Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: November 2024 [Citations: 687-765]
Manju Elsa Isac
4 Dec 2024 1:30 PM IST
![Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: November 2024 [Citations: 687-765]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/09/03/750x450_559124-750x450519604-750x450456553-408710-kerala-high-court-monthly-digest.webp "Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: November 2024 [Citations: 687-765]")
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687- 765]
Babu K Korah v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
X v State of Kerala and Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
Dr K Jayaprasad v Dr Jitha S R, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
Anu S P v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
Asha v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association Represented By Its General Secretary v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
T K Makkar v Meeravu Haji, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
State of Kerala v Sreenath and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
C. V. John v Mani C. Kappan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
Baby Joseph v State of Kerala and Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
XX v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. Kumaran, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
S. Gopalakrishnan Potti v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
Yasar Arafath v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
Suseelan v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 709
Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 710
K Sukumaran v Kerala State Waqf Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 711
Amjith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 712
Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Othes v Salimkoya K,. and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
xxx v xxx , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 714
Sabeer A v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 715
Niyas v Mohana, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 716
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. and Another v The Controller of Legal Metrology and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 717
In Re Captive Elephants v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 718
Shani v Muhammed Kunji, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 719
Vinod Valiyatoor v XXX and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 720
Anup V H & Ors. v Pramod A D & Ors. and Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 721
X v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 722
Charuvila Philipose Sundaran Pillai and Another v P. N. Sivadasan and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 723
K. T. Mujeeb v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 724
Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 725
Manjoo and Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 726
Nimija v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
Case Title: TNS India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
Aji v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729
Visakh v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 730
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
K K Damodaran & Co. v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
Unni K E v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
X. v Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 734
Simil v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 735
Ajith Prasad Edacherry v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 736
P.S.Sreedharan Pillai v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
Adv. M. Baiju Noel v Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
Aloysius Alexander v S. Jayakumar @ Panambil S. Jayakumar and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
Chandrasekharan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
Sheba Sam Benjamin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
M/s Knowell Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
Baiju George v. Commissioner Of Goods And Service Taxes Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax v. Bhima Jewellery And Diamonds P. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
Suo Motu JPP initiated by the High Court, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
Binumon KP v Kerala Public Service Commission and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
State of Kerala v Jayakrishnaraj G, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
Baburaj Jacob v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
The Federal Bank Ltd. v The Additional/ Joint/ Dputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
Pooja Anand v Ashokan K. and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
Georgekutty C X v Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
Master Jyothis Raj Krishna @ Jyothi Krishna v Sunny George & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
Shaju Jose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
Princy Mol v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
Prasanna E.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
State of Kerala v P V Mohan & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
Muraleedharan Koncherillam v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
Sunil Rajan K. v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
Dr.Beena Bahuleyan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
Union of India and Others v Bhaskaran N., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. v CP Mohammed Basheer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
M/S. Cradle Calicut Maternity Care Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
Judgments/ Orders this Week
Case Title: Babu K Korah v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
The Kerala High Court has declared Section 28 (2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Society Amendment Act, 2023 as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of co-operative member control. Section 28 deals with the constitution of the Committee for the management of the affairs of the Society.
Section 28 (2A) states that no member of a credit society shall be eligible for election to the committee for more than three consecutive terms. Section 28 (2A) was introduced by Act 9 of 2024 and it was notified and published in the Kerala Gazette on June 07, 2024.
Justice N Nargaresh observed that Co-operative Societies that function in rural and urban areas depend upon the trustworthiness of their members and have to function democratically. The court held that the General body can incorporate conditions in the bye-laws of the Society on elections, but the State cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that affect the autonomy of Co-operative Societies.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
While quashing a criminal case registered against a man under Section 498A IPC by the complainant wife, the Kerala High Court reiterated that in the absence of records proving legal marriage between the parties, there can be no prosecution for cruelty against the partner of the woman, or his relatives. In the facts of the case, the marriage between the petitioner husband and the de facto complainant wife was declared as null and void by the Family Court in 2013 after finding that the complainant wife's prior marriage was subsisting and had not dissolved. The high court thus said since the marriage has been declared as null and void, then there is "no legal marriage in the eye of law".
