph of Prime Minister being affixed on the Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens. The Single Judge had also imposed a whopping cost of 1 lakh on the appellant herein by the impugned order. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while dismissing the appeal, noted that a photo is not an advertisement and that the Prime Minister has a right to give a message.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court directed actor Dileep and the other accused to hand over six mobile phones to its Registrar General in a sealed box by 10.15 am on Monday in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case.
Justice Gopinath P. relying on the Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors and a Karnataka High Court decision, observed that such surrender will not amount to an infringement of Article 20(3).
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.
The Court reiterated its prima facie view that the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall is not appropriate. It was adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while adjourning the matter to next month repeated its prime facie stand and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit in the matter and added that if this was allowed, they will soon start charging for their lift services.
Kerala High Court Grants State 3 More Weeks To Frame Comprehensive Policy On Illegal Flag Masts
Case Title: Vishnu T.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court granted three more weeks time to the State government to draw up a comprehensive policy to deal with the menace of illegal flag masts in the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran granted the extension upon noting that it is a matter of policy and since the Additional Advocate General was not keeping well at present:
The Court held yet another night hearing at 9 pm to attend a matter where a NEET candidate sought an extension of time to file his documents. This is the second night hearing this week. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner noting that the student is a meritorious candidate and that he was at the risk of losing a seat merely because he had failed to produce the original of a document.
Case Title: Film Exhibitors United Organisation of Kerala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Court seeking approval to run cinema halls in the State with 20% intake and strict adherence to Covid-19 protocol citing that other sectors are still functioning without any interdictions. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Government Pleader to get instructions and posted the matter for consideration on January 27.
Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.
The Court disposed of the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election, recording that the investigation was progressing in the matter. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran closed the writ petition after the respondents submitted a report indicating that they are carrying on with the investigation and that a man missing case was registered in the matter.
Case Title: Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala
The Court heard a plea alleging that the State auctioned a Mahindra Thar vehicle dedicated to the deity of Sree Krishna in Guruvayoor Temple in total violation of the provisions of the Gururvayoor Devaswom Act and the general principles of auction. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Board to produce the details of the Mahindra Thar including its price by the next hearing date.
Case Title: P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.
In the application seeking anticipatory bail from the Court, Malayalam cinema actor Dileep has made several allegations against director Balachandrakumar. In his reply to a recent statement filed by the Crime Branch before the Kerala High Court, Dileep alleges that the director assured that he was close to the Bishop of Neyyattinkara, who was quite influential and had strong associations with the Chief Minister and senior police officers.
Vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Rape Case
Case Title: Sreekanth Vettiyar v. State of Kerala
Popular content creator and vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail after a woman filed an official complaint accusing him of rape. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions and posted the matter to be taken up again on February 2.
Dileep Case : Kerala High Court Directs Handing Over Of Surrendered Mobile Phones To JFCM Aluva
Murder Conspiracy | Kerala High Court To Pronounce Order On Dileep's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea On Monday
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court will pronounce its verdict on Monday, in the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. heard the prosecution and the accused at length on Friday before reserving its orders.
Monson Mavunkal Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Infamous fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal has approached the Court seeking bail in the case where a woman has accused him of sexually abusing her. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions in the matter and posted it on February 15. According to Mavunkal, the woman was anxious of being implicated as a co-accused in various financial crimes and this prompted her to turn against him.
[MediaOne Ban] Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Appeal
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
The Court reserved its orders in the appeal moved by Malayalam news channel MediaOne against the single judge order upholding the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the matter at length. The Court prima facie opined that from a bare reading of the provisions it seemed that revocation was a penalty.
Plea Against Lokayukta Ordinance: Kerala High Court Seeks State Response
Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala
The Court admitted a plea assailing the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act for allegedly diluting the judicial powers of the Lokayukta introduced by way of an ordinance and sought a response from the State government. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also passed an interim order declaring that any decision taken by the authority constituted by way of the impugned ordinance during the proceedings will be subject to the outcome of the petition.
Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the State to produce on record the letter penned by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan addressed to the Prime Minister apparently seeking permission to disburse amounts from the State Disaster Funds to families of those Indians, who died abroad of Covid-19. Justice N Nagaresh also directed the petitioner to implead the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority in their plea seeking a declaration that the family members of a non-resident of the State, who died abroad due to COVID-19, are entitled to ex-gratia relief of Rs. 50,000.
Case Title: Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association v. State of Kerala
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court alleging that the Kerala State Electricity Board is running on heavy loss due to its unjustified salary structure which is thereby causing the liability to be passed on to the consumers. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly admitted the PIL filed by Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association.
