- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Kerala High Court Annual Digest...
Kerala High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part II [Citations: 276-550]
Tellmy Jolly
10 Jan 2025 12:00 PM IST
![Kerala High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part II [Citations: 276-550]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/12/19/750x450_577406-kerala-high-court-annual-digest-2024.webp "Kerala High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part II [Citations: 276-550]")
Nominal Index Citations: [2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 276-550]M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, ...
Nominal Index Citations: [2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 276-550]
M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276
Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors., 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277
The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278
Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279
K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280
Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
XXXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
Chekkutty v State of Kerala. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
Sindhu B S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
R Asokan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
State of Kerala v Azeez, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
Don Paul V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
State of Kerala v Nino Mathew & Connected Cases, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
Musthafa & Others v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 305
Dr Rema M v The Director Of Collegiate Education And Others & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 306
Sobhin Sunny v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 307
Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Abu @Abdulla v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 309
Dr Haritha H S v The State Police Chief, Joseph Chacko v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 310
P. A. JOSE Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
Lekha Komath V Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 313
Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 314
T Jacob Armory v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 315
Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 316
The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala ,2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 318
Pradeep @ Kannan v State of Kerala, Babu and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 319
Shyamala Bhasker v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 320
Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321
Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 322
Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder and Others v M. A. Anidas and Another, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 323
Union of India and Others v Sunny Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 324
C. Girishdas v Government of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Y. Sleebachan v State of Kerala and Another 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
Geetha v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v The Deputy Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 328
Prabhakaran P. V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 329
Suo Moto v Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 330
Jewel Roshan T v Union of India,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
Vignesh Kumar Balasundar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 332
Chandanapurath Rajeevan and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
Sunil N S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
Sijo Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
M/S.I.T.I.LTD Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
Chairman, PSM College of Dental Sciences & Research v Reshma Vinod and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
Shafeek v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 338
A J Stephen v Rosemariya, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
S. Kamaladharan v Kerala Shipping and Inland Corporation Ltd. And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
M/S M.Trade Links Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
Bindulal V. S. & Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
xxx v Director General of Police , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
Sathyabhama v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
Limjith K J v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
xxx v Superintendent of Police, CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Athul v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
N. Ansari v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 353
K K Joshwa v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Elsy Abraham v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 355
Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors, 2024 Live Law Ker 356
XXX v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
Darvin Dominic v State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
Shilpa v K K Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Joji Joseph v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Raju K. J. v Deepak T. V. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker)361
Sipahi Kumar v State of Kerala, Jaymangal Shah v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 362
Lakeshore Hospital And Research Centre Limited Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Balan Panicker Ramesh Kumar Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Jitha Sanjay v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
Equity Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Jitha Sanjay and Others v State of Kerala and Other, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 367
Usha Bagri Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
M/S. Sunny Jacob Jewellers Gold Hyper Market Versus CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Sujith T. V. v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Muhammed Sahir v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly known as Gospel for Asia) v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
State of Kerala v Muraleedharan K. V., 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 373
M/S. DLF Home Developers Limited Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Kakkoth Radha and Others v Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthafa and Another, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 375
Sebin Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
Ivin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
Amal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
Sakeer v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Smitha v Anil Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
P. Ummer Koya v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
State of Kerala v Ajayakumar V., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Jayasree v Indrapalan and Another, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 388
Rajesh K. The District Geologist and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
JTPAC v Maradu Municipality, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
Reghunadan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
Murali @Muralidharan V State Of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
Hena Khatoon and Another v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Shalet v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
Sali T. v Keezhmadu Service Co-operative Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
Arshad v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists v Akhil James and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Satish Motilal Bidri v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
N S Gopakumar v The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
O. Abdul Rahiman v State Of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Mohammed Mammunhi v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Mansoor Ali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Adithya Kiron v The Station House Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
P. R. Ramachandran V The State Chief Information Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
Jomi v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
C Kappan v State of Kerala & Other, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Dr. Pramod John v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Thomas Baby v Jojo V. Varghese and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
State of Kerala V Gireesh Kumar & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Eldho Varghese v Liya Jose, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
Jeffin Kuriakose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
PVR Tourist Home v CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited v Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
Raju Sreedharan Versus The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
Sandeep G V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Authorised Officer v The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
Vijayakumari v Jayakumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
Ammanoor Parameswaran Chakyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
Jesmon Joy Karippery v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
XX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
Lijin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
M. A. Sathar and Others v Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Forum and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Joy Varghese v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
Prasad P. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
Sindhu v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Arun S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
XXXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
Suresh and Others v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
Omana Somanadhan v Deepu Soman and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Sri. Johnson Koomullil Thomas Versus The Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
Aaron Construction Co. Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
Remya Haridas v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
Abdul Razak v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
Vivek Joy v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Soman T. N. v Additional District Collector and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
Joby George v Siby Valloran, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
Sajith Shyam v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
Pradeep v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
Sunil Kumar K Versus The State Tax Officer-I, Kottarakkara, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
PCIT Versus Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
Sujith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
Suneeh Babu v Maneesha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
Rajesh Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
Abdul Rahman v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
Raju George @ N M Raju v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
Dr. Radhakrishna S Naik v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
CA P J Johney v The GST Council Through Its Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
XXX v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
Geetha S v Pradeep G, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
Abdul Khader v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary (Customs-III/VI), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The South Indian Bank Ltd Versus ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
Unitac Energy Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
Case Title: Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
Aboobakkar @ Abu v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
Saritha K. P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 462
State of Kerala v Thomas Chacko @Shibu and Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
T J Varghese v Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
State of Kerala v Nishad, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
Musthafa V. M. v Prajesh and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
PCIT Versus Arun Majeed, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
Mythree Associates Versus Commercial Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
Indian Medical Association Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
The Appellate Authority v The State Information Commission, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Lohith S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
Sahesh Rafeeque v Nural Inshira Binti Abdul Kareem, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril v The Chief Secretary, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
Hyder Ali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
Libin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
XXX V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
Suo Motu v. Adv. Sojan Pavanios, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
State Of Kerala Versus Petrolink Data Services (P) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
S. Vijayan Versus Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Taxes, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
Sajid Muhammedkutty v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
Rasheeda Bano v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
Intersource Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
XXX V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
Mammen Varghese v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
B Prakash v Lazitha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
A. A. Rahim v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Anupama Padmakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
Bharatheeya Jyothisha Vichara Sangham v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
National Highway Authority of India v P. V. George and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
Anujith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
Litty Mary John v Manoj K. Varghese, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
South Indian Bank v Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
The Commissioner Of Income -Tax (Exemptions) Kochi v M/S.Kerala Cricket Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
Sunil P P v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
Prakash v Vandana, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
State v R. Baiju, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
C K Sasidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
Bar Council of Kerala and Others v Unnikrishnan H. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
Indian Space Research Organization V M/S.Roopam Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Joel Joji v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
Chandra Babu v Vidya Pushpan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Jacky and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
Salim and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
C. Shukkur v The State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
Suhail M A v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v Joy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Of Mr. Mattummel Kunhiraman Versus State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
Global Distributors Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
K P Aliyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
Shaji M. v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
Shiyas S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Sham P S v State Bank of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
Mary Queens Mission Hospital Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
P.C. Varghese Muthalali v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
Mary Baby v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
Ibnu Shijil v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
Abdul Jaleel v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
Amal Babu v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Nazeer K. T. v The Manager Federal Bank and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Ankitha Joy v Joy Augustine @ Augusthy, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
G.Gopan @ Gopakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 547
Benzy Martin v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 548
Muhammed Ramees v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 549
Ibrahim v Administrator, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: M/S International Nut Alliance LLC v M/S Johns Cashew Co.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 276
The Kerala High Court was considering whether an executing court while enforcing an International arbitral award could direct payment of interest on the amount awarded from the date of the award till the date of payment, even when the award itself does not contemplate payment of any interest.
Justice T R Ravi held that the executing court cannot add or review the foreign award for providing payment of interest when the arbitral award itself does not mention anything about post-award interest.
Case Title: Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the provision for refund under Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 will only apply if the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for a vehicle.
“A reading of Section 6 of the 1976 Act indicates beyond doubt that the provision for refund will apply only when the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for the period specified and the vehicle is not intended to be used during the whole of that period or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month” observed a Single Judge bench of Justice Gopinath P.
Case Title: The KMML Retired Officers Association v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 278
The Kerala High Court has held that extending benefits of better terms of gratuity has to be decided by the employer based on various factors and the employees cannot claim better terms of gratuity as a matter of right.
The Court was considering whether retired employees of Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd were entitled to get the benefit of the amendment dated 24.5.2010 to Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, increasing the ceiling limit from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs.
Justice M A Abdul Hakhim stated granting enhanced gratuity benefits was within the employer's discretion. It stated that the employer can decide whether to extend the better terms of gratuity to employees or not.
Case Title: Sulochana v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 279
The Kerala High Court held that a person in jail is exempted from appearing in person at the registration office for registration of any document as per Section 38 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that the District Registrar is duty-bound to visit the jail where the convict is confined and examine him or issue a commission for his examination to complete the registration process.
Case Title: K Haridas v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 280
The Kerala High Court held that the investigating officer is not obliged to act exclusively based on the opinion of the 'District Level Expert Panel' and 'State Level Apex Body' for criminal investigation. Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the investigating office could take additional expert opinion from any other source if he wishes to do so to complete the investigation.
“ The Doctors cannot have any objection against the processes now put in place by the Government of Kerala through their various orders…..even going by the said order, it does not make it obliged on the Investigating Officer to act exclusively as per the views of the 'Expert Panel/Apex Body', but, on the contrary, enjoins him to continue the investigation using other expert opinion, if required, thus culminating it as per law, before the competent Court. It is eventually the Court which takes the final call either way because, even if the Investigating Officer is to refer the complaint against a Doctor, the the complainant would nevertheless obtain the right to file a 'private complaint' or 'protest complaint', as the case may be; thus leading the processes forward, which would then be completed without any reference to the opinion of the 'Expert Panel' or the 'Apex Body'”, ordered the Court.
Case Name: Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the employer was provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim before the authority ccannot approach the High Court alleging that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the claim.
The High Court underscored the welfare objectives of the Minimum Wages Act which aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for various employments. Section 20 of the Act outlines the adjudication process for claims, under which the respondent Inspector had filed the claim. The High Court held that the Petitioner was provided ample opportunity to contest the claim before the Authority but failed to avail herself of such opportunities. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: XXXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
The Kerala High Court has held that a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who sexually assaulted her. The Court thus permitted a sixteen-year-old rape victim, studying in standard 11th to medically terminate the pregnancy which reached 28 weeks of gestation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that denying permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would equate to imposing forced motherhood and deprivation of the right to life with dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
The Kerala High Court has permitted a married couple to undergo medical termination of pregnancy that reached 27 weeks of gestation due to substantial abnormalities of the foetus.
Justice Kauser Edappagath relying upon the report of the Medical Board observed that even though the foetus does not have a life-threatening condition, it has multiple major congenital abnormalities to the brain and spinal cord, indicating a high risk of neurodevelopment impairment, health complications and mortality.
“It is further opined that even though this is not a life-threatening condition, the child is likely to have permanent and significant neurological disabilities and handicaps. Hence, the Board recommended termination of pregnancy. It is a case squarely falling within the exception carved out by clause (2B) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 inasmuch as the Medical Board diagnosed substantial abnormalities in the foetus.”
Case Title: Chekkutty v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
The Kerala High Court held that an accused cannot be imposed with a lesser sentence merely because he appeared before the Court through his counsel and pleaded guilty. The Court stated that punishment imposed upon the accused should find a balance between the offence committed and the injury suffered by the victim.
Justice P Somarajan set aside the Trial Court's order by which a sentence of fine was imposed upon the accused. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter for ordering a substantive sentence.
Case Title: Sindhu B S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the India since it is a purely academic matter.
Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. t is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”
Case Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
A single judge bench of the Kerela High Court comprising of Justice G. Girish in the case of Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan has held that the right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by employer.
The court further observed since the ECA, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, its purpose cannot be defeated by circulars or internal orders passed by officers of the Appellant. The court further observed that there was no rationale to say that when an employee suffers an injury in the course of employment, they need to prefer the hospital on the panel of the Appellant instead of the hospital from which they could get the best medical care. The court observed that:
The right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by the officers of the appellant
Case Title: R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Courts should evaluate and decide regarding the acceptability of the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan before proceeding with the trial of the suit when a party to litigation moves an application challenging it.
Justice G. Girish observed that the Trial Courts should not wait to consider the challenge against the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan until the final stage of evidence in the suit since that would cause hardships to the parties, i
Case Title: R Asokan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
The Kerala High Court stated that landowners who surrendered their property for the 'Kottayam Development Corridor Project' would be paid adequate compensation by assessing the land value by initiating proceedings under the LARR Act by issuing gazette notification and not based on the property's market value as on the date of surrender of the property back in 2015.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that it would not be adequate compensation since the land value has increased now. It stated that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, citizens cannot be deprived of their land without sanction of law.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Azeez
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
The Kerala High Court has held that the power to alter or add charges in exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC remains with the Court and cannot be done based on the application of parties.
In the facts of the case, the Public Prosecutor applied to the Trial Court to alter the charge and add the offence of trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC against the accused. The Trial Court dismissed the application since the offence of trafficking of a person under Section 370 was incorporated in the IPC by Amendment Act, 2013 and the alleged offence took place in 2006.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the order of the Trial Court does not warrant interference since the charge cannot be altered at the instance of the parties.
Case Title: State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
The Kerala High Court held that only a provisional pension could be sanctioned to a retired member of the All India Services if he is undergoing departmental or judicial proceedings. It stated that disbursement of DCRG or Commutation of Pension is permissible only after the culmination of departmental or judicial proceedings and not during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M.A.Abdul Hakhim referred to Rule 6 of All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 that outlines the provision regarding the withholding of pension and gratuity for members of the All India Services on pending departmental or judicial proceedings.
Case Title: SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Kerala High Court has held that the notion that Government schools are merely collective property and could be used for other purposes is an outdated concept. It stated that in the modern era, government schools are achieving remarkable educational excellence, equipping students to become citizens of future.
The petitioner SNDP Yogam Sakha approached the Court seeking permission to use Open Air Auditorium of a Government High School for a religious function attached to a temple.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that schools are temples of learning and government schools cannot be used for any other activities other than for students' intellectual and overall development. “Government Schools are ones, normally, accessed by children of ordinary citizens and it is the collective responsibility of the community and the Government to ensure that they are raised to the highest levels of excellence possible. This can be done only if there is a commitment to education, ensuring every facility to each student, no matter what financial strata he/she belongs to. The feeling that Government Schools can be used for any purpose, since it is a collective property, is a thought of the past and cannot be countenanced in the modern era, particularly when, all over the world, such schools are now reaching the zeniths of educational excellence, preparing its students to be the citizens of future.”