Referring to the court's recent decision on the subject, a single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held: “Thus it is emphatically clear that when there is no legal marriage the woman's partner did not attain the status of her husband and an offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted only against her husband or relative/relatives of her husband. Therefore, in the absence of a legal marriage as borne out from the records, no offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted against the partner of a woman or against the partner's relatives since the partner without a legal marriage would not occupy the status of husband.
Case Title: Dr K Jayaprasad v Dr Jitha S R
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order that had directed fresh consideration of representations against a professor's appointment. They held that matters settled through earlier Public Interest Litigations cannot be re-agitated through fresh proceedings, even by different petitioners, especially after significant delay.
Case Title: Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
While hearing a challenge to a telecommunication tariff order, the Kerala High Court said that while only the Constitutional Courts possess the power to enforce fundamental rights, an expert body like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), can exercise judicial review over those fundamental rights.
A division bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P M Manoj was considering an appeal against a single judge bench's order containing a challenge to certain provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Case Title: Anu S P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) is not empowered to conduct an enquiry to determine an applicant's caste status.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj stated that an affected authority like the issuing authority is capable of effectively assessing and addressing potential fraud or misrepresentation regarding applicant's caste status, rather than the KPSC.
Case Title: Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
The Kerala High Court has held that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of IPC will not attract when a woman's photos were clicked by two men, while she was standing in front of her house without any secrecy.
Justice A. Badharudeen made it clear that the offence is attracted only upon watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a 'private act' as mentioned under the provision.
Case Title: Asha v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
While hearing plea to quash an FIR containing allegations of attempt to murder, the Kerala High Court held that an additional or a subsequent police report cannot be held as invalid just because the investigation officer did not seek the court's permission before conducting further investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that though the practice of seeking permission before conducting further investigation is upheld by judicial decisions, none of those decisions hold that a final report based on such further investigation is "non-est".
Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Film Director Sreekumar Menon Filed By Film Actress
Case Title: Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
The Kerala High Court quashed the case against film and ad director Sreekumar Menon by prominent Malayalam movie actress. Justice S. Manu found that the offences alleged against him is unsustainable based on the allegations made against the director.
Case Title: B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
While deciding a challenge to a conviction for possessing counterfeit currency, the Kerala High Court observed that the testimony of a Police Official does not suffer from any infirmity merely because he belongs to the police force.
A single judge bench of Justice M. B. Snehalatha further held that the presumption that every person acts honestly applies to a police officer also. The Court however added that such evidence might require more careful scrutiny
Case Title: The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association Represented By Its General Secretary v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that to represent the grievance of its members, an association is entitled to file an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, clarifying that in such a situation, the association espousing the grievance of its members can also be deemed as aggrieved.
A division bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P M Manoj stated that the definition of the term 'person' in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 includes the Association or body of individuals.
Case Title: T K Makkar v Meeravu Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
The Kerala High Court held that even after the constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the Civil Court can execute a decree passed by it relating to a waqf dispute.
Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that even after the constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to execute both its own decree as well as any decree passed by the Waqf Tribunal.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Sreenath and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court held that a public prosecutor can consider the nature of the offence, lack of mens rea and the reformation of the accused as positive factors while deciding withdrawal of prosecution.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu made this observation in a petition filed by the State challenging the Magistrate's order disallowing an application for withdrawal of prosecution filed by the State.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
The Kerala High Court recently observed that while marriage is an essential ingredient to attract the offence of cruelty punishable under IPC Section 498A, however for abetment to suicide under IPC Section 306 there need not be any relationship between the "accused and the victim".
A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas in its order clarified that a person can be convicted under Section 498A if the evidence proves the commission of that offence, even in the absence of a specific charge under 498A, as long as the charge under Section 306 clearly indicates the necessary elements for attracting an offence under Section 498A.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2021 Assembly Election Of UDF MLA Mani C Kappan
Case Title: C. V. John v Mani C. Kappan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (November 5) dismissed a petition filed by C V John challenging the result of 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election where Mani C. Kappan who had contested under United Democratic Front was declared as the returning candidate.
The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Justice C. Jayachandran. The election result was challenged on the ground that Kappan spent more money for their campaign than permitted under Representation of People Act.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
The Kerala High Court held that any expression by the media on the guilt or innocence of an accused in an ongoing criminal case would not be protected under the right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court stated that only an adjudicatory authority can pronounce on the guilt or innocence of an accused.