Actor Dileep Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Malayalam actor Dileep has approached the Court yet again, seeking to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for allegedly conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. The plea filed through Advocate Philip T. Varghese has accused the filing of the impugned FIR as a vindictive, ill-motivated, pre-determined and malafide act executed with oblique motives.
Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan along with the DGP has penned a letter to the Registrar General of Kerala High Court accusing a counsel of the Court of forging a case status. On the day the accused was arrested, his counsel approached the Station House Officer alleging that there was an interim order passed by the Court prohibiting coercive steps in the matter. It is alleged that upon enquiry through the Registry, it was confirmed that no such interim order had been issued by the High Court in the said bail application.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr
The plot thickens in the 2017 sexual assault case as developments ensued before the Court as the survivor in the case filed an impleading petition in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 case. Upon the actress seeking to be heard in the matter, Justice Kauser Edappagath adjourned the case to be called on February 21.
In a major setback for the legal fraternity in Kerala, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government has recently addressed a letter to the Chairman of Kerala Bar Council with a proposal to amend the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates in the State. Members of the State Bar Council and the Kerala High Court Advocates Association had declared an All Kerala Protest Day on 17th February to mark their protest against the proposed amendments by wearing protest badges while appearing before the court.
COVID-19 | Kerala High Court To Continue Virtual Hearings For One Month Or Till TPR Drops To 10%
Through a notice issued by the Registrar General, the Court has notified its decision to continue virtual hearing of cases amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. The notice further declared that the earlier arrangements of online hearing will continue for a month or until the Test Positivity Rate drops below 10 per cent, whichever is earlier. At present, the TPR in the State is over 15%.
Case Title: P. Balachandrakumar alias Balu v. State of Kerala
Malayalam film director Balachandrakumar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case where he has been accused of raping a woman in 2010 and recording the incident on his cellphone. The director has been charged under Section 376 (i) of IPC (sexual assault) and Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act (violation of privacy).
Case Title: Prathap P. v. State of Kerala
A plea has been moved in the Court seeking the inclusion of advocate clerks in the new regime of Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and digitalised procedures. Justice N. Nagaresh on Friday admitted the case. The petitioner, who is an advocate clerk himself, has alleged that the introduction of e-filing procedure in the Courts across the State has brought in an adverse impact on the fundamental rights of the clerks guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) g and 21 of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court Asks State To Put A Hold On Its Proposal To Amend Advocate Fee Rule
The Court has decided to request the State government hold off on its proposal to amend the Kerala Advocate Fee Rule till the Court's Rule Committee comes to a conclusion on the same. The intimation was made through a notice issued by the Registrar General of the High Court on Friday, which came as a huge relief to the lawyering community in the State. The notice stated that the Rule Committee had now fixed its meeting on 22 February to consider the matter after consultation with the representatives of the Bar.
Kerala High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From Monday, February 28
The Court has issued a notice communicating its decision to resume physical sitting from Monday, February 28, 2022. This comes days after it issued a notice announcing that virtual hearing of cases shall continue till mid-March amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. However, it was clarified that physical sitting will resume once the Test Positivity Rate in the State drops below 10%.
Case Title: Arun Raj P v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court lashed out at an advocate clerk for filing a second Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging violation of the order issued by Chairperson of State Disaster Management Authority imposing restrictions on political gatherings in the State. Calling it a 'cheap publicity stunt', a Division Bench of Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran pulled up the petitioner and warned him of dire consequences if this was repeated in future.
Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court stayed the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax asking the State Co-operative Bank to pay the outstanding amount for the financial year 2019-20 in a plea moved by the said Bank. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order considering that the matter relating to the collection of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interests by the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before the Court.
The Court impleaded two more parties to the suo motu matter where devotees were allegedly made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar allowed the impleading applications filed by an NGO and Akhila Kerala Thantri Mandalam and directed them to file their affidavits by the next posting date.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
The Court lashed out at the State government for its incapability to prevent unauthorised flag masts being erected at different parts of the State by political parties, despite its specific and repeated orders against the same. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that every flag post put up without the requisite permission is illegal and that influential people should not be allowed to get away with it.
Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has addressed a letter to the Registrar General complaining about the prevailing entry restrictions to the virtual hearings happening at the Chief Justice's court. It has been mentioned in the letter that the Association has been receiving several complaints from advocates, frequently encountering difficulties entering the Virtual Court proceedings of Court 1. This is the Court of Chief Justice S Manikumar, where he presides with Justice Shaji P Chaly.