Case Title: The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
The Kerala High Court has held that in terms of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) and Kerala Education Act, 1958 (KE Act), the Manager of an aided School cannot collect any charges or fees from students for providing toilet facilities, computer labs with internet facilities and transportation facilities.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed it is only the Headmaster, who can collect any fee from students in an aided school. Thus it held that the Manager of an aided School cannot interfere with academic matters and collection of fees by him for providing additional facilities is unsustainable in law.
Case title: Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
The Kerala High permitted the petitioner to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regarding his grievances against telecasting the Indian Reality Show- Big Boss Malayalam Season 6.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Adarsh S alleging that the show violates broadcasting regulations and advisories issued by the Union Government by telecasting scenes of physical assault on national television.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun permitted the petitioner to withdraw his petition and directed him to submit a representation for redressal of his grievances before the Broadcaster under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act.
Case Title: State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
The Kerala High Court today confirmed the death sentence imposed upon Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, a migrant labourer from Assam for committing the rape and murder of a law student in Perumbavoor on April 28, 2016.
The division bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Manu observed that the case was deeply disturbing and represented a severe violation of human dignity and sanctity of life since after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim was murdered horrendously. The Court found that the case has far-reaching consequences since it creates fear and also vulnerability amongst women.
The Court on applying the Crime Test, Criminal Test and Rarest of Rare Test, dismissed Ameer-Ul Islam's appeal and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Sessions court.
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation filed by State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly committing hawala money transactions to the tune of 3.5 crores for use in campaigns during the 2021 State Assembly elections.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the case as non-maintainable.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Case Title: K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against State Congress President, K Sudhakaran in CPM leader P Jayarajan's attempt to murder case.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings initiated against K Sudhakaran (1st accused) and Rajeev (3rd accused) based on FIR No. 148/1997 cannot be permitted to continue since it is a second FIR filed against the parties by E P Jayarajan raising the same allegations based on the same incident itself.
Case Title: Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
The Kerala High Court has held that a delay in testing seized drugs/substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985 would cause prejudice to the accused. The Court further stated that the accused have a right to seek expeditious testing of seized drugs/substances under Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022.
Justice C.S. Dias issued the following directions and also directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to forward a copy of the judgment to Courts dealing with NDPS Cases.
Case Title: Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
The Kerala High Court quashed the nominations made by Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, who is the Chancellor of the Kerala University to the Senate in the category 'Other Members'.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. directed the Chancellor to make fresh nominations in the category of 'Other Members' as per law within six weeks. The Court said: “It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts.”
Kerala High Court Warns Its Officers Of Disciplinary Action On Failure To List Cases As Per Roster
Case Title: Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
The Kerala High Court has held that its officers are duty-bound to ensure that cases are listed before the appropriate bench as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. It stated that officers would face disciplinary action if they posted matters deviating from the roster.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun said, “...the Office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulty to the Hon'ble Judges or Advocates appearing in the matter, will invite disciplinary action against the officials concerned.”
Case Title: Don Paul V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
The Kerala High Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and other decisions stated that preconditions have to be satisfied to seek investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before a Magistrate.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Magistrate should be vigilant in accepting applications seeking investigation in cases relating to the fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal delay/laches.
Case Title: Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 3840 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
The Kerala High Court held that a child witness cannot be recalled for cross-examination by the accused to fill the lacuna or omission in their case as per Section 33 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
It is to be noted that Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act states that a child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that the bar under Section 33(5) is not absolute, but it stated that a child witness can be recalled only when it is absolutely necessary to make a just decision on the case.
Case Title: M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Section 188 CrPC, which deals with prosecution of offences committed outside India, is attracted only when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India.
The provision requires prior sanction of the Central government to inquire or try such cases in India.
Single bench of Justice K. Babu held there is no need to get previous sanction from the Central Government when the entirety of the offence did not happen outside India. It followed the 3-bench decision of Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand and observed,
“A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321) held that if the offence was not committed on its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. In view of the settled law, the contention of the petitioner relying on Section 188 Cr.P.C. fails.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Nino Mathew, Anu Shanthi v State of Kerala, Nino Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Kerala High Court has declined to impose death sentence upon Nino Mathew for the double murder of his accomplice and lover Anu Shanthi's three year old daughter and mother-in-law. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John converted the death sentence imposed upon Nino Mathew to Life Imprisonment and ordered that he shall not be entitled to remission for a period of 25 years.
The Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Anu Shanthi and confirmed the life sentence imposed upon her by the Sessions Court.
Additional Income Can't Be Treated As Concealed Income: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
The Kerala High Court has held that additional income cannot be treated as concealed income for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that a satisfactory explanation has been offered by the assessee, well before the issuance of a notice to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the admission of additional income made by the assessee has been accepted by the department that that completed the assessment under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. On that basis, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the differential income has to be seen as accepted by the Revenue for the purposes of the explanation under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Musthafa & Others v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 305
Kerala High Court ordered that State of Kerala should not permit any request to cut and remove trees on the roadsides without sufficient reasons.
The Court directed the State to issue necessary orders to see that no trees on the roadsides of the State are cut and removed merely for the reason that it obstructs commercial activities or shade adjacent building.
Trees can be cut only if it is in a damaged condition and it's dangerous to life of people. This should be decided by the committee constituted by an earlier government order, Court said.
Case title: Dr Rema M v The Director Of Collegiate Education And Others & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 306
The Kerala High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr. Rema, the former Principal in charge of Government College, Kasargod against whom proceedings were initiated for allegedly misbehaving with students belonging to SFI Union.
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner alleging that she spoke about the immoral conduct of girls, drug use amongst students and illegal activities of students belonging to SFI Union in an interview given to Marunadan Malayali Channel. She received show cause notice from the Director of Collegiate Education alleging that her statements during the channel interview lowered the dignity and reputation of the college.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed the petitioner has not violated Government Servants' Conduct Rules because no allegations were made against the government nor about the relationship between government and people in the interview.
Case Title: Sobhin Sunny v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 307
The Kerala High Court held that violation of bail condition by the accused was akin to misusing the liberty bestowed upon him by the court and was a ground for cancellation of the bail.
Referring to Apex Court decisions, Justice A. Badharudeen held that the Court granting bail after imposing conditions has the power to cancel the bail order if any of those bail conditions are violated.
One Accomplice Cannot Corroborate Another: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 308
Case Title: Bharat Raj Meena v Central Bureau of Investigation
The Kerala High Court has held that the court as a matter of practice requires corroboration in material particulars for conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice. The nature and extent of the corroboration required will vary with the circumstances of each case and particular circumstances of the offence alleged in each case.
The Court also deliberated on the requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15.The grant of sanction is not a mere formality but a solemn act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. All the relevant records and materials for the grant od sanction must be made available to the sanctioning authority, which must undertake complete and conscious scrutiny of those records and materials independently applying its mind before deciding whether to grant sanction or not.
Case Title: Abu @Abdulla v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 309
Granting benefit of doubt, the Kerala High Court recently acquitted a man held guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court for the murder of his 7-year-old daughter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha found that all other persons residing in the house who were present at the time of the alleged incident had stated that the victim suffered injuries from a fall. Thus, it said there is no reverse burden on the father under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain the circumstances of the daughter's death.
Case Title: Dr Haritha H S v The State Police Chief, Joseph Chacko v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 310
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail application moved by an accused for allegedly attacking and outraging the modesty of a lady Ayurveda Doctor.
Dismissing the anticipatory bail application, Justice A. Badharudeen stated that a prima facie case was made out against the accused for attacking a healthcare professional. The Court further stated that there is a continuing trend of abusing, assaulting and manhandling doctors and hospital staff for flimsy reasons.
Case Title: P. A. JOSE Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 311
The Kerala High Court has held that the stipulation under Clause 16 of the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for the adoption of first-in, first-out (FIFO) or weighted average cost for valuation of the stock or inventory cannot be applied in the Assessment Year 2017-2018 for the valuation of the opening stock, as the opening and closing stock of the year are to be valued by applying the same methodology.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that the substitution of Section 145A with retrospective effect from April 1, 2017 by the Finance Act, 2018 is to give relief to those assessees who had adopted the FIFO to value their stock in the Assessment Year 2017-18 and to save their returns from being declared incorrect or invalid. This retrospective operation has the same purpose and objective. However, if an assessee did not apply the FIFO to value its opening and closing stock, as it was not mandatory, requiring such an assessee to apply the FIFO to value their stocks for the assessment year 2017–18 would result in an uncalled-for outcome.
Case Title: Hotel Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd Versus The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 312
The Kerala High Court has held that the expenditure that was incurred by the appellant/assessee by way of addition to buildings and electrical fittings on leasehold premises was in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar has observed that the assessing authority and the First Appellate Authority have clearly relied on the written submissions given by the assessee to find that the nature of the expenses incurred by the assessee was capital in nature. Neither in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority nor before the Tribunal was there any material produced by the assessee to show that the expenses incurred by them were revenue in nature. If the assessee had in fact a case that the expenditure incurred by it was revenue in nature, then it was for the assessee to produce materials that would clearly demonstrate that the expenditure was revenue in nature.
Case Title: Lekha Komath V Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 313
The Kerala High Court stated that unless there is proven conduct making one parent unworthy of custody rights, it is in the best interest of the child to receive love and support from both parents.
While hearing a matrimonial appeal preferred by the mother, the Court interacted with the minor child and found that she has no objection to spent time with father but expressed reluctance to stay with the father for longer periods including overnight custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.M. Manoj observed that Courts have to ascertain 'What is the wish/desire of the child', but it must consider 'What would be in the best interest of the child' while deciding custody arrangements. It thus stated that Courts must distinguish between child's wishes and what is genuinely in the best interest of the child.
Case Title: Chandra Mouli v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 314
The Kerala High Court recently quashed a Special Court order directing a lawyer to file an affidavit stating that the copy of witness statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC will not be "misused" by him.
Justice K. Babu said that a lawyer is an officer of the court and Courts are not expected to form an apprehension, without any foundation, that the lawyer may do some illegal acts during the course of his profession. "He is always expected to discharge his duties and responsibilities legally," the bench remarked.
The observation was made in an appeal filed against the proceedings of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thrissur directing the petitioner to file an affidavit stating the copy of the statements of the victim will not be misused
Case Title: T Jacob Armory v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 315
The Kerala High held that place of business of Armory Shop is only a condition of licence which can be varied by the licensing authority suo moto or on the application of the holder of licence as per Section 17 of the Arms Act.
Section 17 pertains to variation, suspension and revocation of licences. As per Section 17 (1), the licensing authority may suo moto vary the conditions of licence and as per Section 17 (2), the licensing authority may vary the conditions of the licence based on an application submitted by the licensee.
Case Title: Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 316
The State Government has assured the Kerala High Court that a judicial member will be appointed to the State Real Estate Appellate Tribunal immediately after June O4, 2024.
The Division bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu disposed of the petition based on the assurance given by the state government that selection to the post is over and appointment will also be made after the Lok Sabha Polls.
Case Title: The Plantation Corporation Of Kerala Limited v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 317
The Kerala High Court has held that the construction of illegal religious structures and buildings in government lands by Hindus, Christians, Muslims or any other religion cannot be permitted since that would lead to religious disharmony in the State.
The Court referred to the Preamble of the Constitution to state that religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution does not mean that citizens could encroach upon government land to construct religious structures and disrupt religious harmony.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan issued directions for the identification and eviction of unauthorized and illegal religious structures from government or public lands to uphold communal harmony and to strengthen the country as a 'SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 318
The Kerala High Court held that a room used by an advocate for study and office purposes attached to his residential house cannot be exempted while calculating the plinth area for computation of luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
It is to be noted that as per Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, a luxury tax is charged on a residential building if its plinth area exceeds 278.7 square meters. The plinth area of a residential building is calculated as per Section 6 of the Act. The proviso to Section 6 states that the plinth area of a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for storage of firewood or for any non-residential purpose shall not be calculated while determining the plinth area for the imposition of the luxury tax.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. applied the 'ejusdem generis' rule to state that the legislative intent was only to exclude non-residential rooms used for storage of firewood or garage while calculating plinth area for determination of luxury tax.
Case Title: Pradeep @ Kannan v State of Kerala, Babu and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 319
The Kerala High Court while considering a Criminal Appeal observed that unless the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The admissibility of the statement depends on two conditions: either the statement should relate to the cause of the death or it should relate to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death.
The High Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to hold that unless the prosecution can prove that the death occurred due to the injuries sustained to the victim, the statement cannot be considered a dying declaration.
Case Title: Shyamala Bhasker v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 320
The Kerala High Court has remarked that many wives misuse Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes to wreak vengeance against the husband and parents, sisters, brothers and other relatives of the husband by raising vague and general allegations, without mentioning any specific instances of cruelty.
It further observed that Section 498 A is misused with an ulterior motive to initiate criminal proceedings and to malign and defame husband and relatives of husband in the society.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus stated that Courts have a duty to scrutinize the allegations raised against the in-laws to find out whether a prima facie case was made out to proceed with the trial or not. It held that if no prima facie case is made out from the allegations, then the Court should invoke its power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Ajitha V. S. v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 321
The Kerala High Court recently came across an "unusual" scenario where the daughter of an employee, insured under the Employee State Insurance Act was denied the "Ward of Insured Person Certificate" since her father owned the institution where her mother is employed.
The question before the Court was that since the ESI scheme is intended for the benefit of low paid employees, whether the daughter in this case will be entitled to such benefit when her father owns the institution.
Case Title: Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 322
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to 19 students accused of committing abetment to suicide, criminal conspiracy and assault of Sidharthan J S, a second-year Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry student at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Pookode in Wayanad.
Sidharthan allegedly committed suicide on February 18, 2024, because of ragging and brutal assault from the college.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation as per the orders of the Court. After investigation, the CBI filed their final report before the Court naming 19 students as accused and stated that Sidharthan was subjected to brutal physical assault and public trial by some of his classmates and seniors. The CBI had concluded in their final report that 9 accused persons had committed offences punishable under Section 120B, 341, 323, 324, 355, 306, 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 and substantive offences thereof.
Justice C S Dias allowed the bail applications today and held that there is no prima facie material that indicates that the accused students have instigated Sidharthan to commit suicide. It stated that bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.