A Five Judge Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha and Justice Syam Kumar V. M, held that when an accused feels his right to reputation is infringed by the media, he can approach any constitutional court to prevent such act or demand compensation.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan v Deccan Herald and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
A five judge bench of the Kerala High Court while deciding a reference on whether any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings be formulated has observed that media trial can create a distrust in judicial outcomes especially when verdicts differ from prevailing public beliefs.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha, Justice Syam Kumar V. M. was deciding a reference on whether to formulate any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings.
Case Title: Baby Joseph v State of Kerala and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
Quashing a notification of the State government which restricted the length of routes of private stage carriage operators to a maximum distance of up to 140 kilometres, the Kerala High Court said that the final notification was issued without hearing and duly considering the objections of the affected parties as required under the relevant rules.
A single judge bench of Justice D K Singh stated that even though the final scheme was published as per Rule 246 in Form (F) (Appendix 1), it did not contain the reasons given for rejecting the objections given by the affected persons after publication of the proposed scheme in Form (E).
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
The Kerala High Court quashed a case against a school teacher for allegedly beating a student in her class. The teacher was booked under Section 75 (cruelty to child) of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 324 (voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code. Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the petition noting that the teacher beat the student only after he abused her.
Case Title: Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Quashing a criminal case against Malayalam Communications Limited (Kairali TV) and Asianet News Network for telecasting a program featuring an allegedly defamatory and fabricated letter about Congress MP K C Venugopal, the Kerala High Court said that the statements in question were already in public domain hence it can't be termed defamatory.
A single judge bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that there is no evidence to prove that the TV Channels telecasted the program with mens rea or malice and that the MP cannot blame the media, adding that the woman had convened a press conference and made certain statements which were published.
Case Title: Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Dismissing a plea against an order refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant, the Kerala High Court observed that the decision to grant or refuse sanction to prosecute a public servant vests absolutely with the sanctioning authority, adding that its purpose is to insulate the public servant from frivolous prosecution.
In doing so Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said that Courts must not interfere lightly in the decision of the sanctioning authority unless it is demonstrated that the order was made based on irrelevant considerations and without proper application of mind. It further said that the process of getting a sanction would become a dead letter if orders of sanctioning authority are interfered with without any reason.
Case Title: Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. Kumaran
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a police constable who was terminated from service, ruling that Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 bars disciplinary action based on the same facts that led to acquittal in criminal proceedings.
Withholding Pension Payments During Vigilance Proceedings Justified: Kerala High Court
Case Title: S. Gopalakrishnan Potti v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
he Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj dismissed the petition filed by S. Gopalakrishnan Potti seeking penal interest on delayed pensionary benefits and back wages. The court upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's (KAT) decision, ruling that delays in disbursing benefits were justified due to pending vigilance proceedings.
Need To Invoke Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act Must Be Assessed If Proceedings For Peace Keeping U/S 107 CrPC Already Initiated: High Court
Case Title: Yasar Arafath v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
The Kerala High Court has held that when proceedings under Section 107 of the CrPC have already been initiated against an individual, the competent authority must assess whether it was necessary to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 as well to preventively detain or extern the individual.
Section 107 of CrPC is initiated for taking security for keeping peace and public tranquillity.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that if authorities are convinced that proceedings under the KAAPA Act also have to be initiated against an individual to prevent him from engaging in anti-social activities, then they may initiate such actions, even if proceedings have already been taken under Section 107 CrPC.
Case Title: Suseelan v State of Kerala & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 709
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction imposed upon an accused under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for causing the death of a motor bike rider by driving his car on the wrong side of the road after consuming alcohol beyond the permissible limit.
Section 304 defines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person is convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC when he does an act with the 'knowledge' that such an act is likely to cause death.
Justice C S Sudha observed that the accused was not speeding his car but he drove the car after consuming alcohol beyond the permissible limit. It observed that the accused was unable to manage or control the car and drove on the wrong side of the car with the presumption of knowledge that if he hit pedestrians or people travelling in vehicles, death would be caused.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 710
The Kerala High Court has recently issued directions to ensure the fitness of 'dollies' (cane chairs) that are used to carry devotees at Sabarimala.
