- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Kerala High Court Monthly Digest:...
Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: July 2024 [Citations: 397-494]
Manju Elsa Isac
3 Aug 2024 10:00 AM IST
![Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: July 2024 [Citations: 397-494]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/02/01/750x450_519604-750x450456553-408710-kerala-high-court-monthly-digest.webp "Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: July 2024 [Citations: 397-494]")
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397- 494]Sali T. v Keezhmadu Service Co-operative Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397Arshad v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 398Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists v Akhil James and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 399Satish Motilal Bidri v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 400N S Gopakumar v The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 397- 494]
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 Versus CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Limited Versus 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 Versus M/S.Kerala Cricket Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
Judgments/ Orders this Week
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.
Other important Developments This Week
Kerala High Court Directs State To Stop All Construction For Eco-Tourism Activities On Kuruva Island
Case Title: In Re: Bruno
Case Number: WP(C) 13204/ 2021
The Kerala High Court ordered to stop all construction activities for eco-tourism purposes in Kuruva island until further orders. The Court had earlier ordered for temporary closing of all eco-tourism centres in Wayanad, which was after an elephant killed Vellachallil Paul, an eco-tourism employee in Kuruva island.
The Court during the hearing on 26th June came to know that sanction has been granted for construction activities worth about Rs. 2 Crore for the purposes of eco-tourism at Kuruva island. The Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Gopinath P. directed the Advocate General to get instructions as to how such a sanction was granted.
Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Levy Of Court Fee In Cases U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
Case Title: Dineshan K. K. v The Registrar (General) High Court of Kerala and Others
Case No.: WP(C) 16650/ 2024
A petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the levy of court fees in complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument relating to dishonour of cheque.
The Registrar General of Kerala High Court had issued an Official Memorandum directing to collection of the court fee as recommended by the Finance Bill, 2024. This was done by invoking the provisions of Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenue Act 1985. The petition argues that the collection of court fees is bad in law as Sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenue Act is itself unconstitutional.
The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque as the Acting Chief Justice of Kerala High Court. This follows upcoming superannuation of Chief Justice AJ Desai on July 04.
Case Title: Gurudeva College of Advanced Studies v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP (C) 23964 of 2024
The Kerala High Court yesterday ordered the Police to offer protection to the principal, staff and students of Gurudeva College of Advanced Studies, Koyilandi. The police were asked to make sure that the law and order is maintained in the college. The protection order was granted as the college is set to re-open on 4th July.
The Principal of the college, Dr. Sunil Bhaskaran had alleged that B. R. Abhinav, SFI Koyilandi area committee president who is not a student of the college assaulted him. The issue started when the Principal denied some students permission to set up a help desk on the campus on the first day of admission. 3 SFI members in the college have been suspended over the incident. The college has been closed since the incident.
Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teachers Assosciation v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) No 29565 of 2023 and other connected cases
The Kerala High Court has asked the State to explain how it will disburse the funds allocated by the government towards mid-day meals in government school.
An amount of Rs. 232 Crores has been allocated in the State Budget for supplementary expenses in the mid-day meals in school for the year 2024- 2025. The Government has to inform the court about the methodology used for calculating the amount, the manner in which they will distribute the amount and the timeline within which they will do it.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. was hearing a petition filed by Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Assosciation stating that headmasters of the schools have to meet the expenses of noon-meal scheme from their own pocket due to the inadequate and untimely disbursal of funds by the State.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac V The Deputy Director
Case Number: WP(C) 1377/ 2024, WP(C) 3719/ 2024
The Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) submitted before the Kerala High Court that the Enforcement Directorate has no jurisdiction to investigate the misutilization of funds. It was submitted that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has to appoint an authorized person in writing to inspect as per Section 12 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
Justice T R Ravi was considering the writ petition filed by KIIFB Challenging the summons issued against them by the ED to Dr Kandathil Mathew Abraham, (Chief Executive Officer, KIIFB) who was also the former Chief Secretary in relation to the masala bonds case. The summons was issued seeking the submission of documents and for taking oral evidence.
Kerala High Court Chief Justice AJ Desai today remarked that the sizeable representation of women in the legal filed in Kerala is a testament to the State's atmosphere of gender neutrality.
CJ Desai was speaking at the farewell function organised upon his superannuation.
Case Title: One Earth One Life v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 1801 OF 2010 & Connected Cases
The State Government has informed the Kerala High Court that a Special Team has been constituted to inquire into forging of title deeds, including taking bribes by revenue officials in Munnar and Idukki districts.