Kerala Police Notice To Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai Evokes Protest By Lawyers
The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association conducted a protest meeting against the notice issued by the Crime Branch to Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai at the portico of the Court. This comes after the Crime Branch issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC (requiring attendance of witness) to the senior advocate notifying him to be prepared to give a statement in a crime related to witness tampering in the 2017 actor sexual assault case.
Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocate's Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court Advocate's Association (KHCAA) has moved the High Court seeking the repatriation of students from Kerala stuck in Ukraine amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Justice N. Nagaresh permitted the petitioners to pass on whatever information they have regarding the students to the Assistant Solicitor General to do whatever possible to facilitate their expeditious repatriation.
Case Title: xxx v. Union of India and connected matters.
The Court declared that it was in the process of drafting an Information Management Policy which could possibly address the issue of masking of the parties' names in its orders and judgments. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas announced so while adjudicating upon a batch of seven petitions seeking the remedy of masking their names in different cases dispised of by this court. The matter has been listed on April 1 for further consideration.
Case Title: Dinesh Menon v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court challenging the manner of appointment of personal staff to ministers in the State and the consequent pension benefits provided to them despite having served only a couple of years in office. Significantly, the plea estimated that the State is currently spending at least Rs. 80 crore per annum for paying pension.
Case Title: Ramesh Chennithala v. Election Commission Of India & Ors.
The Court came down heavily on the special police team constituted to investigate the alleged postal ballot fraud in 2019, for its inordinate delay in winding up the probe. Noting that the team had undertaken to conclude the inquiry within two months from September 2019, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly directed the State Police Chief to explain the reason behind more than two years of delay in completing the investigation.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court came down heavily on the Municipalities and Corporations for their enduring inaction over the unauthorised installations such as banners, boards and flag posts around the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his distress over unauthorised installations being put up in blatant violation of law disregarding all orders of the court and the Kerala Road Safety Commissioner on this issue. "When someone criticised our state recently, you claimed that Kerala upholds rule of law. Is this the rule of law that we boast of?" the court remarked.
Full Bench Of Only Women Judges, For The First Time, In Kerala High Court
Incidentally, on international women's day, a full bench comprising only women judges will hear a case in the Kerala High Court. This is the first time in the history of the Court that a full bench comprising only women judges has been constituted. The cause list showed Justices Anu Sivaraman, V Shircy and M.R Anitha as members of the women's only full bench.
Hotel No.18 POCSO Case: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused Roy Vayalat
Case Title: Roy J. Vayalat v. State of Kerala
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications moved by No.18 hotel owner Roy J Vayalat and his friend Syju M.Thankachan in a POCSO case where they have been accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl at the hotel. However, the third accused Anjali has been granted pre-arrest bail. Justice Gopinath P granted pre-arrest to the third accused subject to conditions considering the fact that she is a woman aged 24 years.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India
The Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to explain why a couple of writ petitions were not listed before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P sought a response from the Registry having found force in the submission of the petitioner that such delay could be fatal to the litigant's right to access to justice.
Case Title: Edadan Chindan Nair & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court directed the State government to reconsider the application moved by an Indian National Army (INA) veteran for a Central government pension scheme on the ground that his application was rejected for hypertechnical grounds. Justice Murali Purushothaman recorded that the petitioner's application was rejected mechanically without any application of mind. The Court also added that there were many freedom fighters whose sacrifices and names were not known to the common man.
Case Title: A.D. Johnson & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking expeditious distribution of available land to the landless Scheduled Caste and Tribe families at Chengara expressed its apprehension over the State's submission that there was a scarcity of assignable lands. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that this was a cause of concern particularly since these issues arose out of an agitation that had its own sordid consequences and that steps should be taken to prevent such events from happening again.
Can State Fix RT-PCR Rates For Private Labs? Kerala High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench
The Court referred the issue relating to the fixation of charges for the RT-PCR test, as he held a divergent view from another judge who ruled that the government had no power to regulate the price of the test to a Division Bench. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that after going through the relevant statutory provisions that there is a sufficient source of power for the State to regulate the price rate of RT-PCR tests, thereby dissenting with a previous decision of a Single Judge.
Case Title: C.C Kunjaru v. State of Kerala
The Court allowed the plea moved by the father of a deceased Twenty20 worker, C.K. Deepu seeking to transfer the bail applications moved by the accused from the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court.The petitioner had argued that he learned from reliable sources that the father of the sessions judge is the district secretary of the CPI(M) in Thrissur and an interested party in the case Justice Mary Joseph thereby directed that the case be transferred to the Sessions Court in Thrissur.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court refused to stay the investigation initiated against actor Dileep by the Crime Branch for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice K Haripal while adjourning to hear the matter on March 28, clarified that there will be no stay on the investigation against Dileep and the other accused in the matter.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr v. Manoj M. & Ors
The Court recently directed the Centre to expeditiously take an appropriate decision on the State government's request to include three State-run medical colleges as centres of excellence for treatment of rare diseases. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also persuaded the Centre to take a favourable stand on the State's request as it would go a long way in benefitting the children suffering from rare diseases.