The court said that the Travancore Devaswom Board shall ensure the fitness of the dollies used for carrying pilgrims through the trekking path before the commencement of each Maasapooja and Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.
For context, a dolly is a reclining bamboo cane chair used for carrying pilgrims who are unable to walk the trekking path from Pamba to Sannidhanam. Four workers carry the dolly, which is tied to the poles using plastic and coir ropes.
A division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar passed the order based on the report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner about a 59-year-old devotee falling from the dolly and sustaining injuries.
Case Title: K Sukumaran v Kerala State Waqf Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 711
The Kerala High Court held that there cannot be a prosecution under Section 52A of the Waqf Act for taking possession of Waqf property without prior sanction of the Waqf Board if there was prior possession of the property, that is before the insertion of Section 52A in 2013.
Section 52A of the Waqf Act provides rigorous imprisonment up to 2 years for alienation, purchasing or possession of movable or immovable Waqf property without prior sanction from the Waqf Board.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus quashed the proceedings initiated against the employees of the post office on finding that they were in possession of the property since 1999.
Case Title: Amjith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 712
The Kerala High Court has observed that the report or findings of the Internal Complaints Committee formed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013 will not have an impact against the police report made based on the victim's complaint alleging sexual harassment at workplace.
The Court further observed that this is because most of the ICC reports tend to be one-sided and biased, often favouring the institution involved.
The Court was considering whether the report of the Internal Complaints Committee established under the POSH Act could be solely relied upon to quash criminal proceedings against the accused.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus observed that ICC reports must be carefully examined and scrutinized before any action is taken based on them.
Case Title: Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Othes v Salimkoya K,. and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
The Kerala High Court has removed stay on further construction in connection with the development of Tent City in Thinnakkara and Bangaram islands of Lakshadweep.
A Single-Bench Judge had earlier, while dealing with challenge to assignment of the concerned properties to the Tourism Department, stopped the construction by ordering to maintain status quo.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. after perusing the photos produced by the Additional Solicitor General of India saw that the constructions in question were temporary, mainly tent to accommodate tourists. The Court also noted that a substantial amount has been spent on the construction for promoting tourism. It added that the constructions shall be subject to the final decision made by the Court in deciding the validity of allocating the land to Tourism department.
Case Name: xxx v xxx
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 714
The Kerala High Court set aside the orders of the Family Court granting permanent custody of a one-and-a-half-year-old daughter to the father on the prima facie finding that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders from her old medical records indicating post-partum depression.
The Court further stated that scientific studies are proving that post-partum depression is relatively common in some women and is typically a temporary condition and not permanent.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that the Family Court should not have granted permanent custody the daughter to the father merely based on the mother's medical records which indicated post-partum depression shortly after giving birth to the child.
Case Title: Sabeer A v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 715
The Kerala High Court has held that a person residing in a state can register his vehicle by any registering authority within the state, irrespective of his place of residence or business within the state, as per Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act of 2019.
Section 40 provides for the place where the motor vehicle has to be registered.
The petitioner's car was not registered by the RTO in Attingal in Trivandrum district, stating that the RTO in Kazhakootam in Trivandrum district has the jurisdiction.
Justice DK Singh observed that as per the 2019 amendment to the MV Act and an advisory issued by the Central Government, any registering authority within the State can register the vehicle.
Case Title: Niyas v Mohana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 716
The Kerala High Court has observed that the notional income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed after considering the fair wages applicable at the time of calculating the compensation and not based on his earning capacity at the time of the accident.
The appellant had approached the High Court challenging the award of rupees 75,000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Justice Johnson John stated that earning less than fair wages at the time of the accident should not be a reason to deprive parity in notional income.
Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. and Another v The Controller of Legal Metrology and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 717
Quashing a case against Hindustan Coca Cola Company under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules concerning alleged illegible declaration about the packaging details of mineral water sold at a movie theatre, the Kerala High Court observed that it could not be said that the details in the form of laser printing were illegible or not prominent.