The Special Team has been constituted pursuant to the directions of the Court. The Court had directed the Government to form a Special Team consisting of high rank officials with the team of others including revenue officials to enquire and investigate the role of public officials in forging the Patta, including receiving gratification.
Case Title: Sunny & Another v State of Kerala & Another
Case Number: Crl A. No. 1024 of 2024 (Filing No.)
The Kerala High Court directed the registry to ensure that the victims/de-facto complainants are made a party in proceedings in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice K Babu directed the Registry to follow its earlier directions in this regard. The Court made this observation as it was dealing with an appeal where the victim was not impleaded.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac V The Deputy Director
Case Number: WP(C) 1377/ 2024, WP(C) 3719/ 2024
Former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac submitted before the Kerala High Court that he is an individual citizen and requires greater protection than KIIFB which is a statutory corporation against the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the 'masala bonds' case.
It was submitted that the summons issued against Dr Isaac under the Foreign Exchange Management Act has serious consequences and affects several rights such as the Right To Reputation guaranteed by the Constitution.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 7844/ 2023
The Kerala High Court said that the Railways will have to be regarded as a 'bulk waste generator' as most of the waste found throughout the tracks seems to be from the trains. The Court observed that Railways has a duty to prevent the disposal of waste on the tracks.
The Court said that the waste disposed on the tracks flows into water bodies causing substantial environmental damage. Though the waste is properly managed near the stations, enough steps are not taken to remove waste from the side of the tracks. The Court said that one reason of dumping is that the compartments does not have sufficient waste bins.
Case Title: Shirley Albert v The District Collector
Case No: WP(C) 26324 of 2022
Kerala High Court sought the help of lawyers to decide on whether counsel who is not a designated Senior can make submissions and argue the case before the Court without a vakalatnama. The Division Bench of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu said that any lawyer willing to assist the court in this matter can make submissions in this regard.
Upon hearing the submissions, the Court said the rule needed to be interpreted. The Court is set to decide the extent to which a lawyer without vakalat can be allowed to plead.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case Number: SSCR Nos.29, 30 & 36 of 2023
The Kerala High Court yesterday directed the Registry to initiate suo moto proceedings after obtaining orders from the Acting Chief Justice to consider the issue of unauthorized use of national and state emblems as well as government boards on vehicles.
The Court passed the above order after finding that despite its directions, the Enforcement Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department and the Police were unable to prevent use of motor vehicles with unauthorized name boards, flashlights etc.
Previously, the Court had directed Police and Enforcement Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall take action against persons who use unauthorized name boards and emblems on vehicles contrary to Rule 92 A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The bench observed that in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012), it has been laid down that no motor vehicle including government vehicles were not permitted to use lights which are not specifically provided for in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahamed P. V University of Calicut
Case Number: WP(C) 24966/ 2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by the elected member to the Senate of the Calicut University alleging misappropriation of funds by the University's Vice-Chancellor. The allegation was regarding the misappropriation of crores of money by the Vice Chancellor for the purchase and installation of Automatic Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) which are automated racks used for storing and maintaining answer sheets in the University.
Kerala High Court Expresses Disinclination To Permit Differently Abled To Take Driving License Test
Case Title: Rudranath A S v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC No. 23297/ 2024
The Kerala High Court today expressed its disinclination to allow the plea moved by a 22-year-old, 40 per cent physically disabled citizen to take a driving license test.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh stated "he cannot put the lives of the general public at risk".
he Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice Nitin Jamdar Of Bombay High Court as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl. M. C. 5136/ 2023
Kerala High Court has ordered the State government to form a comprehensive SOP regarding collection of DNA samples of children, before declaring them legally free for adoption.
The Amicus curiae, Adv. A. Parvathi Menon submitted that there is no SOP followed by the State Adoption Resource Agency (SARA) concerning this.
The matter is related to the privacy of adopted children. The case was taken suo moto by the Court based on the report of Victim Rights Centre under the Kerala State Legal Service Authority. It was submitted that various courts ordered for collection of blood samples of children born to rape victims and given in adoption. The report claimed that such acts would violate the privacy of the children and the confidentiality of adoption.
Woman Moves Kerala High Court To Remove Her Morphed Videos From Internet
Case Title: XX v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP(Crl.) 763/ 2024
A woman from Kozhikode has approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions to remove her alleged morphed videos from the internet.
Justice A. Badharudeen has issued notices to all intermediaries including Google, Meta and Yahoo on the petition seeking to make the video unavailable on search.
The woman was a Panchayat Vice-President and alleges that some people, out of political rivalry, made a ploy to leak her morphed videos. She has resigned from the position reportedly due to the pressure of her political opponents after the videos were leaked.