Case Title: Sagar Vincent v. Biju Paulose & Ors.
The Court considered a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, a witness in the 2017 actor sexual assault case alleging that investigating officer in the case Biju Paulose was threatening him. Justice Anu Sivaraman asked the Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter while posting it next week for consideration.
KSRTC Challenges Hike In Diesel Prices For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Issues Notice
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved the High Court challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh issued notice to the Centre and the oil companies in the matter.
Case Title: Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court asked the State to explain its delay in appointing a Chief Investigating Officer at the State Police Complaints Authority despite several extensions granted to it. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly disagreed with the submission of the State that it had taken prompt steps to implement the previous directions of the Court in this matter.
Diesel Price Hike For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Denies Interim Relief To KSRTC
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court refused to grant interim relief on the plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Oil Marketing Companies to file a statement explaining the present pricing mechanism by the next posting date. The matter will be taken up again on April 4.
Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Plea Seeking CBI Probe In RSS Worker's Murder
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
The Court reserved its verdict on the preliminary objections raised in the plea seeking to hand over the investigation involving Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith's murder, who was hacked to death in November last year, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal noted that it had already expressed its view that this is a matter to be investigated by CBI. The observations came in a plea filed by the RSS worker's wife seeking to hand over the case to CBI.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
The High Court said that it was not intimidated by any political party after the State finally took a stance on the erection of flag poles and advertisements in public places after repeated court orders. Justice Devan Ramachandran orally observed that the city of Kochi underwent a substantial transformation after its intervention while clarifying that such orders were passed in the public interest and not to favour any political party.
Case Title: Parents Association of Foreign Medical Graduates v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court will consider a plea filed on behalf of 92 foreign medical students studying in different universities in China seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to provide them with practical training and internship facilities in India till the travel restrictions to China are lifted. Justice N. Nagaresh admitted the matter today while posting it on March 30 for further consideration.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Holds Reference To Condole Demise Of Former CJI Ramesh Chandra Lahoti
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Cochin Refineries Employee's Association & Ors.
The Court restrained five trade unions in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Kochi, from participating in the nationwide strike called by a joint forum of trade unions which has been scheduled to take place on March 28 and 29. Apart from issuing an interim order, Justice Amit Rawal also issued notice to the respondents in the matter before admitting it.
Also Read: CBI Registers FIR To Probe Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Scam
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Court reprimanded the State government over how it was progressing with the survey in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and directed it to justify the manner in which the survey stones were being installed by its instrumentalities. Justice Devan Ramachandran raised concern over the ongoing Social Impact Assessment that the authorities were conducting in many parts of the State by installing yellow boundary stones marked K-Rail on them.
Also Read: 'Why Concrete Poles Engraved With 'K-Rail' Used Instead Of Ordinary Survey Stones?' Kerala High Court Raises Further Queries On SilverLine
Case Title: M.K. Uthaman v. State of Kerala
The Court has declined to grant interim relief in the plea challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Maritime Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that since only one of the Board members had raised a grievance, the matter could be decided after the vacation while adding that a stay was not necessary for the meantime since the Board was not in existence yet.
Case Title: Suma Devi v. S. Sherla Beegam
Pathanamthitta Municipal Corporation Secretary Sherla Beegam was arrested and produced before the Court in a contempt case for her failure to appear before the court despite being summoned several times. After she was produced, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked her not to repeat this behaviour in the future and to seek an appeal or review if she was not content with the order passed in the case instead of refusing to cooperate with the Court proceedings.
Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The Judge said that the order will be delivered within a week. The prosecution has undertaken not to file the final report in this case before that.
Nun Rape Case : State Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Bishop Franco Mulakkal's Acquittal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Bishop Franco Mulakkal
In a much-anticipated move, the State has filed an appeal against the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal of the Catholic Church in the nun rape case. The Additional District and Sessions Court in Kottayam had in January acquitted Mulakkal in the case finding the survivor's testimony to be unreliable.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Devipriya & Ors.