After perusing through the seized product Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in its order said, "The counsel for the petitioner made available a bottle of 'Kinley', packaged drinking water. The Public Prosecutor also produced the bottle seized by the officer concerned. This Court perused the same. A perusal of the same would show that there is laser printing in the bottle. It cannot be said that the same is not legible and prominent. The counsel for the petitioners produced a news item of the Central Minister, which published in Times Of India dated 24.09.2024 in which it is stated that the Minister bats for laser printing in water bottles. Since the printing is legible, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is not necessary".
Case Title: In Re Captive Elephants v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 718
The Kerala High Court has remarked that Elephants in Kerala are widely used in Temples in the name of tradition and religion but, in reality, it is a "commercial exploitation" without any care or concern for their well-being.
The Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. thus issued certain directions for effective implementation of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 and to ensure compliance of Apex Court's decision in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and others Vs. Union of India (2016).
Case Title: Shani v Muhammed Kunji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 719
The Kerala High Court stated that when there is no appeal provision given in law, then the judgment made in appeal was non-est in law and could be ignored.
The Court was considering the challenge against an order issued by the Sessions Judge, dismissing Magistrate's order when there was no provision provided for appeal.
Justice P .G. Ajithkumar stated that the Sessions Judge committed an error in considering the appeal when there was no provision for appeal.
Court said, “In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in entertaining and deciding Crl.Appeal No.28 of 2019. It was without jurisdiction. When such a remedy is not provided in law, the judgment in the appeal is a non-est and can only be ignored.”
Case Title: Vinod Valiyatoor v XXX and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 720
While hearing a case where a woman had alleged that she was raped by police officials in Ponnani with the police allegedly refusing to register an FIR, the Kerala High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge which had directed the Magistrate to pass order regarding investigation, after noting that it suffered from "serious procedural irregularity".
Observing the failure on the part of the police to take action for three years was "shocking", single judge in its October 18 order had questioned the delay in ordering an investigation into matter.
Setting aside the single judge's order the division bench of Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu in its order said, "The reliefs sought in the Petition have nothing to do with the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate and, in fact, ExhibitP6, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 11 September 2024 in C.M.P. No.3288/2024 calling for a report, was not even the subject matter of the petition. If the learned Magistrate found that the matter needed to be proceeded further, the Magistrate would have taken steps as per the subsequent provision under the BNSS, in respect of an investigation. If the learned Magistrate found that the complaint should be dismissed, an order would have been passed under Section 226 of the BNSS. Section 223(2) is a stage where the Magistrate will not take cognisance and this stage had not arisen in the present case. If any erroneous order is passed by the learned Magistrate, it is always subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings. The impugned judgment thus suffers from serious procedural irregularity and is required to be set aside".
Case Title: Anup V H & Ors. v Pramod A D & Ors. and Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 721
The Kerala High Court held that the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014 would not grant any entitlement to employees who were appointed under the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service of 1962 and Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Special Rules of 2010 in the matters of promotion.
The Court was considering whether the promotion of Beat Forest Officers who were advised for appointment to the post of Section Forest Officer under the 1962 Special Rules would be governed by those rules or by the 2014 Amendment, which prescribed additional qualifications.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar found that the saving clause does not confer promotion rights upon employees appointed under the 1962 Rules or 2010 Rules without acquiring the additional qualifications.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 722
The Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate Court does not lose its jurisdiction to try criminal cases merely because the State Government has notified Children's Courts for the speedy trial of offences against children.
However, the Court stated that it is proper that the offences be tried by the Children's Court.The state government issued a notification in 2009 made under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 which stipulates that Special Courts are constituted or Sessions Courts are designated as Children's Court to ensure speedy trial of offences against children.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that the Children's Courts are notified for the specified purpose of trial of speedy offences against children.
Kerala High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Service Of Summons In Suits For Defendants Outside India
Case Title: Charuvila Philipose Sundaran Pillai and Another v P. N. Sivadasan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 723
The Kerala High Court on Friday laid down guidelines regarding effecting service of summons in a suit where the defendants reside beyond India's borders. The Bench comprising of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Justice C. Jayachandran and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was answering a reference by a Division Bench as to whether a summons issued by the Court to a defendant residing outside India has to be effected through modes mentioned under Order V Rule 25 of CPC or as per the Convention on The Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial matters (the Hague Service Convention).