Only Co-Owners Can Claim Benefit Of Section 44 Of Transfer Of Property Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A. Sivalingappa Gowder @ Sivaraj Gowder and Others v M. A. Anidas and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 323
The Kerala High Court has held that only co-owners can claim the benefit of Section 44 of the Transfer Of Property Act.
A single bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that only co-owners of a property are entitled to the benefit of the second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act says that where the transferee of a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle him to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the house.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v Sunny Joseph
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 324
The Kerala High Court has held that changing the date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The division bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S. relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court to hold that the correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The issue came up in a petition where the Union of India challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing correction of respondent's date of birth in the service records observing that it would not cause any prejudice to the Department.
Case Title: C. Girishdas v Government of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 325
A public interest litigation was filed before the Kerala High Court to ban the use, transportation and cultivation of the Oleander plant (Arali) from the State. The petition was filed after the death of a nurse who died from a heart attack on April 28 allegedly caused by consuming Arali leaves. This matter has led to a discussion on whether Arali is safe to be used in pujas.
Surya Surendran was going to the UK to start her new job. She vomited and collapsed at the Cochin International Airport. Later while undergoing treatment, she died in a private hospital. The post-mortem report showed the presence of some toxic substances in her blood. Before the journey, she had chewed a leaf from an Arali plant near her house. She plucked the leaf and chewed it while talking on her phone. However she immediately spat it out. The doctors said that the juice of the leaves might have gone inside.
Case Title: Y. Sleebachan v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala High Court in a recent order held that appeals will lie in the Commercial Appellate Division of High Court when the order is passed by Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge or by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon said, if the order is passed by a Commercial Court below the level of a District Court, it has to be challenged before the Commercial Appellate Court. Any Act passed by the State Government fixing pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Courts would not be tenable.
Case Title: Geetha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala High Court held that authorities are expected to act diligently in matters relating to preventive detention since that involves curtailment of the fundamental rights of citizens.
In the present case, the representation was submitted by the detenu to the government on February 15, 2024, against the detention order. It was considered only on April 08, 2024, after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board on March 19, 2024.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu held that lethargy, lapses, negligence, delay and callousness on the part of the authorities in considering representations in preventive detention cases violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v The Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 328
The Kerala High Court has held that the Writ Court has the power to grant instalments, extending beyond the instalments granted by the assessing authority for clearing tax dues under Rule 30 B of the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST), 1963.
As per Rule 30B of the KGST Rules, the assessing authority can permit payment of tax in not more than six monthly instalments based on the request of the dealer.
Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the writ court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has the power to grant instalment facilities extending beyond instalments granted by the assessing authority under Rule 30B of the KGST Rules.
Case Title: Prabhakaran P. V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 329
The Kerala High Court held that it is a common misconception that anticipatory bail could be granted if custodial interrogation was not required. The Court stated that custodial interrogation was just one factor to consider when deciding on an anticipatory bail application.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the Court has to consider if a prima facie case was made out against the accused, the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment while considering anticipatory bail applications.
Case Title: Suo Moto v Yeshwanth Shenoy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 330
The Kerala High Court has held that if a Judge didn't initiate contempt proceedings in accordance with the procedure as laid down under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it does not bar the High Court from initiating suo moto contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish made this observation while deciding the challenge made by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy against the contempt proceedings initiated against him.
Case Title: Jewel Roshan T v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
The Kerala High Court has permitted a candidate who has 90 per cent permanent physical disability to attend the Kerala Engineering Architectural Medical Examination (KEAM), 2024 with the help of a scribe who has completed matriculation and had not completed 12th standard.
The KEAM, 2024 exam will begin today.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ordered thus:
“Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to attend the examination through the help of a scribe who has the qualification referred to above, i.e. a matriculate and had not completed 12th standard.”
Case Title: Vignesh Kumar Balasundar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 332
The Kerala High Court has held that the power to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised by the Court with caution for ex debito justitiae, that is for the advancement of justice.
The Court stated that quashing FIR or dropping charges is not legally permissible if the FIR read along with FIS/complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It stated that the Court should dismiss the petition challenging the FIR so as to enable the investigating officer to continue with the investigation and to ascertain the truth by collecting evidence.
Justice A. Badharudeen said that staying FIR when the commission of the cognizable offence is disclosed would cause injustice to the aggrieved or victim. It stated that staying FIR would halt the investigation process and prevent the investigating officer from collecting further evidence thereby giving an opportunity to the accused to destroy material evidence and to escape from punishment.
Case Title: Chandanapurath Rajeevan and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables the accused to use the statement of a witness to contradict him in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act only. The second part of Section 145 says that when a statement is used to contradict a witness, his attention must be called to those parts which are used to contradict him.
The Court further observed that minor discrepancies in the statements does not amount to contradiction. Such discrepancies can occur due to normal errors of observations or normal errors of memory due to lapse of time. The Court added that such discrepancies will always be there, however honest and truthful the witness is. The witness is not expected to correctly recall the sequence of events in rapid succession or in a short span of time. Some variance with the former statement is not enough. Only if the former statement can discredit the later statement, the witness can be contradicted.
Case Title: Sunil N S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the 10th bail application filed by Sunil N.S., also known as 'Pulsar Suni', the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of rupees twenty-five thousand upon him for filing "bail application after bail application". While imposing the cost, the Court noted that the 10th bail application was filed within three days of dismissing his earlier bail application.
Case Title: Sijo Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
The Kerala High Court has declared that Rule 14 in the PSC Rules of Procedure empowers the Commission to fill vacancies notified as well as arising from the ranked list during its validity. Rule 14 says that the Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the rank lists are kept alive.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu observed that the notification clearly stated that the vacancies mentioned are provisional and subject to change according to the allotment of seats and due to rising of more vacancies. Therefore, the general principle that 'filling up of vacancies more than that has been notified is illegal' cannot be applied in the facts of the case at hand.
Case Title: M/S.I.T.I.LTD Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala High Court has held that a claim for exemption in respect of transit sales must be justified by showing the sale as having occurred in transit.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the petitioner/assessee cannot establish the transit sales by showing the sale as having occurred in transit since the E1 Forms relied on by the assessee have been accounted for only in a subsequent year, which could only be after the transportation of the goods and not while the goods were in transit.
Case Title: Chairman, PSM College of Dental Sciences & Research v Reshma Vinod and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
The Kerala High Court has held that the Maternity Benefit Act is not applicable to private educational institutions before 06.03.2020. The Court noted that the State Government issued a gazette notification under Section 2(b) of the Act making the Act applicable to private educational institutions only on 6th March 2020.
The matter came before Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in a Writ Petition. The plea was filed by a Dental College and Research Centre. The college was served with a notice from the inspector under the Maternity Benefit Act alleging non-payment of maternity benefits to Reshma Vinod. The petitioner submitted a reply to this. However, an order was passed by the Inspector directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 64,393.56 to Reshma as a maternity benefit and medical bonus. This order was appealed by the institution under S.17(3) of the Act which was dismissed.
Case Title: Shafeek v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 338
The Kerala High Court has held that mere participation in an offence would not be sufficient to attribute common intention unless it was proved that they shared a premeditated plan. The Court stated that common intention has to be proved through the conduct of the accused, surrounding circumstances or other incriminating evidence.
In the facts of the case, three accused have approached the Court aggrieved by their conviction of life imprisonment ordered by the Sessions Court for allegedly committing a murder.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha upheld the conviction of the first accused and set aside the conviction of the second and third accused on the finding that they did not possess a premeditated plan and common intention to cause the murder.
Case Title: A J Stephen v Rosemariya
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court has held that it is not permissible for a man to challenge the paternity of a child when his conduct proves otherwise.
The facts of the case were that in 2022, the petitioner approached the Family Court seeking DNA test stating that he reasonably suspects the minor child's paternity. The Family Court observed that the petitioner suppressed material fact that he had entered into an agreement with the child's mother wherein he accepted the paternity. It thus dismissed petitioner's prayer to undergo DNA test. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 seeking a declaration that he was not the father of the minor child.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj applied the principle of doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel by relying on by Pennsylvania Supreme Court in T.E.B. v. C.A.B. v. P.D.K. Jr. to state that if a man cannot be permitted to deny child's parentage if he has held out be a child's father through his conduct.
Case Title: S. Kamaladharan v Kerala Shipping and Inland Corporation Ltd. And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala High Court has held that the total gratuity payable to an employee has to be calculated based on the monthly salary last drawn by the employee immediately preceding his termination, irrespective of the deputation service of the employee.
In the Writ Petition, the question to be decided was how much amount the company should contribute towards the gratuity of its deputed employee. S. Kamaladharan retired from Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation on 30/11/2014. He worked for a period of 7 years and 10 months in Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) on deputation.
Case Title: M/S M.Trade Links Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala High Court has held that the time limit to avail ITC is November 30th in each financial year from the beginning of the GST regime.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that prior to the amendment in Section 39 by the Finance Act 2022, the date for furnishing the return under Section 39 was September 30th. Considering the difficulties in the initial stage of the implementation of the GST regime, the Legislature made the amendment and extended the time for filing the return from September to November 30th in each succeeding financial year. The amendment is only procedural to ease the difficulties initially faced by the dealers and taxpayers. Therefore, for the period from 01.07.2017 till 30.11.2022, if a dealer has filed the return after September 30 and the claim for ITC was made before November 30, the claim for ITC of such dealer should also be processed if he is otherwise entitled to claim the ITC.
Case Title: Bindulal V. S. & Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when a Constitutional Court passes an order to conduct enquiry or investigation into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 17A of the Act does not operate as a bar.
The Court observed that prior approval under Section 17A is only required when the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his public duty. It referred to Shankara Bhat and Others v State of Kerala and Others which held that any offence, acts which on the face of it constitutes an offence or demand of illegal consideration cannot be treated as offence related to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant. The Court held that it cannot hold that the allegations are related to any recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant.
Case Title: xxx v Director General of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala High Court has held that it has to recognize the right of 'choice' of an adult woman and no fetters can be placed on her decision to live her life in the manner she desires. It stated that the court or family members cannot substitute their opinions and preferences for those of an adult.
The father of the woman in this case had filed a habeas corpus petition for her release from alleged unauthorized custody of the 5th and 6th respondent women.
As such, the Court stated that no restrictions could be imposed upon the daughter regarding her choice or the place where she should stay.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 77 of the Customs Act, which obliges every owner of a baggage to make a declaration of its contents to the customs officer for the purpose of clearing it, deals with the declaration of contents of not just baggage but also posts and couriers.
The Court stated that the respondents did not mention in the pass that the article they brought was Dexamethasone. It stated that Dexamethasone is a dutiable item as per the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. Thus, the Court held that respondents would have complied with Section 77 of the Customs Act if they had informed customs officer that they carried Dexamethasone.
Case Title: Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
“Parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married,” the Kerala High Court has observed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. M. Manoj made the observation while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman's partner.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgment, Shafin Jahan v Asokan K. M. and observed that the role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The choice of an individual should be conferred with the status that the Constitution guarantees, provided that the said choice does not transgress any valid framework, it added
Case Title: Sathyabhama v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application moved by Mohiniyattam Performer Kalamandalam Sathyabhama for making casteist remarks against fellow artist Dr. RLV Ramakrishnan.
Justice K Babu observed that the prosecution has prima facie established that Sathyabhama intentionally made such remarks to humiliate Ramakrishnan for belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community.
The allegation was that Sathyabhama intentionally made certain comments on the appearance and skin tone of Ramakrishnan, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, without explicitly taking his name in an interview given to a 'DNA You Tube' Channel.
The Court further stated that the SC/ST (POA) Act was enacted to uphold constitutionally guaranteed rights to all individuals, particularly aiming to bridge the disparities faced by those subjected to ostracism and discrimination. It stated that achieving a casteless society would remain elusive unless the provisions of the SC/ST Act were enforced strictly. The Court stated that exclusion based on caste identity should not be allowed to prevail in our democracy and that citizens must strive to achieve fraternity amongst all sections of society.
Case Title: Limjith K J v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala High Court has directed the Ministry of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry to consider the objections submitted by stakeholders while considering a writ petition challenging the circular dated March 12, 2024, issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of around 23 breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life. The writ petition was filed by certain dog lovers who were also owners of such breeds of dogs.
The Court noted that similar writ petitions were filed in Karnataka and Delhi alleging that the circular was issued without consulting or inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders. The Delhi High Court quashed the circular and held that all stakeholders would be heard for raising their objections before the issuance of a fresh circular. The Delhi High Court had stated that Central Government shall issue a public notice in a national newspaper as well as on the Ministry's official website inviting written objections to the proposed or draft notification to the rules since it would not be possible to give an oral hearing to every dog owner. A similar view was taken by the Karnataka High Court also.
Case Title: xxx v Superintendent of Police, CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
A 65-year-old mother has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court seeking protection from the probe of the CBI alleging that her son was involved in trafficking Indian nationals to Russia.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the petitioner can be summoned for investigation only by issuing a notice. The Court further stated that if later the petitioner is being arrayed as an accused, the authorities can proceed investigation as per law.
The specific allegation is that the petitioner's son along with the other accused was involved in the trafficking of Indian citizens to Russia on the pretext of getting better and high-paying jobs in the Russian Army. It is alleged that traffickers seize the passports of Indian nationals on reaching Russia and they are given training in combat roles and provided with the uniform of the Russian army. It is further alleged that the traffickers deploy Indian nationals at war front bases in the Russia-Ukraine war zone.
Case Name : Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice Murali Purushothaman, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, held that regulatory bodies cannot misinterpret judgments to wrongfully deny registration to the permanent employees.
The petitioners are headload workers employed by the traders in shops located at the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu. The Wholesale Market is administered by the Urban Wholesale Market Authority constituted by the Government of Kerala, with the District Collector, Ernakulam, serving as the Chairman. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (Scheme), was implemented in the Wholesale Market.
The petitioners submitted applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. However, their applications were rejected by the registering authority, citing various reasons, including the implementation of the 1983 Scheme and the engagement of pool workers for loading and unloading work in the market. The appellate authority also upheld the decision of registering authority, citing a judgment (Ext. P128(a)) concerning police protection for traders against pool workers.
The court further observed that unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration to attached workers, and their objections can only be raised when an attached worker seeks to join the scheme as a registered but unattached worker
Case Title: Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ petition of a 10-year-old minor girl who invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that she was entitled to have a pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple during the Mandala Pooja/Makaravilakku season of 1199 ME(2023-24) without insisting on upper age qualification.