The State government argued before the Court that the concerned pink police officer who harassed a minor girl and her father last year should pay the compensation ordered by the Single Judge. (Pink police is a special women protection squad of Kerala police). The said officer was found guilty of having harassed them in public gaze casting accusations of theft on the duo and the video of the incident had also garnered public attention.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
The High Court came across another plea moved by a sexually abused minor girl seeking permission to undergo medical termination of her over 26-week old pregnancy. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the plea moved by the girl's mother. The Court noted that since the medical report stated that the fetus is 26 weeks of gestational age, free from congenital anomalies with high chances of survival, it was not in a position to order the termination of pregnancy.
Case Title: Sagar Vincent v. Biju Paulose & Ors.
The Court dismissed a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, a witness in the 2017 actor sexual assault case alleging that investigating officer in the case Biju Paulose was threatening him. While observing that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, Justice Anu Sivaraman clarified that the petitioner shall be summoned only after giving due notice under Section 160 CrPC and that he will not be harassed further or summoned unnecessarily, except for the purpose of recording the statement.
Nun Rape Case: Kerala High Court Admits Appeal Challenging Bishop Franco Mulakkal's Acquittal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Bishop Franco Mulakkal
The Court admitted the appeal filed against the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal of the Catholic Church in the nun rape case. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also issued notice to Mulakkal.
Case Title: Vijeesh V.P. v. State of Kerala
The Court granted bail to the 4th accused in the sensational actor sexual assault case of 2017 where a popular Malayalam actress was abducted, wrongfully confined and sexually assaulted in a moving car. Justice P. Gopinath released the applicant on bail considering that he had served five years in jail and since other accused who had similar roles in the incident as that of the applicant were already granted bail.
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Court reserved the judgment in the batch of petitions challenging the State authorities laying down survey stones on petitioners' property as part of the ongoing survey in furtherance of the K-Rail Silver Line project. Meanwhile, the Centre submitted a written instruction that the State had not approached the Railways seeking permission to proceed with the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) or to lay survey stones on private land for the project.
Also Read: K-Rail | Centre An Equal Partner In The Project, Equally Accountable As State: Kerala High Court
Twenty20 Worker's Murder: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused
Case Title: Sainudheen & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court allowed the appeal moved by four CPM leaders accused in the murder of Twenty20 worker, C.K. Deepu, thereby granting them bail and setting them at liberty. Justice Kauser Edappagath released the accused citing that their further detention seemed unnecessary considering that they had no criminal antecedents and since they had not used any weapon.
Case Title: Most Rev. Dr. Darmaraj Rasalam & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
The Court admitted a petition filed by a Christian sect which raises the point of whether a weaker section within a religious minority can claim further protection under Article 30 to reserve seats for that sect in the educational institutions run by it. The writ petition was filed by the President of the South India Union of Churches (SIUC), Bishop Dr. Darmaraj Rasalam and the Medical Mission of the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India.
Case Title: Ranimol K.J. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A petition has reached the Court challenging the condition under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 mandating an Equivalency certificate for master's degrees obtained from universities outside Kerala arguing that its violative of principles of equality. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas admitted the plea recently and the respondents sought time to file a counter in the matter
Also Read: Kerala High Court Bids Farewell To Justices Sunil Thomas & K. Haripal
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The state-owned oil marketing companies told the Court on Friday that oil prices are increasing due to the Ukraine war and that the companies are gradually passing on the prices to the consumers, which cannot be termed arbitrary. The submission was made in response to a p[lea by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price.
Case Title: Anjitha C.P v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr.
The Court has directed its Public Service Commission to ensure that a visually impaired woman is given a suitable scribe as contemplated in the circular issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment Department of Disability Affairs to appear in an online examination for the post of a teacher. However, Justice N. Nagaresh clarified that if the respondents are not able to provide a suitable scribe, the petitioner shall be permitted to indicate her own scribe and added that the respondents to ensure that the scribe deputed by them is interacting with the petitioner sufficiently early, so as to ascertain suitability.
The prosecution has submitted a pendrive before the Kerala High Court while seeking more time to conclude the further investigation in the 2017 sexual assault case. The pendrive includes two folders containing three voice clips each which were apparently collected by the investigating officers during the course of further investigation.
Case Title: Jean George & Anr v. Serum Institute Of India & Ors.
The parents of a 19-year-old student have moved the High Court seeking justice alleging that their daughter died due to the compulsory administration of the Covishield vaccine and they have sought Rs 1 crore as compensation for the death of their only daughter. Justice N Nagaresh has sought the view of the central government on the petition.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
The Court heard the State-owned oil marketing companies in the appeals 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 V.G. Arun and Justice C.S Sudha will continue hearing the appeals on Tuesday after recording KSRTC's submission that a contempt petition will not be filed during court vacation.