Case Title: K. T. Mujeeb v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 724
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order of District Collector refusing to give NOC to continue the functioning of a prayer hall in Kadalundi village. Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. quashed the order observing that the main reason for objection of NOC was due to apprehension of law-and-order situation due to the objection made by other members of the community. The Court said that the order based on such apprehension was unreasonable.
Case Title: Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 725
The Kerala High Court stated that while determining the assessment of relevant years assessing authority cannot determine the assessment for earlier years without enquiry.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M. observed that “…….we fail to understand how the assessing authority, as well as the First Appellate Authority, while considering assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2011-12 could have embarked upon an enquiry with regard to the nature and extent of business that was carried on by the assessee during the assessment years from 1999- 2000 to 2009-10……..”
Case Title: Manjoo and Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 726
The Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M. observed that “the concern of the Assessing Authority, while passing a consequential order, has to be limited to those specific issues that have been remanded to it for consideration by the Commissioner………..”
Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise any order passed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Case Title: Nimija v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
The Kerala High Court has stated that body shaming of a woman by her sister-in-law would prima facie amount to wilful conduct to cause injury to health of a woman to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that spouses of siblings who are residing in the matrimonial home would also come under the term relative in Section 498A.
Case Title: TNS India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
The Kerala High Court has asked investigating agency Internal Security Investigation Team (ISIT) to inform Central Government about the "suspicious" survey allegedly conducted by a foreign agency without sanction from it.
The Internal Security Investigation Team (ISIT) after investigation alleged that the foreign agency, Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA) had conducted the survey with the intention to spoil the existing communal harmony and create emotional conflict among the Muslim Community. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan was hearing a plea moved by an Indian company–which had entered into a contract with PSRA to conduct the survey–seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against them for allegedly carrying out malicious acts to outrage religious feelings.
Case Title: Aji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 729
The Kerala High Court stated that the accused right to access documents, including digital documents excluding those which affect the privacy of the victim.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the accused cannot be denied the right to view the pen drive containing CCTV visuals which are part of prosecution records for defending his case, as part of his right to a fair trial.
Case Title: Visakh v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 730
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order cancelling bail of a man booked under NDPS Act, observing that there is nothing to show that the accused interfered in the investigation or trial. The bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the petitioner involved himself in another crime and thereby violated the bail condition.
Justice K. Babu observed that there should be overwhelming reasons for cancelling a bail.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
The Kerala High Court has held that a woman can seek protection against matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code when there is either "religious or customary" marriage between the parties which has the "colour of legal marriage", even if such marriage was later found to be invalid under law.
Justice Sophy Thomas in its order observed that although there was no registration of marriage under Secular law, the Nikah of the girl who was originally Hindu was conducted with the first accused after she converted to Islam. The Court thus stated that marriage of minor girl on attaining puberty was considered as a valid marriage under the Muslim Personal Law and thus offence of cruelty would be attracted against her husband and in-laws.
Case Title: K K Damodaran & Co. v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
The Kerala High Court has held that the Port Trust Authority is empowered to take decisions regarding movement of vessels, boats, watercrafts within port waters to ensure the safety and security of passengers and watercraft.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M., however emphasized that the statutory authority must hear the party and make a decision objectively, ensuring fairness and adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Unni K E v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumarheld that integrating categories and giving seniority based on Kerala General Subordinate Service Posts in the Rural Development Department (Amendment) Special Rules of 2008 is a policy decision and any anomaly in it would be beyond Court's domain for rectification.
Case Title: X. v Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 734
While deciding a review petition pertaining to a custody dispute, the Kerala High Court said that a party is not estopped when the error is committed by the court itself. A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar underscored that the court has a duty to correct its own mistake.
Case Title: Simil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 735
The Kerala High Court has stated that showing or waving a black flag at a person cannot be perceived as a defamatory or illegal act to attract an offence under Section 499 of the IPC.
The Court further stated that even if a flag of any colour is displayed as a form of protest, it cannot be regarded as defamation in the absence of any law prohibiting such an act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that waving a black flag could be a sign of support or protest and that it depends on perception.
Case Title: Ajith Prasad Edacherry v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 736
The Kerala High Court has held that any overt act which involves a physical contact with sexual intent constitutes 'sexual assault', even if there is no penetration.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that under Section 7 of POCSO Act, which defines 'sexual assault', includes within its ambit any other act which involves physical contact with sexual intent.