The writ petition was filed through her father and legal guardian seeking a writ of mandamus to the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit the girl to have her pilgrimage since she has not attained puberty.
The Court stated that the petitioner would have to wait until the issues have been finally decided by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the Sabarimala Review Petition. It stated that one of the issues to be considered by the Larger Bench in Kantararu Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) was regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.
Case Title: Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala High Court reiterated that the power of alteration of charges under Section 216 of the CrPC is the vested power of the Court, and could be exercised at any time before judgment is pronounced.
In the facts of the case, the revision petitioner is challenging the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge that allowed an application for alteration of the charge moved by the Public Prosecutor. The Assistant Sessions Judge altered the charge against the revision petitioner from Section 304 of the IPC (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to an offence punishable under Section 302 (punishment for murder) of the IPC.
Case Title: Athul v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
The Kerala High Court has convicted four accused to rigorous imprisonment of 30 years under Section 376D of the IPC for committing the offence of gang rape on a migrant woman worker in 2015.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. relying upon the Apex Court decision in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), considered the intersectional identity and vulnerability of the victim who was a migrant worker on whom sexual assault was committed.
Case Title: N. Ansari v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala High Court has held that just because a person was charged and acquitted under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code for dowry death does not mean that he cannot be convicted under Section 498-A of the Act for marital cruelty.
The judgment was made by Justice Johnson John while deciding a Criminal Appeal against the decision of Sessions Judge where he found the appellant guilty of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court found the accused not guilty under Section 304B and abetment of suicide under Section 306.
Case Title: K K Joshwa v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court has directed the Station House Officer, Mannanthala Police Station to review the complaint lodged by the petitioner against former DGP and author Siby Mathews alleging the commission of an offence under Section 228 A of IPC. The Court directed the SHO to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether Siby Mathews has disclosed the details of the identity of the rape victim in the Sooryanelli case in his book 'Nirbhayam', potentially committing a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR.
Nirbhayam is a book written by former DGP of Kerala, Siby Mathews which entails details of his service as a police officer in Kerala. It was alleged that he disclosed the details of the identity of the minor rape victim who was raped by several accused persons during 1996 without specifically taking her name. It was alleged that the book contains a chapter captioning 'Sooryanelli case' and has used terms like 'peedippikkapetta penkutti' meaning sexual assault victim.
Case Title: Elsy Abraham v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 355
The Kerala High Court in a writ petition has decided on the balance of rights of travellers in the public pathway and that of private persons in adjoining property in relation to the construction of structures near public roads.
Justice M. A. Abdul Hakim held that constructions which are necessary for the maintenance of the users of the pathway can be made on public land, but, care should be taken to ensure that only minimum injury or inconvenience is caused to the affected private party.
Arbitration Clause Valid But Unilateral Appointment Part Is Invalid: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors
Citation : 2024 Live Law Ker 356
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice G. Girish has held that arbitration clauses with provisions for the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot be entirely rejected due to this defect. It held that the clauses are to be considered valid arbitration clauses except for those portions which confer the authority upon one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators.
The High Court held that the arbitration clauses in the agreements did not align with the legal provisions prohibiting unilateral appointments of arbitrators. Nevertheless, it held that these arbitration clauses should not be completely discarded due to this defect. The High Court held that these clauses remained valid as arbitration agreements, with the exception of the portions granting the applicant unilateral appointment authority.
Case Title: XXX v Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court has held that the Government should consider the request of the victim or representatives of the victim while appointing a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the absolute power to appoint a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor is with the Government but that do not mean that it should completely negate the request of the victim or representatives of the victim while making such appointments.
Case Title: Darvin Dominic v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court has held the Trial Court should not proceed with criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC without previous sanction from the Central Government when an offence of marital cruelty was entirely committed outside India by an Indian National.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the husband under Section 498A IPC for want of previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC.
Case Title: Shilpa v K K Rajeevan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate whilst ordering maintenance to the daughter under Section 20 (1) (d) of the Domestic Violence Act should specify if the maintenance order is made under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
The Court stated that the Magistrate could order monthly maintenance to the daughter under Section 20 (1) (d) of the DV Act. It stated that the maintenance order under the DV Act could be ordered either under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Maintenance Act.
Further, the Court held that if a maintenance order was made under Section 125 CrPC, then the maintenance payment would cease when the daughter attained the age of majority. As per Section 125 CrPC, a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to maintenance unless she is suffering from physical or mental abnormality due to which she cannot maintain herself. It stated that Section 125 CrPC is secular and applicable to all so it cannot be assumed that maintenance would not be ordered under Section 125 CrPC
Case Title: Joji Joseph v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
The Kerala High Court has held that police officials cannot be prosecuted for an act done during the discharge of their official duty without taking sanction from the government under Section 197 CrPC.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar ordered that sanction would be necessary under Section 197 of CrPC if the alleged act was directly concerned with official duty or has reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, even if such alleged act involves manhandling or detaining persons illegally.
The Court further stated sanction would not be required if an offence was committed by the police officer entirely outside the scope of his duty as a police officer.
Case Title: Raju K. J. v Deepak T. V. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court, in an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, held that contributory negligence cannot be fixed based on the scene mahazar alone. It can be relied on if there is a police charge alleging contributory negligence or evidence to support the mahazar.
The court however referred to Jiju Kuruvila & Others v Kunjunjumma Mohan to hold that no inference of contributory negligence can be drawn from scene mahazar.
Case Title: Sipahi Kumar v State of Kerala, Jaymangal Shah v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 362
A single bench of Justice Mary Joseph of the Kerala High Court has held that before conducting the body search of a person, the person has to be informed of his right to have the presence of either the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to witness his body search.
The Court observed that unless he was informed of his right in the way he understands, the formalities under Section 50 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS Act) cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled.
Case Title: Lakeshore Hospital And Research Centre Limited Versus The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order and notice of demand on the grounds that they were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that when the petitioner-assessee is at fault, as they did not update or change the email address with the Department, they cannot legitimately complain that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Balan Panicker Ramesh Kumar Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court has held that it is the prerogative of the government to fix the limit of income from the encashment of earned leave salary for the purposes of exemption from payment of income tax. Unless the government issues a notification fixing the limit of income for earned leave salary, an employee cannot claim exemption from payment of income tax on the encashment of earned leave for up to 300 days.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the last notification was issued on May 31, 2002, and the government did not thereafter issue a notification despite there having been three pay revisions. The latest notification is only in 2023, after which the upper limit has been fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs, taking the highest salary of the cabinet secretary, i.e., Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month.
Case Title: Jitha Sanjay v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court has held that while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into attending and overall circumstances above the averments made in the FIR or complaint to assess whether criminal proceedings were initiated maliciously.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that criminal proceedings initiated with ulterior and malafide motives to wreak vengeance due to personal or private grudges cannot be allowed to continue.
Delay In Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act Can't Be Condoned: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Equity Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court has held that the delay in approaching the revision authority under the Income Tax Act cannot be condoned.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that it was the same aspect of delay or limitation that prevented the Department from re-assessing the income of the appellant for the assessment years 2004–2005 and 2005–2006, respectively.
Case Title: Jitha Sanjay and Others v State of Kerala and Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 367
Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court has held that the Court can look beyond an FIR to quash the criminal proceedings when they are manifestly vexatious, frivolous or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The Court observed that when the complainant is motivated due to extraneous reasons, he can make sure that the FIR contains the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence.
“Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredient to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case and above averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read between the lines,” the Court said.
Kerala High Court Allows Dealer To Correct Copy Of Stock Inventory Uploaded Along With Returns
Case Title: Usha Bagri Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerala High Court has allowed the dealer to correct a copy of stock inventory uploaded along with returns.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the mistake on the part of the petitioner-dealer was that she uploaded the stock inventory as of May 28, 2015, instead of the stock inventory as of March 31, 2015. The provisions of sub-rule (4A) of Rule 22 should be interpreted as permitting the dealer to also revise or correct any mistake in the documents uploaded along with returns under Rule 22 (1), as any other interpretation would mean that while the dealer is permitted to revise his return on detecting a mistake, he cannot correct a mistake in any of the documents uploaded along with the returns.
Case Title: M/S. Sunny Jacob Jewellers Gold Hyper Market Versus CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court has held that based on the material obtained during the search, the Assessing Officer, who gets the jurisdiction to re-open the assessments, can do so in respect of the individual assessment years comprised in the block period of six years only if the material obtained during the search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, or any part thereof, relates to the assessment year in question.
Case Title: Sujith T. V. v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court has declared that an employee's messages in a private WhatsApp group regarding the safety of the company do not give rise to the charge of harming the reputation of the company. Justice Satish Ninan said that a charge to such effect infringes on the employee's right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner is an employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). It was submitted that he sent messages to a private WhatsApp group of the technicians of the company regarding the safety concerns related to ammonia handling.
Case Title: Muhammed Sahir v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Court's denial of issuing summons to defence witnesses, as requested by the accused during a criminal trial should be an exception and to be used sparingly.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the right of the accused to enter defence evidence and adduce witnesses is essential to ensure fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly known as Gospel for Asia) v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court has recorded the submissions made by the Advocate General on behalf of the State Government that it has proposed to withdraw the notifications issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the acquisition of Cheruvally Estate in Kottayam for construction and development of the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport.
Justice Viju Abraham also recorded the submission of the State Government that it has decided to conduct a Social Impact Assessment study through a different agency and fresh notifications will be issued in this regard by the Government under Section 4 (1) of the 2013 Act.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Muraleedharan K. V.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 373
The Kerala High Court recently criticised the "casual approach" of a Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act for wrongly making adverse observations against an IAS officer, then serving as the Additional Chief Secretary in the State's Revenue department.
Single bench of Justice K. Babu observed that “A special Judge functioning under the PC Act must be conscious of his responsibilities and obligations. Even an unnecessary preliminary enquiry may cause a blemish in the career of a public servant.”
Case Title: M/S. DLF Home Developers Limited Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court has held that the statutory scheme for determining the taxable turnover of a works contract under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) does not suffer from any defect so as to render it unworkable to effectuate the charge to tax on a works contract.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. has observed that it was incumbent upon the petitioner or assessee to declare the total turnover (contract receipts) pertaining solely to the works undertaken by them without including the component representing the value of the undivided share in the land. If the petitioner assessees choose not to do so, they have only themselves to blame for the predicament that they find themselves in.
Case Title: Kakkoth Radha and Others v Bathakkathalakkal Batlak Musthafa and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 375
The Kerala High Court held that when the registered deed of gift of immovable property mentions that the property was delivered to the donee, it is sufficient to establish acceptance.
The Court also observed that the Transfer of Property Act does not mention any one mode of acceptance.
Justice K. Babu observed:
“It is trite that no particular mode is prescribed under the law as to the requirement needed to prove acceptance. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift.”
Case Title: Sebin Thomas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
The Kerala High Court has held that automatic or accidental downloading of children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct is not an offence under Section 67B (b) of the Information Technology Act when the evidence shows that there was no specific intent to do so.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was alleged to have committed offences under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 B (b) of the Information Technology Act. The specific allegation was that the petitioner stored and possessed pornographic material involving child which was downloaded on his phone from Telegram.
The bench observed that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 67 B (b) of the IT Act and held thus: “In the present case, the materials collected during investigation would show that some pornographic messages, which would depict children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct were found in the devise of the accused. But there are no materials to show that the petitioner intentionally downloaded or browsed or recorded the same. More particularly there are no materials to show that the petitioner had either shared or transmitted or propagated or displayed or distributed the same in any manner.”
Case Title: Ivin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
The Kerala High Court held that settling serious and heinous offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity through quashing process by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC would seriously impact society and sans legal permissibility.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that even though the Court has the power to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable offences invoking its inherent powers upon settlement between parties, such powers should be exercised carefully. The Court cautioned that in cases involving serious offences that impact society, the Court must refrain from invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss proceedings based on compromises between the parties.
Case Title: Amal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of over 100 gms contraband, noting that the Investigating Officer had mixed the content found in three separate packets.
Justice C. S. Dias cited Section 52A of the Act which requires the Investigating Officer to draw separate samples from "each of the packets", that too in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate and then, send the representative samples from each packet for chemical analysis.
The bench said that an infraction of the statutory provision by the Investigating Officer had prejudiced the accused and therefore, the rigour on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted.
Case Title: Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that there is no fair process of enquiry if unexplained delay has occurred in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee, since it causes him significant prejudice.
The Court further stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, which should be ensured not only in criminal cases but also in all cases where procedures are required to indict an individual.
In the facts of the case, a charge memo was filed against an officer in 2022, alleging dereliction of duty in the investigation of a crime he had investigated in 2001, during which he wrongfully arrested innocent persons.
Case Title: Sakeer v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court has held that in exceptional cases, the High Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can even quash even criminal proceedings alleging the commission of an offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Special Court for the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children (POCSO).
In the present case, the Court found that there were financial dealings between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It also observed that a case was filed against the de facto complainant by the wife of the accused. The Court thus stated that criminal proceedings could be quashed when prosecution materials do not attract the offence alleged to be committed.
No Fundamental Right To Protest Anywhere The Agitator Pleases: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Bank filed a suit before the Munisff for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining it's employee union, its members and supporters from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank.
The Single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held that the right under Article 19 is not absolute and it must be exercised in a way as not to interfere with the right of the employer to carry on their lawful business. Court said freedom of speech and expression cannot interfere with the right of someone else to enjoy property or carry on business.
Case Title: Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court has held that the guardian of a minor or owner of a vehicle driven by a minor can be prosecuted for offence under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even in the absence of finding of guilt of the minor.
The provision prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.
Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said though commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is an essential ingredient of Section 199A, however, a finding regarding the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is not a sine qua non for initiating proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under the said section.
Case Title: S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
The Kerala High Court recently observed that families can often become sites of violence and control for LGBTIQA+ individuals who they need protection from rather than guardianship.
The Court observed that LGBTIQA+ persons face defiance in society and are subjected to stigma, violence and discrimination from an early age due to societal beliefs and cultural norms.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj made the observation while dealing with the plea filed by parents of a 23-year-old woman stating that their daughter was illegally detained and living in a 'toxic' relationship with a person of the same gender.
Case Title: Smitha v Anil Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has held that under Section 120 of the Evidence Act, a husband is permitted to testify in lieu of his wife and vice versa even without a written authority or power of attorney.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that the Trial Court had wrongly rejected the request for examining the plaintiff's husband for and on her behalf in the trial of a suit.
Case Title: P. Ummer Koya v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court has held that merely because a person had moved to Pakistan in search of a job does not make him an enemy under Rules 130 and 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 unless he was trading with an enemy.