Case Title: Suresh Gopi v State of Kerala and Another
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 706 & 708 of 2024 (Filing No.)
Union Minister and film actor Suresh Gopi has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the order of Special MP/MLA Court dismissing his discharge application in the infamous luxury cars tax evasion case.
Single bench of Justice CS Dias has posted the matter for hearing on 19th July.
The actor had bought two luxury cars from Audi dealers in Ernakulam in 2010 and 2016. It is alleged that the vehicles were fraudulently registered in Puducherry despite the actor being a permanent resident of Kerala, purportedly to evade tax. The State government claims a cumulative loss of Rs 18 lakh.
The High Court of Kerala held a full-bench reference on Friday on the occasion of the retirement of Justice P. Somarajan. Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Advocate General Shri. Gopalakrishna Kurup and Kerala High Advocate Association President Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy remembered the service rendered by Justice Somarajan.
Case Title: The Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC No. 25087/2024
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order staying the government notification that mandated the Principals to grant permission for the conduct of programs like musical events, DJ performances by external agencies or professional groups in colleges and universities affiliated with the state.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the interim order would not prevent the heads of the institutions from granting permission to follow the conditions stipulated in the government notification. “There shall be an interim order staying Clause 3(12) of Ext.P8, so far as it mandates the head of the institution to grant sanction for programmes by external agencies/professional groups/paid programmes such as musical events inside or outside the campus in compliance with the conditions stipulated in that Clause. However, this interim order shall not preclude the head of the institution to grant the permission upon exercising the discretion vested upon him, subject to the conditions contemplated in Clause 3(12) of Ext.P8.”
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 7844/ 2023
In the case of a missing sanitation worker whose body was recovered from the Aamayizhanchan canal, the Kerala High Court has ordered the Railways, Trivandrum Corporation and Trivandrum Collector to submit reports regarding the reasons for the flow of plastic waste into the canal, the manner in which it is to be removed and the persons responsible for removing it.
The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas and Justice Gopinath P. held a special sitting after the news of a missing sanitation worker, Joy came to light. His body was found after 46 hours of searching. Joy was one among the workers contracted by the railways to clean the portion of the canal near Trivandrum Central Station. The water was stagnant when the cleaning began but he was swept off by the heavy rains.
Case Title: A. K. Sreekumar v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: Crl. M. C. 4677 of 2022
The Kerala High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar v M. K. Aiyappa and Another (2013) is still a valid precedent considering the subsequent judgment made by the Supreme Court in Jayant and Others v State of Madhya Pradesh (2020).
Case Title: WPC 15757/2024
Case Number: M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited V Directorate of Enforcement
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) today submitted before the Kerala High Court that they have not taken any coercive steps against the officials of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and that no criminal prosecution has been commenced so far.
The officials of CMRL were being summoned by the ED to enquire about the allegations of committing cognizable offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by cheating and misappropriating large amounts of public money.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac V The Deputy Director
Case Number: WP(C) 1377/ 2024, WP(C) 3719/ 2024
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) today submitted before the Kerala High Court that Former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac who was the Vice Chairman of the KIIFB General Committee as well as the Chairman of the Executive Committee had the knowledge and awareness and he was a prime person to collect information from regarding utilization of funds.
Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) A.R.L.Sundaresan, appearing on behalf of ED submitted that KIIFB has substantially complied with the summons by submitting attested copies of documents, leaving only oral statements to be taken if any further inquiries arise based on the documents submitted by them.
Case Title: Treasa K. J. v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 23911/ 2018
The Kerala High Court has commended the bravery of persons who engaged in the rescue operation of Joy, the sanitation worker who died after being swept off by rains while cleaning the part of Aamayizhanchan canal near Trivandrum Central Station.
The Court noted that the workers had to conduct the rescue operations in very unhygienic conditions. The canal is blocked with huge quantities of waste. The Court remarked that the loss of life is extremely saddening.
Case Title: State of Kerala v The Chancellor
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 25583 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has stayed Governor Arif Mohammad Khan's decision to form a Search-cum-Selection committee for conducting the selection process for appointing the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. thus issued an interim order staying all further proceedings based on the notification dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Governor.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac V The Deputy Director
Case Number: WP(C) 1377/ 2024, WP(C) 3719/ 2024
The Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) submitted before the High Court that the ED cannot target and carry inquiry against KIIFB in the State of Kerala alone when there are dozens of other masala bonds issued in other States.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing on behalf of KIIFB submitted that if ED was not carrying out an investigation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) in all other cases of masala bonds, then it could not investigate KIIFB alone.