Also Read: Oil Companies Move Appeals Assailing Interim Order In Favour Of KSRTC
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court granted one more month's time to the prosecution to conclude the further investigation in the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted this extension after noting that the pendrive submitted by the prosecution earlier this month contained two folders containing three voice clips each which were apparently collected by the investigating officers during the course of further investigation and which required careful analysis.
In A Rare Move, Kerala High Court Examines Witness At Appeal Stage Allowing NIA's Plea
Case Title: M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala
In an extraordinary step, the Court allowed witness examination before the Court at the appellate stage. The development happened in the Kashmir terror recruitment case. Generally, witness examinations in criminal appeals are completed at the trial courts and the High Courts only evaluate the evidence gathered by the trial court. While considering appeals filed by the convicted accused and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against an NIA court decision, the Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran allowed the examination of a BSNL official who had issued a call record showing communication between the accused and some persons in Kashmir.
Case Title: High Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Kerala
The Court took notice of the concerns raised regarding the alleged alarming and inhuman condition of the patients in the Thiruvananthapuram Mental Health Centre. Justice Sathish Ninan has sought a report from the Thiruvananthapuram District Judge, who is also the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee of the Mental Health Centre in the district on the functioning of the said Centre.
The High Court has issued certain Guidelines for Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. In an attempt to provide vulnerable witnesses with a safe and conducive environment to testify fearlessly during a criminal trial, the Court has directed setting up Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres at all courts in the state.
A lawyer has filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Kerala seeking appropriate legal action against the police officers who allegedly leaked privileged communication between lawyers and their clients in the cases involving actor Dileep. This is in light of the reports that suggest that calls between Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai who represents the actor in most cases and Dileep's brother Anoop were leaked to the media.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the State Police Chief (SPC) to clarify whether any order had been issued appointing the new Crime Branch chief as the supervising authority of the special investigation team (SIT) which is currently probing the 2017 actor sexual assault case. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas passed the order in a petition filed by film director Baiju Kottarakara challenging the transfer of ADGP S. Sreejith from the post of Crime Branch chief and the supervising officer of the sexual assault case.
'These Buses Are Your Assets': Kerala High Court Pulls Up KSRTC For Ditching Buses In Depots To Rust
Case Title: N. Raveendran v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court directed the State and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to file an affidavit detailing the measures taken for protecting the 'assets' of the Corporation. The Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas issued the directive on a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleged that valuable assets of the KSRTC were being wasted away on account of negligence and insouciance of the corporation.
Case Title: Raveendran A v. Union of India & Ors.
The mystery deepens as the family of the Indian seafarer who went missing in Tunisian waters approached the Court seeking governmental intervention suspecting foul play in the entire episode. Justice T.R Ravi directed the Centre to get proper instructions in the matter on an urgent basis and file a statement as well. The developments ensued in a petition moved by the father of the 27-year-old seaman who went missing from his vessel.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends To Make 4 Additional Judges Of Kerala High Court Permanent
The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of the following Additional Judges of the Kerala High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court: Justice Murali Purushothaman, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., Justice Karunakaran Babu, and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath.
Centre Notifies Appointment Of Shoba Annamma Eapen As Additional Judge Of Kerala High Court
The Central Government notified the appointment of Ms.Shoba Annamma Eapen, Advocate, as an additional judge of the Kerala High Court. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju informed this on Twitter recently. With the new appointment, the Kerala High Court will have 40 judges against a sanctioned strength of 47 judges.
Kerala High Court Now Has 7 Women Judges, Highest Ever In Its History
With Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen assuming office, the Kerala High Court now has 7 women judges for the first time in its history. The High Court has now the following women judges: Justices Anu Sivaraman, Sophy Thomas, V Shircy, Shoba Annamma Eapen, MR Anitha, Mary Joseph and CS Sudha. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen who has been sworn in as the Additional Judge of Kerala High Court today was welcomed by the legal fraternity in a brief ceremony held at Chief Justice's Court. With Justice Eapen on board, the Kerala High Court has hit an all-time with 7 women judges for the first time in its history. The High Court has now 38 judges.
Also Read: With Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen Sworn In, Kerala High Court Hits All-Time High of 7 Women Judges
Case Title: Arun Roy v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the 50% reservation for Muslims in the State-run Institute of Career Studies & Research (ICSR) in the Malappuram district. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly issued notice on the plea moved by an advocate practising in the High Court.
Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court was informed by the State that S Sreejith IPS is not in charge of the investigation of the 2017 actor sexual assault case and that following his transfer, a new investigation team was appointed. Sheikh Darwesh Sahib, the head of the new crime branch, is now in charge of the team, it was submitted. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby directed the State Government to submit a report containing the transfer order and information on the new investigation team within seven days.
Case Title: Jeyaprabha R. v. CBI & connected matters
Eight accused in the scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund have moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the case. When the matter was taken up today, Justice K. Babu refused to grant interim protection to the accused and posted the matter on Monday for disposal. By this time, the parties have been directed to produce the relevant materials before the Bench for consideration.
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court orally asked Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu to produce his return tickets to India so that it can hear him and consider his plea for anticipatory bail in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Gopinath P. orally directed the actor to make himself available to the jurisdiction of the court.
Children Being Forced To Voice Provocative Slogans. Is It Legal?": Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Monday expressed concerns about children being used in political and religious rallies and made to raise provocative slogans. A single bench of Justice P Gopinath wondered if using children for such activities was legal. The bench shared these concerns while adjudicating upon a group of cases involving minors and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and opined that steps must be taken in favour of this goal.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday morning recused from hearing the petition moved by the survivor actress in the 2017 actor sexual assault case raising serious allegations against the State and the trial court judge, suspecting foul play in the ongoing investigation in the 2017 actor assault case. Reports suggest that the survivor had sought for the case to be listed under a different Bench before the Registrar yesterday, yet the case was listed to be adjudicated by Justice Edappagath. When the matter was mentioned, the judge recused from hearing the case.
[K-Rail] SIA Conducted Via Digital Means, No More Survey Stones: State Informs Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Kerala High Court was informed by the State on Tuesday that the practice of placing survey marks has been done away with and the social impact assessment (SIA) for the K-rail project was being conducted through digital methods such as geo-tagging wherever the people take objection to lay survey stones for the survey. Justice Devan Ramachandran recorded this submission and observed that the endeavour of the court that it has been attempting to achieve so far through this litigation has now begun to bear fruit even without directions being issued.
Case Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala
Senior politician P.C George has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the order passed by the Thiruvananthapuram First Class Judicial cancelling his bail granted in the first hate speech case. The case pertains to a speech delivered at a programme organised as part of the Ananthapuri Hindu Maha Sammelan, where he alleged that tea adulterated with drugs was sold to non-Muslims in Muslim-run restaurants to turn people infertile in a bid to seize control of the country. The former MLA had also urged the audience to boycott institutions and restaurants run by Muslims.
Actor Assault Case: Kerala High Court Grants Time To Government To File Statement
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted time to the government to file a statement in the plea moved by the survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case where she raised serious allegations against the State and the trial court judge, suspecting foul play in the ongoing investigation in the case. The matter was listed before Justice Ziyad Rahman where the state sought time to file a statement. Earlier this week, the matter was listed before Justice Kauser Edappagath, but the Judge had recused from hearing the matter upon the petitioner's request. The case was accordingly listed before Justice Rahman on the next day.
Also Read: Kerala Bar Council To Protest Against Police Atrocities On Advocates
In a noteworthy development, the Kerala High Court orally remarked that the offence of rape should be made gender-neutral while adjudicating upon a matrimonial dispute moved by a divorced couple over custody of their child. Justice A Muhamed Mustaque made the observation when during the course of the case when the party brought up the fact that the husband in the case had once been accused in a rape case. However, the husband's counsel argued that he was currently released on bail and that the said allegation was based on unsubstantiated accusations of sex under a false promise of marriage.
Kerala High Court Issues Precautionary Guidelines Amid Rising Covid-19 Cases Among Employees
The Kerala High Court has released an official memorandum with precautionary guidelines to be complied with by the employees in light of the rising number of Covid-19 cases reported at the Court, including wearing masks, maintaining social distancing and avoiding biometric scan for entry in case of employees displaying symptoms.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association has released a notice urging junior lawyers and law interns to stick to the dress code prescribed for lawyers by the Bar Council of India and the High Court and to maintain the decorum of the court. The Association in its notice has mentioned that several 'unsavoury' incidents had gone down in court halls since the physical hearings resumed due to recently enrolled junior lawyers and law interns not being accustomed to the 'decorum' of the courts.
Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Rape Survivor's Plea To Cancel Bail Of Tattoo Artist Sujeesh
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court has issued notice on a plea seeking to cancel the bail granted to tattoo artist Sujeesh P.S, who was accused of rape by multiple women. While admitting the plea moved by one of the survivors, Justice Kauser Edappagath issued notice to the State and Sujeesh. Sujeesh, who runs two tattoo studios in the State, had earlier made the front page for reportedly sexually abusing multiple women while tattooing them. There are currently at least 7 FIRs registered against Sujeesh, two for rape and the others for sexual assault under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Railway Board informed the Kerala High Court that sufficient details of the technical feasibility of the K-Rail Silverline were not available in the detailed project report (DPR) submitted by the State Railway Development Corporation Ltd. Justice Devan Ramachandran was also informed that the Railways had not concurred with the social impact assessment (SIA) study currently conducted by the State.
A petition has been filed before the Advocate General seeking permission to initiate contempt of court proceedings against dubbing artist and actor K. Bhagyalakshmi for her allegedly contemptuous remarks against the judiciary in the 2017 actor assault case. The plea moved by Kerala High Court Advocate M.R. Dhanil is in light of the fact that Bhagyalakshmi had made certain remarks about the ongoing trial of the actor assault case while speaking at a public function organised at Sahitya Akademi in Thrissur.
Case Title: R. Baji v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has submitted a counter affidavit before the Court asserting that it has been contemplating new measures to increase its productivity and thereby generate more revenue, in a plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they are not being paid salary promptly. In its counter-affidavit, KSRTC has submitted that it was undergoing an acute financial crisis and that at present it was not feasible to formulate any scheme for prompt payment of salary on the first week of every month due to scarcity of funds.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. XXX
The State has approached the Court challenging the order of the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court rejecting the Crime Branch's petition to forward the memory card allegedly containing the visuals of the crime in the 2017 actor sexual assault case for forensic examination. The said memory card is a crucial piece of evidence in the ongoing trial in the 2017 case and has been marked as an exhibit before the trial court. During the examination of the memory card, the FSL experts noticed a change in the hash value of the card, which indicates unauthorised access.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Holds Obituary Reference To Condole The Demise Of 6 Advocate
Kerala High Court Extends Interim Pre-Arrest Bail Granted To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court extended till Monday, the interim anticipatory bail granted to actor-producer Vijay Babu in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas extended the interim bail when he was informed that the DGP was indisposed and required time to appear in the case.
Kerala High Court Asks State To Produce Alleged FIS In Swapna Suresh's Plea To Quash Conspiracy Case
Case Title: Swapna Prabha Suresh v. Station House Officer & Anr.
The Court directed the prosecution to produce a copy of the FIS and the alleged complaint against Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the infamous gold smuggling case, in her plea to quash the FIR registered against her for allegedly spreading false information against MLA K.T Jaleel, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the Government. Justice Ziyad Rahman also sought the view of the prosecution and posted the matter on Tuesday.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. XXX
Justice Kauser Edappagath of the High Court recused from hearing a petition moved by the Crime Branch challenging the order of the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court which rejected its petition to forward the memory card allegedly containing the visuals of the crime in the 2017 actor sexual assault case for forensic examination.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. XXX
The High Court asked the Crime Branch to explain the significance of a change in the hash value of the memory card in its petition challenging the order of the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court which rejected its petition to forward the memory card allegedly containing the visuals of the crime in the 2017 actor sexual assault case for forensic examination. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also asked the prosecution if it wasn't better if the accused is also heard in the matter and if this would benefit the accused in any manner.
Also Read: Former Kerala High Court Judge Justice MC Hari Rani Passes Away
Kerala High Court Asks Prosecution To Produce Case Diary In Vijay Babu's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The High Court continued hearing the anticipatory bail plea moved by Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas asked the prosecution to produce the case diary in the matter while posting it tomorrow to conclude the arguments of the actor. The Court has been hearing the case at length for the last two days, analysing the WhatsApp and Instagram messages between the actor and the complainant in detail to ascertain the relationship between the duo.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Hears Actor Vijay Babu's Anticipatory Bail Pleas In Rape Case In-Camera
Kerala Govt Sanctions ₹3,000 Monthly Stipend For Junior Lawyers
In a huge relief to the junior advocates practising across the State, the Kerala Government has issued an order mandating a monthly stipend of Rs. 3,000 for junior lawyers in the State. Lawyers below 30 years of age with less than three years of practice and an annual income less than Rs. 1 lakh are eligible for the said stipend. The annual income limit is however not applicable to those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Vismaya Dowry Death: Husband Kiran Kumar Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Conviction & Sentence
Case Title: Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Kiran Kumar, the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case has approached the High Court challenging his conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. Justice Kauser Edappagath admitted the appeal and issued notice to the respondents. The matter will be taken up a month later. Alleging that the finding was perverse based on assumptions, conjunctures and surmises, the husband has preferred a criminal appeal.