Court thus quashed the proceedings initiated under the Enemy Property Act, against a property formerly held by the petitioner's father, who had worked at a hotel in Pakistan.
Case Title: Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court today held that while considering allegations of terrorism and related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Courts should not get carried away by confirmation bias that might creep in based on ideological biases and false narratives prevalent in the society.
The Court was considering the criminal appeals moved by 26 persons belonging to Popular Front Of India (PFI) who were accused of allegedly murdering RSS Leader Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Ajayakumar V
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has stated that Home Guards are appointed on a daily wage basis and their recruitment and selection process differed from that of a Civil Police Officer. The Court further observed that Apex Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2015) had not declared that Home Guards shall be treated at par with Civil Police Officers.
In this case, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in granting parity in pay to Home Guards with that of Police Constable, the State Government has approached the High Court with an appeal.
Case Title: Jayasree v Indrapalan and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment observed that a former wife, though divorced cannot be evicted from a shared household except through a procedure laid down by law.
The Court observed that even though a divorced woman had no right over the shared household, if she was staying there during or after divorce, she could be evicted only through a procedure established by law.
Case Title: Rajesh K. The District Geologist and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court declared that a person need not seek permission while extracting minerals on his property when the mineral is not transported outside the premises of the property. The Court said that he only needs to inform the concerned authorities and pay them a royalty fee for using the granite for construction.
Case Title: JTPAC v Maradu Municipality
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
The Kerala High Court directed the Municipality under whose jurisdiction a music concert was held to refund the entertainment tax levied on unsold tickets.
Justice Gopinath P. stated that entertainment tax could only be charged under Section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act, 1961 towards sold tickets and not on unsold tickets.
Case Title: Reghunadan v State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal as abated after the death of a man convicted for the murder of his wife.
Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. said that the man's children would not be interested in coming on record to continue the appeal since in a sense, they are also victims of the alleged crime.
Case Title: Murali @ Muralidharan V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court has held that a complaint filed before a lawful authority would not amount to instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, since filing such a complaint is not intended to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Case Title: P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court held that a property register maintained in a public office is not confidential or a record of proceedings to be protected from disclosure as per Rule 225 of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982.
The petitioner has approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of his application for obtaining a certified copy of a property register in relation to a property produced in a criminal trial in the Court. His application was dismissed stating that it is a register kept in the office of the court and is a confidential non-judicial record as per Rule 225.
Case Title: Hena Khatoon and Another v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court observed that a petition filed at a later point seeking a re-examination of a witness, an examination of a new witness or a summons of new documents can be allowed only to meet the ends of justice. It should not be used to fill the lacuna of evidence, to give advantage to one party or as a disguise for a re-trial, the court said.
Case Title: Shalet v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Police Chief to issue suitable instructions to ensure that citizens are not illegally arrested and detained based on the wrong identity.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was wrongly detained and arrested by the police in a case of mistaken identity.
Justice Gopinath P. ordered that the identity of persons should be clearly established before police officials arrest or detain citizens to prevent any illegal invasion into the life and liberty of innocent citizens.
Credit Available On Advance Tax Paid For Stock-Transferred: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner will be entitled to credit for the entire amount paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 for the goods in question, which were stock-transferred to its branch office in Pollachi.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that a combined reading of the provisions of Circular No. 50/2006 and the definition of input tax in Section 2(xxiii) of the KVAT Act indicates that the tax paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 cannot assume the character of input tax.
Case Title: Sali T. v Keezhmadu Service Co-operative Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court held that that non – non-impleadment of legal representatives after the death of the judgment-debtor does not abate the execution proceedings with respect to an arbitral award. The requirement in Code of Civil Procedure requiring the legal representative to be impleaded within the limitation period will not apply for execution of arbitration proceedings under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
Case Title: Arshad v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has held that the term 'transport' in Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereafter, Sand Act) cannot be interpreted to mean that the vehicle must be in motion.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that the term 'transports sand' would mean the removal of sand from the river bed to the lorry and from the lorry to any other place. The Court stated that even when a vehicle was loaded with river sand, it would constitute sand transport, regardless of whether the vehicle was in motion or not.
Case Name: Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists v Akhil James and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists against the removal of B.Sc. Medical Biochemistry and B.Sc. Medical Microbiology courses from the prospectus of professional degree courses and paramedical courses for the year 2018-19, saying that it is a policy decision of the Government.
The Court however added that there are some cases where the policy decisions can be subjected to judicial review but that can be done only on well-defined grounds. In this case, there is no such grounds. No legal right or fundamental right of the petitioners are violated, it held.
Case Title: Satish Motilal Bidri v Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court has held that properties subject to attachment under the PMLA must be properties acquired through proceeds of crime. It stated that provisions of PMLA cannot be unfairly and unreasonably used to attach properties that are unrelated to any criminal activity.
Case Title: N S Gopakumar v The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court held that an Insurance Ombudsman was empowered to pass an Award granting compensation to the complainant but not empowered to issue directions to the Insurer as per Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017.
Case Title: O. Abdul Rahiman v State Of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against the editor and publisher of Madhyamam newspaper under Section 499 of the IPC on finding that the alleged news item was published without intention or knowledge to harm the reputation of the complainant.
Case Title: Mohammed Mammunhi v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Land Assignment Rules (KLA Rules) lay down that patta will be issued by the Tehsildar only if LA dues are paid by the assignee. The Court thus held the cancellation of patta on the ground that the assignee did not pay LA dues as invalid. However, it refused to pass any orders in favour of the Appellant since he had not sought a relief for recovery of possession. As per proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the court shall not make a declaration of title when the plaintiff being able to seek a further relief does not do that.
Case Title: Mansoor Ali v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court has held that each and every breach of contract would not amount to breach of trust unless it is shown that there was an intent to cheat and defraud from the very inception.
Case Title: Adithya Kiron v The Station House Officer and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court has come to the rescue of Elida Rubielle, a transwoman who was allegedly forced to undergo conversion therapy. It noted that the 19-year-old had made a firm decision to live separately from her parents and said the choice and desire expressed by her needs to be respected.
The Habeas corpus petition was filed by her friend alleging that she was forced to undergo conversion therapy. She had come out as a transwoman. It was submitted that she was forced to undergo conversion therapy at Amrita Hospital to change her gender identity.
Case Title: P. R. Ramachandran V The State Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court has held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority under the Right To Information Act. It stated that Registrar, being a public authority could gather and disclose information obtained from the Co-operative Society under his administrative or supervisory control to the extent permitted by law.
Case Title: Jomi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court has held that teachers cannot be prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for using simple corrective measures for enforcing discipline in schools.
The Court further relied upon Rajan @ Raju, S/o Choyi v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and others (2019) wherein it was stated that nature of injury inflicted by teacher upon the student would determine as to whether he can be proceeded under penal provisions or not. The Court stated that acts of teacher cannot be condoned if they inflict injury on a child out unbridled fury, excitement or rage, inflicts injuries causing unreasonable physical injury or harm.
Case Title: Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala & Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by MLA Mani C Kappan against the order of a Special Judge framing charges against him for allegedly committing offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. MLA Kappan currently represents the Pala constituency in Kerala.
Justice C S Dias quashed the Revision Petition filed by MLA Kappan on finding that the Special Court only has to form a prima facie opinion as to whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court stated that the Special Court was not expected to appreciate the evidence on record and to conclude whether there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused.
Case Title: Dr. Pramod John v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
The Kerala High Court observed that to constitute an offence of 'abandonment of senior citizen', there should be total and complete abandonment without any arrangement of taking care of the person.
Case Title: Thomas Baby v Jojo V. Varghese and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court held that an agreement to tap rubber trees should be registered as per the Kerala Registration Act. The Court held that rubber trees are immovable properties and an agreement with the owner of the plantation to tap the rubber creates an interest in the immovable property. Therefore, the document is a compulsorily registrable one.
The Court rejected the trial court's finding that the agreement constituted only a license, not a lease and no interest was created over an immovable property. The trial court held that latex is the juice of a rubber tree and the agreement creates an interest on the movable property. The High Court however held that the agreement was to take yield from the yielding rubber trees and hence the interest is created on rubber trees. The Court held that simply because the yield is extracted in juice form, it cannot be considered to be a movable property.
The Court considered whether yielding rubber trees can be considered as 'standing timber' so as not to come within the ambit of 'immovable property. It held that they cannot be considered as standing timber as they continue to draw sustenance from the soil and they have not attained stoppage of vegetation and nourishment for further growth
Case Title: State of Kerala V Gireesh Kumar & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court has acquitted one Gireesh Kumar and overturned the death sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court, after he spent over 10 years in jail. He had been convicted on charges of trespassing with intent to commit robbery, rape, and the murder of a 57-year-old woman in Kollam in 2013.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was dealing with his appeal and the reference for confirmation of sentence by the Sessions court.
It found that a botched-up investigation was conducted by the police by adducing sham witnesses and there was a total absence of objective enquiry by the Sessions Court to assess whether the case falls within the rarest of rare category warranting death penalty. It thus granted Rs. 5 lakhs compensation to the appellant for living through the threat of death penalty for ten long years.
Case Title: Eldho Varghese v Liya Jose
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Kerala High Court has held that while transferring a divorce petition to another court, territorial jurisdiction of the Court to which the petition is transferred does not matter.
The High Court has power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer a proceeding to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose the suit. The Court held that competence is not with reference to territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: Jeffin Kuriakose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court has held that aiding committed with the 'intention' of facilitating the offence would attract an offence of abetment punishable under the POCSO Act.
Section 16 of the POCSO Act defines abetment and the punishment is provided under Section 17.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar found that the petitioner aided the minor victim in availing a flat on rent in the presence of the accused and has intentionally facilitated the offence and could be charged under Section 17.
Transfer Of Depreciable Capital Assets Attracts Capital Gains Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: PVR Tourist Home Versus CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has held that the transfer of the depreciable capital assets attracted capital gains tax under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, in the absence of distribution of any capital asset among the partners following a dissolution of the appellant firm.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while upholding the order of the tribunal that the charge of short-term capital gains had to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, observed that the Appellate Tribunal did not, however, proceed to determine the tax effect, if any, that would follow pursuant to its finding as regards the charge of short-term capital gains.
Case Title: The Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court, while condoning the delay of 11 days, observed that filing an appeal in tax matters may require legal and technical assistance. The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the reason for not filing the a ppeal on time was the non-availability of the legal consultant.
Kerala High Court Quashes Order Demanding Late Fee For Delay In Filing GSTR-9C
Case Title: Raju Sreedharan Versus The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court has quashed the order demanding a late fee for delay in filing GSTR-9C.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman relied on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Anishia Chandrakanth v. the Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise, in which it was held that in view of Notification No. 07/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 25/2023, there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non-payment of the late fee for belated GSTR-9C filed by taxpayers before April 1, 2023, the date on which one-time amnesty commences.
Case Title: Sandeep G V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of the trial court disallowing the discharge application of Sandeep, booked for the murder of Dr Vandana Das. The Court stated that the prosecution materials prima facie substantiate the framing of charges under Section 228 of CrPC against Sandeep to proceed with the trial.
Dr Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by Sandeep who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police.
Justice A. Badharudeen while rejecting the defence argument that Sandeep committed the offence out of sudden and grave provocation without an intent to cause murder, observed that long-lasting provocation cannot be construed as sudden and grave provocation.
Case Title: The Authorised Officer v The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court held that a 'secured asset' continues its nature of 'secured asset' even after it is bought by the secured creditor. The Secured creditor can move under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), the Court said.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that in Balakrishna Rama Tarle Dead through LRs and another v Phoenix ARC Privated Limted and Others (2022), the Supreme Court had said that secured creditors can take possession of secured assets post-confirmation of sale also. High Court held that this would mean that the character of the property as a 'secured asset' will continue for the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: Vijayakumari v Jayakumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
The Kerala High Court has held that the penalty for breach of a 'Protection Order' passed under Domestic Violence Act is applicable even if such order also recognizes the woman's right to a 'Shared Household'.
Section 18 of the DV Act pertains to protection orders and Section 19 pertains to residence orders. Ordinarily, an order falling within the category of a residence order does not qualify for being proceeded against under Section 31 of the DV Act. Section 31 prescribes imprisonment of upto one year or fine of upto twenty thousand rupees or both. Bench also said that absence of statutory penalty for breach of residence order is an anomaly, which the law makers must look into.
In the present case, the Court stated the order issued by the Magistrate intended it to be treated as an order of protection specifically to protect her from dispossession from a shared household and not merely as a residence order.
Case Title: Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
The Kerala High Court formulated guidelines related to passing orders by statutory authorities in matters where hearing is already concluded. The Court directed that orders should be passed within 30 days after the hearing is concluded in appeals, revisions and other statutory proceedings. If the order is passed after one month, the order should mention the reason for the delay. Further, if no order is passed for three months, the authority should rehear the parties. If no orders are passed in 6 months, the orders can be set aside for that reason alone. This is to be followed until the State Government comes out with a rule/ guideline regarding this.
Case Title: Ammanoor Parameswaran Chakyar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
The Kerala High Court held that temple dance art forms 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' are religious and ritual ceremonies and whether they can be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of a certain family are matters to be decided by the Tantris of the Temple. The Court stated that Devaswom Managing Committee cannot make performance alteration decisions without the consent of the Tantris.
The Court was considering whether the decision of the temple management committee that temple dance form 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' performed at the Koothambalam (temple theatre) in the Koodalmanikyam Temple in Irinjalakuda could be permitted to be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of Ammannoor Family without the consent of the Tantris of the temple.
Case Title: Jesmon Joy Karippery v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
The Kerala High Court has held that onerous conditions are not necessary to be imposed when an accused in a pending criminal case approaches the Court merely for renewal/re-issuance of passport, without seeking permission to go abroad.
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
The Kerala High Court has cautioned the Police officers as well as Courts to be vigilant against people with ill motivations who misuse the provisions of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO Act) to settle personal scores.
The Court said that the Act has harsh provisions and severe punishments, and it is misused by some people to implicate innocent persons.
The Court said that the Act is misused in cases where there is rivalry in between somebody connected with minor(s). Even in matrimonial disputes, it said, minor children are used for alleging POCSO offences so the father of the child would not get custody.
Case Title: Lijin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that bench hunting by filing different bail applications before different Courts has no legal sanctity and would result in anarchy and shake the faith in the justice delivery system.
The petitioner is the third accused in an offence involving possession of contraband in commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. His first bail application was dismissed by the High Court and the second bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court.