Kerala High Court Invites Applications From Eligible Lawyers For Senior Advocate Designation
The Kerala High Court issued a notification inviting applications from eligible advocates for designation as Senior Advocates.The notification states that Senior Advocates can also recommend the names of advocates for designation.
As per the notification dated July 18, the last date to submit applications is on or before August 12, 2024, by 4.30 PM. It is stated that applications or recommendations received thereafter will not be considered.
Registrar (District Judiciary) of the Kerala High Court has issued an Official Memorandum directing all District Judges to ensure that the Video Conferencing facility provided in the District Judiciary is effectively utilized and to make hybrid mode of hearing mandatory in all courts. The direction was issued amid advance of monsoon and heavy rains in the State. The OM issued on 17th July asked the courts to conduct roll call, examination of official and formal witness through video conference as far as possible.
In a Full Court meeting of judges, the Kerala High Court has resolved to carry out amendments in the Selection Rules for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), specifying a requirement of minimum of three years of practise as an Advocate to apply for the Kerala Judicial Service Examination.
The Kerala High Court issued a notification on July 19 directing the Filing Scrutiny Officers to register petitions filed under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act as unnumbered and sent to the Bench as per roster for directions.
Case Title: Dr. Mathew Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet 589/ 2024
In the CMRL Pay-Off Case, MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan yesterday argued that the Special Judge (Vigilance) went into a mini-trial to exonerate the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of all the allegations at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint, without even examining him.
Justice K Babu was hearing the review petition filed by MLA Mathew challenging the decision of Special Judge (Vigilance) dismissing his complaint against the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena Thaikandiyil. The petitioner argued that CMRL gave payments of Rs. 1.72 Crore to Veena's Exalogic Solutions to get favourable decisions from the Chief Minister.
Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v Union of India and Others
Case Number: WP(C) 19240/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has asked the petitioner who challenged the Hindi titles for the new criminal laws whether the matter was justiciable. The case came for hearing before the bench of Acting Chief Justice A. M. Mustaque and Justice S. Manu.
The Court stated that an adjustment period would be required for any such changes and that even the judges were learning the names of the new acts albeit it a little confusing. It was stated that classes had been organised in the judicial academy which were being attended by the judges.
Case Title: TGN Kumar v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 25674 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has sought response from the State Government about the registration process and living conditions of migrant workers in the State.
The development comes in a petition seeking consideration of representations submitted before the Secretary of the Labour Department, urging action to identify and register the ingress of migrant workers in the State.
Case Title: Suo Moto v Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 25129 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court sought response from the Government on whether Tourism Department vehicles carrying constitutional dignitaries and authorities are fitted with backlit name boards and registration plates contrary to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and flouting safety standards.
Case Title: Advocate Boris Paul v Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18400 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kollam Sub Collector to initiate action to remove illegal encroachers from in and around Ashtamudi Lake within a period of six months.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Mr. A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu directed the District Police Chief to assist the Sub Collector by deploying necessary police personnel for removing the illegal encroachers.
Case Name: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) 26497/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has passed an interim order of stay for one week on an order of the State Information Commissioner directing to make Justice Hema Commission Report public. Tomorrow was the last date given by the Commission to publish the report. The Commission had said that it was in the larger public interest that the report be made public.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac V The Deputy Director
Case Number: WP(C) 1377/ 2024, WP(C) 3719/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has reserved orders in the writ petitions filed by Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and Dr Thomas Isaac challenging the summons issued against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the 'masala bonds' case.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP (C) 7844/2023
The Kerala High Court expressed its vision of having a clean capital city in the State. The Court remarked that the plastic waste flowing into the canals including the Aamayizhanchan canal is an embarrassment for the capital city.
The Court conducted a special sitting after the death of a sanitation worker in the Aamayizhanchan canal. The Court had directed the Amicus Curiae to visit the canal and submit a report regarding the issue of plastic waste in the canal.
Police Officer In Kerala Accused In Passport Fraud Case; Matter To Be Investigated By Crime Branch
Case Title: Ansil v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 5853 of 2024
The probe into alleged involvement of two Kerala police officials in a passport fraud will be probed by the Crime Branch, the High Court was told on Friday. Anzil A., an officer in Thumba Police Station, Trivandrum was booked for hatching a conspiracy with 4 other persons to obtain passports for various persons using forged documents.
Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v Union of India and Others
Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024
While hearing a PIL challenging Hindi titles for the new criminal laws, the Kerala High Court today asked if it has the power to direct the Parliament to change the names of the enactments.
Case Name: Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 588/2024
The Kerala government has informed the High Court that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan received no personal gains from the transactions between State-owned Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by his daughter Veena Thaikandiyil.