The Court relying upon Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another (1987), Jayaraj A. v. State of Kerala (2009) and Bipin Sunny v. State of Kerala (2023) stated that the subordinate Court should not have entertained the second bail application moved by the accused after his first bail application was dismissed by the High Court. It was stated subsequent bail applications pointing out a change of circumstance have to be filed before the High Court and not before the Sessions Court to maintain judicial discipline unless otherwise permitted by the Superior Court.
Case Title: M. A. Sathar and Others v Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Forum and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
The Kerala High Court has held that a Court cannot give a relief which was not prayed by the plaintiff especially when the defendant did not have an opportunity to raise pleadings in the matter.
Case Title: Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court has held that denial of opportunity to seek public employment forever to a particular class of students because they were unable to obtain an equivalency certificate due to being compelled to complete an impossible task is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In this case, petitioners were denied an equivalency certificate by the Kerala Agricultural University to apply for PSC exams stating that their University did not have ICAR accreditation during their period of study.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. relying upon the 'Doctrine of Impossibility' stated that students cannot be compelled to perform an impossible task. In this case, petitioners were the first batch of students from their University and practically their University could only apply for ICAR accreditation after the successful completion of the course by the first batch of students.
Case Title: Joy Varghese v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the plea moved by a father seeking CBI investigation alleging that his minor son's photographs were illegally used for raising funds for hormone replacement therapy.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that allegations of involvement of transnational racket or gang in doing forced gender change operations were vague and baseless.
Case Title: Prasad P. V. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
Kerala High Court has held that while Court is exercising its power to quash proceedings, the Court cannot examine the correctness or genuineness of the complaint. It observed that the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations.
The Court held that to quash the proceedings, the accused should be able to show that the allegations against him do not constitute the offence alleged.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
The Kerala High Court has held that a woman's partner who is not legally married cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC for the offence of cruelty. The Court clarified that husband means married man, woman's partner in marriage and does encompass a woman's partner without legal marriage for prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the proceedings against the petitioner who was the live-in partner of the complainant woman.
Case Title: Sindhu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
The Kerala High Court declared that under the provisions of the Kerala Anti–Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA), the District Magistrate does not have the power to fix the period of detention. Only the Government can fix the period, that too, after receiving the report of the Advisory Board.
Case Title: Arun S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against a man for allegedly making 'sexual gestures' degrading women's dignity, since disclosure of sexual gestures or acts was not discernible from the FIR, Final Report or other materials.
Case Title: XXXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
The Kerala High Court held that onerous, heavy and unaffordable costs imposed upon the accused for recalling witnesses would violate their rights to recall witnesses to defend their case and establish their innocence.
Case Title: Suresh and Others v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
Kerala High Court denies anticipatory bail to the accused who allegedly tied an HIV patient in their care home to the window and beat her with a wooden log. She suffered multiple fractures. The complaint was given by the victim herself.
The Investigating Officer submitted before the Court that it is learnt that the petitioners treat their inmates in a very inhuman manner. He stated that custodial interrogation and recovery is necessary for full investigation.
Justice C. S. Dias observed that the prima facie materials establish petitioner's involvement in the crime. The Court refused to grant them anticipatory bail saying that custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be done.
Case Title: Omana Somanadhan v Deepu Soman and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
The Kerala High Court has held that if an order of residence will completely negate and annihilate the rights of the respondent, the court can order for alternate residence if it will protect the rights of both parties.
Decision By Income Tax Officer Who Did Not Hear The Case; Kerala High Court Quashes The Order
Case Title: Sri. Johnson Koomullil Thomas Versus The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
The Kerala High Court has held that if the income tax officer who hears the case does not render the decision, it would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the doctrine 'he who heard must decide or he who decides must hear' applies to statutory authorities. Section 148A of the Income Tax Act provides for the opportunity to be heard by the assessee.
Case Title: Aaron Construction Co. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
The Kerala High Court has held that the non-filing of returns even after receipt of the assessment order is fatal for the assessee.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that it may be true that the respondents did not issue a formal notice as required under Section 62(1) of the Income Tax Act before completing the assessment on a best judgment basis under the said provision, but the fact remains that the appellant could have obtained a nullification of said assessment order if he had filed the return at least within thirty days of the receipt of the assessment order.
Case Title: Remya Haridas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
In A Writ petition filed by former MP Remya Haridas, the High Court ordered that the extension given to the current Director General of Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) is illegal. Joy Elamon, General Director crossed the age of 60 and is therefore not qualified to continue as the Director General. The State had argued that the extension was given only till a new appointment was made.
The Court said that Joy Elamon continuing in the post after he attained 60 years is illegal and improper as it is against the Memorandum of Association. Justice Basant Balaji observed: “The Memorandum of Association of a registered society is a charter of the company. The Governing Council approved the said Memorandum on 16.01.2018, so all appointments and the functioning of the society shall be in tune with the memorandum of Association. Clause 43 states explicitly that the Director General recruited from the open market can be allowed until he has attained the age of 60 years, and reappointment is permitted subject to age restriction.”
Case Title: Abdul Razak v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
The Kerala High Court has stated that the importance of constructing national highways for the larger public good should not be over-emphasized since it is equally crucial to consider the interests of the people of a particular locality to promote the common good effectively.
Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the writ appeal taking note of the existence of a vehicular underpass close by to the location suggested by the appellants.
Case Title: Vivek Joy v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
The Kerala High Court has laid down that no penal consequences would be attracted under Section 494 of the IPC for solemnizing second marriage during the operation of ex parte decree of divorce from the first marriage, even if the ex parte decree was set aside on a subsequent date.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that there was no legal marriage subsisting between the parties when the second marriage took place due to the operation of the ex parte decree of divorce, even if it was set aside later.
Case Title: Soman T. N. v Additional District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
The Kerala High Court has ordered that the District Magistrate has to re-ascertain all the criteria before allowing an application for increasing the permissible amount of explosive one can store, from 25 kilograms to 100 kilograms. The Court observed that the parameters of enquiry for 25 kilograms is not similar to the parameters for 100 kilograms. Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “The parameters of enquiry for storing 25 kilograms cannot be said to be similar and the same, as the parameters for an enquiry storing 100 kilogram.”
Case Title: Joby George v Siby Valloran
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
The Kerala High Court recently remarked that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have an active role in decision-making process and cannot act as a mute spectator while considering claims.
Justice V G Arun referred to a government order (G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD) and Rule 387 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to state that the Tribunal has powers to take second opinion if they have doubts regarding the authenticity or correctness of disability certificate.
Case Title: Sajith Shyam v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail application filed by an accused who was allegedly part of a human organ trafficking racket. The Court stated that evidence indicates the involvement of the accused in an organized international crime warranting investigation by the National Investigation Agency. The allegations include trafficking financially vulnerable donors to Iran where their organs were removed, followed by importing these organs to India for transplantation.
Justice C. S. Dias stated that there is prima evidence showing his involvement in organ trafficking such as evidence of call data records and monetary transactions that establish his connection with the prime accused who is absconding.
Case Title: Pradeep v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
The Kerala High Court laid down that Freedom of the Press may not include Sting Operations in all cases, but Sting Operations conducted by recognized media persons have to be considered differently, given their crucial role as the Fourth Estate in a democracy. It stated that the Court should assess whether the Sting Operation was carried out with bonafide intention to uncover the truth and inform the public and this must be determined on a case-to-case basis.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the Press have to be bonafide and vigilant while conducting sting operations and their intention should be to promote democracy and not to harass or humiliate anyone.
Assessment Order Downloaded From Common Portal Amounts To A Valid Service: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sunil Kumar K Versus The State Tax Officer-I, Kottarakkara
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
The Kerala High Court has held that the assessment order downloaded from the common portal amounts to a valid service.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has upheld the decision of the Single Bench in which it was held that the petitioner had downloaded the assessment order from the very same portal, and therefore, the delay occasioned in retrieving the assessment order from the portal was a predicament that the appellant found himself in because of his own latches.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
The Kerala High Court has held that the tax effect in the appeals filed by the income tax department pertaining to assessment years 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, and 2010–11 is well below the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore and is liable to be dismissed.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that, as per Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, appeals cannot be maintained by the revenue before the High Court if if the tax effect in the appeal does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. A subsequent Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated August 8, 2019 was issued by the CBDT, and the monetary limit has since been enhanced to Rs. 1 crore.
Case Title: Sujith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of raping a woman on finding that the sexual intercourse was voluntary and not an outcome of misconception of fact.
In this case, the complainant alleged that the petitioner who was a tempo van driver subjected her to rape in 2005, 2011, 2015 and 2016.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that no complaint was lodged till 2017 and a crime was registered alleging the commission of rape only after a long period of 13 years. The Court noted that the sexual relations between the complainant and petitioner were voluntary with her consent and not based on any misconception of fact.
Case Title: Suneeh Babu v Maneesha
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court has directed a Family Court to conduct joint trial of an Original Petition (OP) and Miscellaneous Case (MC) filed under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance.
The petitioner/husband had approached the High Court against the dismissal of his joint trial application of an OP and MC by the Family Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that join trial would save judicial time and energy.
Case Title: Rajesh Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court has directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial against the petitioner who allegedly cheated, defrauded and had forceful sexual intercourse with a woman after taking her to Muscat, Oman by offering her a job at his house.
The Court referred to the Apex Court judgment in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2022), wherein it was laid down that there was no necessity of any sanction if a part of the offence was committed in India.
After analyzing the facts of the present case, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that sanction was not required under Section 188 CrPC to proceed against the petitioner since the offence has been partly committed in India and partly abroad.
Case Title: Abdul Rahman v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by Abdul Rahman, a Malayali businessman seeking to quash the FIR registered against him on behalf of a UAE-based bank for cheating of 42.898 million UAE dirhams.
Rahman, the owner of Hexsa Oil and Gas Services, is accused of absconding from Dubai after taking a loan from the Invest Bank, Sharjah and diverting the money for his personal purposes.
Case Title: Raju George @ N M Raju v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail applications moved by four members of the same family who were arrayed as accused for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust and offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
Justice C S Dias observed that the petitioners were accused of being involved in more than 100 crimes registered across various police stations in the State. The Court noted that petitioners were charged with committing serious economic offences, where they took money from depositors by promising them high interest rates and subsequently cheated them by siphoning off more than 8.2 crore rupees.
Case Title: Dr. Radhakrishna S Naik v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court has held that every person has to inform the police within a reasonable time as per Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act if they have an apprehension that an offence has been committed against a minor. It held that a person will be prosecuted only when there is a deliberate omission to report the offence to the police.
Justice A. Badharudeen held that a reasonable time must be given to doctors to inform the police about such incidents.
Case Title: CA P J Johney v The GST Council Through Its Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court recently directed for completion of the selection process for establishing the GST Appellate Tribunal.
“In the light of the fact that the process has already been initiated to establish the GST Appellate Tribunal, we order that entire selection process shall be completed within a period of four months”, ordered the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
Kerala High Court has held that an act of showing a person's private part to a child and asking her to measure it will constitute the offence of sexual harassment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Justice A. Badharudeen observed; “In this case, as I have already pointed out, lifting of dhothi to show his private part, and then asking the victim to measure his penis, are the allegations. The same would squarely attract Section 11(1) of the PCSO Act as well as under Section 509 IPC, prima facie.”
Case Title: Geetha S v Pradeep G
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court recently granted permission for the dissolution of marriage upon the wife's request, despite the husband seeking dismissal of the petition and not pursuing divorce.
The Court stated that parties were unable to lead a meaningful matrimonial life and that forcing one spouse to continue in marriage would create mental agony and that would undermine the purpose of marriage.
The matrimonial appeal was filed by the appellant/wife against the dismissal of her original petition seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of matrimonial cruelty.
Case Title: Abdul Khader v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court has laid down the following principles to determine whether the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C) or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is applicable when an appeal is filed.
- An appeal filed on or after 01.07.2024 shall be governed by BNSS
- Irrespective of whether the conviction was given on or before 01.07.2024 or if the appeal is filed on or after 01.07.2024, BNSS is to be followed
- All applications filed and steps taken in appeals prior to 01.07.2024 shall be governed by Cr. P.C
- When an appeal/ application is re-presented after curing defects, its date of filing shall be the date of its first presentation.
SAD Refunds Can't Be Denied For Taking Away Facility Of Re-Crediting DEPB Scrips: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary (Customs-III/VI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has held that if the appellant/assessee satisfies the conditions in Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for the purposes of refund of the 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD), then merely because the facility of re-crediting the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrips has been taken away, the refund that the appellant is entitled to by virtue of the notification cannot be denied.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that since the Delhi High Court has already annulled the Circular dated April 29, 2013, the respondent-department is now legally obliged to consider the refund application preferred by the appellant independently, on its merits, to see whether the conditions specified in Notification 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007 have been satisfied by the appellant.
Case Title: The South Indian Bank Ltd Versus ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court has held that the South Indian Bank is entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the long-term finance provided by it for the construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purposes.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that a view has been expressed that the National Housing Bank was not entitled to the benefits of the unamended Section 36(1)(viii), on the ground that it was not engaged directly in the long-term financing for the construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes
Case Title: Unitac Energy Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court has held that the disallowance operates against erring employer assessee when employees' contribution to EPF/ESI not made within the due date.
The bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that where the employees' contribution to EPF/ESI was not made over by the employer to the statutory authorities within the due date prescribed for making those payments under the respective statutes, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) would operate against the erring employer assessee.
Case Title: Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Kerala High Court held that the direction of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) which held that for an arrest under UAPA to be valid the arrestee should be furnished with grounds of arrest in writing, would only need to be applied prospectively.
It was held that arrests made before the date of judgment cannot be considered invalid for the reason that the arrestee was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing.
Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to a 23-year-old woman who had been in judicial custody for 80 days for allegedly throwing her infant child from her apartment building onto the road in an attempt to conceal the birth.
The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner, an unmarried lady gave birth to a stillborn infant without knowing its consequences. It also noted that the investigation was complete and she was in judicial custody for 80 days.
Case Title: Aboobakkar @ Abu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused cannot unilaterally demand the victim or witnesses to subject themselves to lie detection tests like Narco Analysis Test or Polygraph Test to prove defense case.
The petitioner, who is the first accused in a sexual assault case has approached the High Court for conducting lie detection test on the minor victim and her parents to prove his defense.
Case Title: Saritha K. P. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 462
The Kerala High Court held that if the Government fails to consider the representation of a person put in preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA) in a prompt manner, his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) is violated and due to this reason, the detention order can be quashed.
The detention order was passed on 11.04.2024 but the order and accompanying documents were forwarded to the government only on 21.06.2024. The Court held that this delay of more than 2 months and 11 days is enough to vitiate the order of detention.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Thomas Chacko @Shibu and Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
The Kerala High Court has commuted the death penalty imposed upon Thomas Chacko alias Shibu to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission for murdering his nephews aged 3 and 7. The Court also imposed a fine of rupees 5 lakh upon the accused which shall be paid to the mother of the deceased children.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that Constitutional Courts have the power to substitute the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court to imprisonment for a fixed term without remission in appropriate cases.
Human Rights Commission A Quasi-Judicial Body, Must Pass Reasoned Orders: Kerala High Court
Case Title: T J Varghese v Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
The Kerala High Court has held that the Human Rights Commission being a Quasi-Judicial Body is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and must pass reasoned orders after considering the merits of the complaint.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M set aside an order issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on finding that an unreasoned order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without hearing the parties on their respective pleadings.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Nishad
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
The Kerala High Court held that to auction a vehicle attached under Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS Act), the competent authorities need not wait till the end of the trial.
The Court held that the scheme of BUDS Act is to give priority to realise assets in the custody of accused and distribute the proceeds among the victim of the offence. The Act says that an application for confirmation of attachment and permission of sale is to be filed within 30 days from the date of provisional attachment. This shows that the sale should take place in a time bound manner.
Case Title: Musthafa V. M. v Prajesh and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
The Kerala High Court held that for a person to be considered a victim, there should be some harm to the mind or reputation which is perceivable from the materials on record.
The Court made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed against the decision of Sessions Court whereby persons accused of conspiring to kill the appellant were acquitted. The Court said that there was no perceivable harm to his mind or reputation.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Arun Majeed
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
The Kerala High Court has held that when a property kept not for trade but for investment purposes is sold, the gain has to fall under the head 'capital gains' and such a transaction is only taxable under capital gain and not under adventure of trade.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the burden is upon the Department to show that a transaction effected by the assessee is an adventure in the nature of trade. Merely because the assessee makes some profit in a particular transaction, it cannot be treated as an adventure in the nature of trade so long as the initial intention or reason for investing money was to hold the property and use it for a different purpose.
Case Title: Mythree Associates Versus Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner/assessee has paid tax at the prescribed rate on the materials procured by him from the Travancore Devaswom Board, and since this amount has already been paid over to the State Exchequer, any denial of credit to the assessee solely on the ground that the Travancore Devaswom Board/Truvabharanam Commissioner was not registered under the KVAT Act would be unjust.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association challenging the levy of GST on supply of goods and services to its members.
Section 7(1)(aa) explains that the person and its members or constituents shall be deemed to be two separate persons, and the supply of activities or transactions inter se shall be deemed to take place from one such person to another.
Case Title: The Appellate Authority v The State Information Commission
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
The Kerala High Court stated that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) has the power to destroy records in accordance with the Office Manual prescribing record preservation procedures and Rules made under the Kerala Destruction of Records Act. However, the Court deemed that it was improper for the KPSC to destroy records while an application under the Right to Information Act was pending.
Justice Easwaran S stated that the State Information Officer (SIO) can take action against the PSC if they destroy records during the pendency of the RTI application.
Case Title: Lohith S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
The Kerala High Court has allowed the plea moved by two youngsters seeking to change their religion in their school certificates since they have embraced a new religion.
It stated that even if there is a lack of a specific provision enabling change of religion in school certificates, the petitioners are entitled to correct their religion in their records on embracing a new religion.
Case Title: Sahesh Rafeeque v Nural Inshira Binti Abdul Kareem
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
The Kerala High Court has quashed a complaint filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (MWPRD Act) by a woman with Malaysian citizenship.
Section 2(c) of MWPRD Act defines Magistrate as Magistrate of First Class exercising jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure in the area where the divorced woman resides
Case Title: Allen Skariah Thomas @ Allen Thomas @ Cyril v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
The Kerala High Court has held that denial of ordinary leave to convicts can be detrimental since it reduces their chances for better rehabilitation and re-socialization into society. The Court further stated that ordinary leave cannot be denied to convicts by relying upon vague police reports.
The petitioner, a convict undergoing life imprisonment for murdering his father has approached the High Court seeking for grant of ordinary prison leave after undergoing more than 6 years of imprisonment based on adverse police reports.
Case Title: Hyder Ali v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no scope to put criminal liability on a police officer for asking the victim and her mother to come the next day to give their statement regarding an offence under the Protection of Children Under Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) due to there not being any woman officer at the police station.
The court said that while a police officer is criminally liable under Section 21 of the Act if he does not record the offence when he receives information regarding it, in this case, there was no willful or deliberate omission. It also observed that the statement was recorded without much delay.
Case Title: Libin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
The Kerala High Court has held that a judge should not act like a post office or a mouth piece of prosecution but it should also not make a roving enquiry and weigh the evidence akin to conducting a trial against the accused while considering a discharge application under Section 227 and 239 of CrPC.
Case Title: XXX V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
The Kerala High Court has held that crimes that tarnish women's dignity and honour, such as rape, POCSO Act offences cannot be quashed on compromise or settlement. However, if the accused and victim have married and are living together peacefully, this may be a humanitarian ground to allow the quashing of the case.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Adv. Sojan Pavanios
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
The Kerala High Court has ordered 28 lawyers of the Kottayam Bar Association to offer legal aid services for a period of 6 months, on accepting their unconditional apology for purging the contempt charges against them.
The Court had initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against these lawyers for protesting and allegedly hurling abusive language against a female Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), in Kottayam.
Goods Transported For Own Use, No Intention To Evade Tax, Kerala High Court Deletes Penalty
Case Title: State Of Kerala Versus Petrolink Data Services (P) Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
The Kerala High Court has held that the assessee, immediately after the goods were detained, produced the statutory declarations in Form 16 to demonstrate that the goods that were being transported were for the own use of the assessee.
Kerala High Court Allows Adjustment Refund Amount Towards Amount payable under Amnesty Scheme
Case Title: S. Vijayan Versus Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Taxes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
The Kerala High Court has held that it is open to the department to consider an adjustment of the refund amount due to the appellant towards the amounts due from him by way of settlement under the Amnesty Scheme.
Illegal 'Talaq-E-Sunnat' Not Punishable As 'Triple Talaq': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sajid Muhammedkutty v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that if the intention is not to pronounce instantaneous and irrevocable talaq, it cannot be considered as talaq–ul–biddat.
Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act Supersedes Muslim Personal Law : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 will supersede the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The Court stated that every Indian citizen regardless of their religion and location is bound to adhere to the law prohibiting child marriage.
Case Title: Rasheeda Bano v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to grant Indian citizenship to two women aged 21 and 24, without insisting upon a Renunciation certificate from the Pakistan government.
The Court stated that the government cannot compel the petitioners to produce a Renunciation Certificate since they migrated to India after surrendering their Pakistani passports before attaining the age of majority.
Assessments Getting Time Barred By 31.03.2017 Can Continue Only Upto 31.03.2018: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Intersource Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
The Kerala High Court has held that the assessments that were getting time barred by 31.03.2017 can continue only up to 31.03.2018.
Case Title: XXX V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
The Kerala High Court has cautioned the POCSO Courts to be vigilant whilst considering allegations of child's sexual abuse levelled by his/her mother against the father, especially when there are ongoing matrimonial and custody disputes between them.
Case Title: Mammen Varghese v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court has held that cartoonists, being a part and parcel of the Press and Media, are entitled to Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
The Court thus quashed proceedings initiated against the Printer and Publisher, Editorial Director, Managing Editor, Editor and Chief Editor of Kerala news daily 'Malayala Manorama', under Section 2 of Prevention of Insult To National Honour Act, 1971 for allegedly insulting the National Flag.
The specific case was that Malayala Manorama, in connection with the 70th Independence Day celebrations, published a caricature depicting Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian flag, with the top side of saffron portion of the flag outlined with a black line.
Case Title: B Prakash v Lazitha
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
The Kerala High Court held that a male child who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from their father as per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of CrPC and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Case Title: A. A. Rahim v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal filed by Rajya Sabha MP A. A. Rahim challenging the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, Thiruvananthapuram allowing him to hold a diplomatic passport for only two years.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 22-Yr-Old Woman Accused In Kollam Child Kidnapping Case
Case Title: Anupama Padmakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail application of Anupama, a 22-year-old daughter of the family who was allegedly involved in kidnapping a six-year-old minor female child in Kollam district.
Case Title: Bharatheeya Jyothisha Vichara Sangham v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
The Kerala High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction to issue directions for ensuring the safety of pilgrims and others during the Balitharpanam and Karkidakavavu rituals conducted by devotees in public places such as Shanghumukham, Thirumullavaram, Varkala and other places during the Karkidakavavu festival on August 3, 2024.
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India v P. V. George and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
The Kerala High Court held that for arbitration proceedings other than under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply unless expressly mentioned in the law under which the arbitration proceedings were inititaed. It was thus observed that the Limitation act would not apply to arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act.
Case Title: Anujith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
The Kerala High Court has held that the mode of examining a victim through the Special Court (intermediary) in a POCSO case as per Section 33 (2) of the POCSO Act remains unchanged even if the victim attains the age of majority during the trial.
Section 33 (2) of the POCSO Act mandates that the Special Public Prosecutor or the defence counsel shall give their questions to the Special Court, which will then ask those questions to the child victim during the examination. Section 33 (2) prohibits direct examination of the victim.
Case Title: Litty Mary John v Manoj K. Varghese
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
The Kerala High Court observed that a woman who complains of being in a loveless relationship with her husband who is allegedly living a wayward life and acting under the influence of alcohol would not be able to enumerate each and every incident of cruelty.
Case Title: South Indian Bank v Directorate of Enforcement and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
Kerala High Court has held that even though ECIR is an internal and administrative document, the same can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income -Tax (Exemptions) Kochi Versus M/S.Kerala Cricket Association
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
The Kerala High Court has remanding the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to determine whether income received by the Kerala Cricket Association during the assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 would partake of the nature of exempted income going by the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has set aside the impugned orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh determination of the issue in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. The Supreme Court held that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the heading "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce, or providing any service for any consideration.
Kerala High Court Says It Lacks 'Supervisory Jurisdiction' Over NCDRC
Case Title: DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court has held that it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only over Courts and Tribunals falling within its territorial jurisdiction.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu stated that NCDRC falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition as not maintainable under Article 227. “….a close reading and comprehensive analysis of the precedents leads us to the conclusion that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 only over those courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, over the NCDRC, falling falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”
Case Title: Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate Court cannot direct a party to deposit part of the amount covered by impugned verdict, as a prerequisite to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The delay condonation plea and the appeal filed by the revision petitioner were dismissed by the Sessions Court citing non-compliance with its order to pay maintenance arrears.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that it was legally impermissible for the First Appellate Court to impose a condition directing payment of any amount covered in the impugned appeal for considering the delay condonation petition.
Case Title: Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court has held that 'Group of Companies' doctrine is not applicable when the third party is not even referred to the arbitration. The Supreme Court adopted the 'Doctrine of Group of Companies' in Cox and Kings Ltd. v SAP India Private Limited and Other (2023).
The Apex Court held that a non- signatory affiliate or a sister or parent company can be a party to the arbitration agreement, if there is mutual intention of the signatories and non-signatories to this effect. The Supreme Court observed that the non-signatory's casual connection with the negotiation and execution of the contract is a factor to determine the mutual intent to arbitrate.
Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court has quashed the decision of the Director of General Education in so far as it makes 25 Saturdays as working days out of 35 Saturdays in an academic year. The Court observed that the decision to implement a six day working week with Saturdays working was made without considering its adverse effects on the mental health of students.
In this case, several writ petitions were filed by teachers, their associations, students and parents challenging the competence of the Director of General Education by publishing the academic calendar for 2024-25 by making 25 Saturdays as school working days.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the decision was taken without hearing the views of students, teachers, parents and other stakeholders. The Court observed that the decision was made without considering its advantages and disadvantages through any expert studies.
Case Title: Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court has stated that the untimely death of the husband is sufficient reason to condone 20 days delay in filing an application seeking leave under Section 394 of CrPC.
Section 394 of CrPC provides for abatement of criminal appeal on the appellant's death. As per the provision, near relatives can apply for leave to continue the appeal within 30 days of the death of the appellant against the sentence of death or imprisonment.
Here, the wife filed an application seeking leave to continue appeal after 50 days of her husband's death.
Case Title: Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
The Kerala High Court held that a Trial Court can compare the disputed handwriting and prove the handwriting of a person in a case where the accused had already admitted his signature in a cheque dishonour case.
In the present case, the accused was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had claimed that while the signature on the offending cheque was his, the contents on the cheque were not filled by him.
Justice K. Babu invoked the trial court's power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, and held: “Therefore if the accused makes a request for comparison of his admitted or proved writings with disputed writings, the Trial Court shall invoke Section 73 of the Evidence Act.”
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
The Kerala High Court has stated that serious offences alleged against the accused like rape cannot be quashed merely based on a settlement affidavit filed by the defacto complainant.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the petition filed by the accused stating that whether the relationship was consensual or not were matters to be decided in a trial. It was held that: “Whether the relationship is consensual, is a matter to be decided during evidence and merely relying on the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, this Court cannot quash the proceedings, holding that there are no materials, prima facie, to go for trial.”
Case Title: Sunil P P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor and hospital staff who approached the Court to quash proceedings initiated against them for allegedly taking and sharing videos and images of a woman undergoing a cesarean operation to deliver three children, through WhatsApp.
The crime was registered against the doctors under Section 354(C) (Voyeurism) of IPC, Sections 66(E) (Punishment for violation of Privacy) and 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case was made out against petitioners involving serious allegations.
Case Title: Prakash v Vandana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
The Kerala High Court quashed a defamation case against media persons of Reporter Channel who aired a show called 'Big Story' that discussed a book about Mata Amritanandamayi and her Math. The Court stated that media persons can conduct discussions about books available in the public domain and doing so would only constitute fair comment or criticism, which falls under their freedom of speech.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted that the book 'Holy Hell' is available on Amazon and other public domains, and it has also been translated into Malayalam. The Court stated that petitioners being media persons cannot be expected to stay mum and not discuss about a book available on the public domain. The Court also observed that if Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees were not taking action against the author or publisher of the book, they could not pursue defamation claims against media personnel for discussing the book which is available on public domain.
Kerala High Court Alters Murder Conviction Of Ex-CPI(M) Leader Who Was Sentenced To Death
Case Title: State v R. Baiju
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
The Kerala High Court has set aside the death sentence awarded to former CPI(M) local leader and Chairman of Cherthala Municipal Standing Committee, R. Baiju convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha of murdering Divakaran, a member of the Indian National Congress.
A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice M. B. Snehalatha found that the charge of murder was not proved against him and held he could be found guilty of only culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, Employee Of Licensee, Not An Employer: Kerala High Court
Case Name: C K Ssidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, while deciding writ petitions held that an employee who is merely associated with the conduct of business and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf, cannot be said to be an employer.
The definition of “employer” under Section 2© of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 was examined by the court. It was noted that the definition included any person who employs, directly or indirectly, other persons in the establishment. However, it was concluded by the court that the employee did not meet this definition since he was merely an employee and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf.
Based on the above findings, the writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders that held the employee liable for the welfare fund contributions were set aside by the court. It was concluded that he was merely an employee and not an employer, as defined under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
The Kerala High Court has stated that it will not be feasible to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to shift 15 bio toilet units kept at Sabarimala to relief camps at Wayanad due to the anticipated large number of pilgrims for Chingamasapooja from August 16, 2024.
Case Title: Bar Council of Kerala and Others v Unnikrishnan H. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
The Kerala High Court held that it cannot interfere with the timeline fixed by the Bar Council of Kerala for enrollment. The Court noticed that the Bar Council fixed the timeline based on the instructions of the Bar Council of India and the Court should not interfere with it.
Case Title: K. S. Sivarajan v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
The Kerala High Court has allowed a plea to quash the final report and stay further proceedings in a case of rape. The Court observed that the complainant being a social worker ought to have raised a complaint against the alleged sexual assault without much delay. Reportedly, there was a delay of three and a half months in filing the F.I.R.
Case Title: Indian Space Research Organization V M/S.Roopam Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
The Kerala High Court has held that the Writ Court does not always lack jurisdiction to address disputes involving a 'State' entity under Article 12 when it enters into a purely contractual relationship with a private party.
Case Title: P. M. Kurian v Deepa Mohanan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
The Kerala High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on an advocate who filed a 'frivolous' contempt petition against a judicial officer. The contempt petition was filed alleging that the judicial officer colluded with an advocate and parties in disobeying the directions of the High Court in a case being contested by the contempt applicant.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
The Kerala High Court held that when prosecution allegations make out prime facie case, then whether a sexual relationship took place after obtaining consent on the misconception of fact on the promise of marriage has to be decided during evidence.
Case Title: Joel Joji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
The Kerala High Court has held that the criminal antecedents of the accused would not stand in the way of compounding an offence that is otherwise compoundable under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Chandra Babu v Vidya Pushpan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Kerala High Court held that a couple who did a marriage ceremony when their previous marriages were subsisting and lived together for a considerable period of time cannot be said to have a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' as mentioned in the definition of 'domestic relation' in Section 2(f) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act).
Case Title: Union of India v Colonel Shashi Thomas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
The Kerala High Court has held that war injury pension and disability pension claims are not a bounty but a right available to eligible military personnel. The Court held that provisions of Pension Regulations for military personnel must receive beneficial interpretation.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Jacky and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
The Kerala High Court has acquitted 7 convicts in the murder of gangster Santhosh, also known as Jet Santhosh. Two of the convicts were sentenced to death and others were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge – I, Trivandrum.
The Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran and Justice Syam Kumar V. passed the order after finding the approver, on whom the prosecution case was heavily based, was not reliable.
Case Title: Salim and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The High Court held that the principle of compounding of offence applicable for Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is also applicable to the compounding of offences under Section 67A of the Abkari Act. Section 320(8) of the CrPC says that compounding will have the effect of acquittal.
Case Title: C. Shukkur v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
The Kerala High Court came down heavily on a lawyer who approached the Court with a Public Interest Litigation requesting the establishment of a centralized system for collecting and managing the disaster relief funds meant to aid landslide victims in Wayanad. The petitioner alleged that the funds being collected for the relief of the Wayanad landslide victims, were not reaching the intended beneficiaries.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala High Court has allowed the bail applications moved by two boys aged 19 and 20 years old, cousins of a 17-year-old girl who lodged a false POCSO case against them for objecting to her love affair.
Case Title: Suhail M A v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The Kerala High Court has directed that stringent conditions, at least in the form of a bank guarantee must be imposed while directing the release of vehicles dumping waste onto public property.
Case Title: The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v Joy Mathew
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice N. Nagaresh, while deciding a petition, held that an employee is entitled to arrears of salary because the employer could not produce enough evidence to prove that employee was engaged in dual employment.
Case Title: Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Of Mr. Mattummel Kunhiraman Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
The Kerala High Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the first appellate authority's order under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has granted the liberty to the appellant to prefer a statutory revision before the District Collector against the order, by which the First Appellate Authority affirmed the assessment order of the Tahsildar, assessing the buildings belonging to the appellant to building tax.
Case Title: Global Distributors Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the orders of assessment and summary of orders for the years July 2017 and August 2017 under the CGST/SGST Acts. The registration of the petitioner had been cancelled on 12.12.2021 with effect from 30.11.2019, and the petitioner was therefore unaware of the orders passed and did not get an opportunity to file returns.
The orders were uploaded on the portal, which had not been accessed by the petitioner since the registration had been cancelled and the petitioner was no longer continuing with the business.
The Kerala High Court has quashed the assessment orders and remanded the matter back on condition of remitting Rs. 10 lakhs towards the GST liabilities.
Case Title: K P Aliyar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an obscene act is committed to the annoyance of others in any public place in or near any public place attracts an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen added that 'in or near public place' mentioned in Section 294 (b) of the IPC is wide enough to include areas in the vicinity of public places and does not limit its orbit to absolute public place alone.
Case Title: Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
The Kerala High Court has directed the judicial officers of the district judiciary to exercise caution when considering allegations of defamation against newspapers and media personnel.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that unwanted legal prosecutions against newspapers and media persons under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC would amount to violation of Freedom of the Press and people's right to know. The Court thus directed the Trial Courts to be vigilant while considering prosecutions alleging defamation against Press and Media persons.
Case Title: Shaji M. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
The Kerala High Court has held that having carnal intercourse against 'the order of nature' mentioned in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code looks only into the nature of the act and not the relationship of the parties involved.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish was hearing an appeal where the appellant was convicted of raping his daughter by the Sessions Court.
No Fundamental Right To Elect Or Be Elected: Kerala High Court
Case Title: K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
The Kerala High Court has held that the Court have to strictly go by the law and cannot apply rules of equity in an election matter. The Court held that right to elect though fundamental to a democracy is neither a fundamental right neither a common law right.
Justice C. S. Sudha observed: “Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore subject to statutory limitations. An election petition petition is not an action in common law, nor an equity,”
Case Title: Shiyas S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 lacks jurisdiction to consider applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that Gram Nyayalaya cannot deal with applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking maintenance or mahr to be given to the wife at the time of divorce.
Case Title: Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her husband for offence under Section 377 IPC.
The Court observed that after the definition of rape in Section 375 was amended in 2013, forcible acts of oral sex committed by a male accused on a female victim is an offence of rape. However, since a wife can't prosecute her husband for offence of rape, neither section 377 not section 375 will stand against the accused.
The Court also noted that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not have an offence equivalent to Section 377 IPC. The rationale for this omission, the bench said, is not stated in the statute.
Case Title: The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court has ruled that if a Credit Information Company such as TransUnion CIBIL Limited fails to update the credit ratings of its borrowers promptly, it would infringe upon their fundamental rights.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that borrowers reputation is protected under right to dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
The Kerala High Court has called for public debate and discussion to ensure that recommendations made by Justice Hema Committee, to alleviate grievances regarding harassment and discrimination raised by women working in Malayalam film industry, are implemented promptly.
Bench of Justice V. G. Arun thus dismissed the petition filed by producer Sajimon Parayil against publication the Committee report. It also dismissed the apprehensions that unwarranted media coverage about the report would cause irreparable damage to individuals and the industry as a whole.
No Parent Would File False Case Alleging Rape Of Unmarried Daughter: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in normal human conduct, no parent would lodge a false case alleging that their unmarried daughter was raped.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice M B Snehalatha thus upheld the conviction of a 27-year-old man for raping and sexually abusing the victim and condoned the six-month delay in filing the FIR, given that the victim was a 13-year-old vulnerable teenager.
Case Title: Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 354A of the IPC alleging sexual harassment by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law.
The sister-in-law (3rd accused) and mother-in-law (4th accused) of the de facto complainant had approached the High Court seeking to quash the offences alleged against them under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that when the legislature has used the term 'any man' and not 'any person' under Section 354A of the IPC, overt acts done by women cannot attract the said offence.
Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing criminal activity committed by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Section 111 (1)(i) defines 'organized crime syndicate' and Section 111 (1) (ii) defines 'continuing unlawful activity'.
Justice C S Dias observed that prime facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been filed against him in any Court in the 'preceding period of last ten years' to satisfy the mandate of 'continuing unlawful activity' as defined under Section 111(1) (ii).
Case Title: A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
The Kerala High Court refused to discharge former army officer and Malayalam movie director A. K. Raveendran, also known as Major Ravi, in a criminal case over making sexually coloured remarks against a TV news anchor.
The Court remarked that the petitioner, who is a celebrity and a former army officer, should be careful while making statements as common people watch him and his words.
Compensation To Discontinue Commodity Brokerage Business Chargeable To Income Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
The Kerala High Court has held that the amount received by the assessee is under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business that was carried on by the assessee; it would attract the provisions of Section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act and make the receipt chargeable to income tax under the heading of “Profits and gains of business or profession.”.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that Section 28(va)(a) of the Income Tax Act does not restrict the operation of the provision to only amounts received by way of non-compete fee. The words used in the said provision do not admit any restricted meaning. So long as the amount received by the assessee was received for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business and the amount received was not on account of the transfer of the right to manufacture, produce, or process any article or thing or on account of the transfer of the right to carry on any business, which receipts would have been chargeable under the head “capital gains," there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing Authority that brought the amounts received by the assessee from BNP Paribas to tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.
Case Title: Sham P S v State Bank of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Bank of India to release the title deeds of a residential property mortgaged by a petitioner on payment of outstanding debts under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.
The Bank did not confer the benefit of the OTS Scheme to the petitioner, citing a delay in payment of the second instalment within the stipulated time.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the Bank did not raise an objection saying that the petitioner delayed the payments of the second instalment or that the OTS Scheme had lapsed. The Court thus observed that the Bank accepted the second instalment paid by the petitioner under the OTS Scheme, even if it was made with some delay.
Applications For Condonation Of Delay, Should Not Be Too Hyper-Technical: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mary Queens Mission Hospital Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court has held that the applications for condonation of delay should have been considered without being too hyper-technical and in a judicious manner.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the delay in filing the audit report in Form-10B can at best be 30 days, as the law only requires that the audit report be uploaded at least a month before the due date for filing returns. The Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone the delay instead of taking a strict view of the matter.
Case Title: P.C. Varghese Muthalali v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court has held that the culpable mental state of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage when the prosecution makes out a prima facie case.The Court was considering whether culpable mental state under the POCSO Act could be considered at the time of discharge or quashment of the proceedings against the accused.
Case Title: Mary Baby v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
The Kerala High Court held that the assignee of Government land is bound by restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed in the patta or other documents of assignment as per the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and rules made thereunder.
Case Title: Ibnu Shijil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
Kerala High Court has held that a person cannot be booked for consuming narcotic drug on the basis that the investigation officer smelt the substance from his breath.
The Court observed that if it is allowed, a situation will arise where the investigating officer can prosecute anyone as an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It was noted that since sensory perceptions are subjective, reliance cannot be placed on it to identify a substance.
Case Title: P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a lawyer challenging the Hindi titles given to the new criminal laws, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu observed that citizens have no fundamental right to demand that the title of enactments should be in a familiar language. The Court stated that nothing prevents Parliament from giving Hindi names as the title of an enactment.
Case Title: Abdul Jaleel v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
The Kerala High Court held that an agreement entered between the complainant and accused to withdraw prosecution in an offence of rape is void in the light of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
As per Section 23 of the Contract, if the court regards that the object of an agreement is opposed to public policy, the agreement is void. Here the Court held that the agreement will stifle prosecution of public offence and it is opposed to public policy.
Case Title: Amal Babu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
The Kerala High Court has recently held that for offences relating to marriage under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Magistrate if he intends to take cognizance, can do so only on the original complaint of the aggrieved person even if the police had filed a final report.For context under Section 198, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a Court can take cognizance of an offence under IPC Chapter XX–which pertains to offences relating to marriage–only on the complaint of a person who is aggrieved by such an offence.
Case Title: Nazeer K. T. v The Manager Federal Bank and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court has held that the failure to inform the Magistrate about the seizure/freezing of a person's bank account can have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure.The court made these observations while hearing a plea challenging the freezing of a person's bank account and directed the police to inform the concerned bank whether the requirements of Section 102 CrPC had been followed.
Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
The Kerala High Court ruled that the accused who was deliberately protracting the trial was not entitled to bail.The petitioner, who is accused of allegedly brutally attacking and murdering the 7-year-old minor son of the woman he was living with after her husband's death has approached the Court with a bail application.
Case Title: Ankitha Joy v Joy Augustine @ Augusthy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court held that in a suit for maintenance, it is upon the respondent to prove that he does not have enough means to maintain the claimant. The Court observed that evidence to prove the means of a person will be within his exclusive knowledge and therefore, it is upon him to disprove the claim put by the petitioner.
Case Title: G.Gopan @ Gopakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is a basic requirement under the principles of natural justice to give an opportunity of hearing to an investigating officer before the Court making adverse remarks against him, especially when such remarks could affect his future career prospects.
Case Title: Benzy Martin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) is entitled to resort to revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 for recovery of dues from subscribers as it has been designated as a notified institution under Section 71 of the Act.
Case Title: Muhammed Ramees v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that publishing any details which would affect the privacy of a victim of sexual assault is prohibited and to say that since her privacy has been disclosed in public by other publication modes would be enough to give the accused such details, would add "pepper" to the victim's wound.
Case Title: Ibrahim v Administrator
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court has observed that the police lack the power or authority to act as a Civil Court or to adjudicate civil disputes between the parties.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the police cannot adjudicate civil disputes relating to title, possession, boundary, or encroachment of land and it can only refer parties in civil disputes to a competent civil court or ADR for resolution of their disputes.