Case Title: P.S.Sreedharan Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
The Kerala High Court quashed a case registered under Section 505 (1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC against former State BJP President and present Goa Governor P.S. Sreedharan Pillai for allegedly making statements supporting the Thantri's decision to deny entry of women at Sabarimala Temple, against the Apex Court decision in Young Indian Lawyers Association case.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan quashed the case against Sreedharan Pillai on finding that he was inaugurating a meeting of the BJP's Youth Wing, Yuva Morcha Samsthana Samithi, and that the event was only accessible to a private or exclusive group of people and not the general public.
he Court further observed that Sreedharan Pillai, as the Governor of Goa, is immune from criminal proceedings under Article 361 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Adv. M. Baiju Noel v Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
While ordering further investigation into the allegedly insulting remarks made by Minister for Fisheries, Culture and Youth Affairs Saji Cherian, the Kerala High Court observed that post the 2003 amendment to Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, even disrespect shown to the Constitution by words either spoken or written or by acts can amount to conduct falling foul of the Act.
Perusing through the language of the provision Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in its order noted that it indicated that the words “otherwise shows disrespect to” were not part of the statute initially.
Case Title: Aloysius Alexander v S. Jayakumar @ Panambil S. Jayakumar and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (21st November) dismissed the appeal filed by a police officer against the attachment of his property in a case of custodial torture of an advocate.
The police officer appealed against the attachment before the High Court saying that the said property is used as a security in a loan he has taken. He submitted that due to the attachment order, the bank is planning to recall the loan and initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the property. He further submitted that such an action would also affect the advocate's right to ultimately realise damages.
Justice G. Girish noted that the property was a security for the loan much before it was attached by the Court order. The Court observed that there is no basis for apprehension for the bank as it will have the right to proceed against the property in case the officer defaults on the loan.
Case Title: Chandrasekharan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application of a police officer who is accused of raping a 14-year-old minor girl who is stated to be a member of the scheduled caste.
Justice K Babu observed that Courts must not lightly entertain bail applications when "serious offences" are alleged and a "prima facie case" is made out. The court underscored that where the offence complained is of such nature "as to shake the confidence of the public" there bail shall not be granted
Are Government Pleaders Gazetted Officers? Kerala High Court Asks Govt To Clarify
Case Title: Sheba Sam Benjamin v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
The Kerala High Court has asked the government to issue a notification or instruction clarifying whether Government Pleaders, Senior Government Pleaders, and Special Government Pleaders are Gazetted Officers within one month.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition filed by an Indian woman who wanted to marry an American citizen and her application submitted under the Special Marriage Act was rejected, stating that the Government Pleader who attested her document was not a gazetted officer.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
While permitting a 16-year-old school going girl to terminate her over 26-week-pregnancy, the Kerala High Court said that the mental trauma undergone by the minor girl who had been stated to be subjected to "repeated sexual assault", cannot be an irrelevant consideration.
A division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu in its November 8 order allowed the writ appeal of the mother after the report of the psychiatrist stated that the minor does not have the mental capacity to continue with the pregnancy and that would adversely affect her mental health.
Case Title: M/s Knowell Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
The Kerala High Court has stated that income from the sale of immovable properties is to be treated as 'capital gains,' not 'business income' for taxation purposes.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “the requirement of ensuring uniformity and consistency in tax assessments cannot be overlooked, especially while categorizing the nature of the activity carried on by an assessee to earn its income for the purposes of taxation.”
Case Title: Baiju George v. Commissioner Of Goods And Service Taxes Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
The Kerala High Court stated that the medical condition cited by the assessee is not sufficient grounds to justify condoning a four-year delay in filing the appeal.
The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “the assessee has not made out any ground for grant of relief in the writ petition. Admittedly, the assessee filed appeals against the orders only in the month of February 2024 i.e., four years after the date on which the orders against which the appeal was sought to be filed had been issued.”
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax v. Bhima Jewellery And Diamonds P. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
The Kerala High Court stated that the department cannot reopen an assessment that has already been settled by issuing a fresh notice if the period of limitation had expired before the date of the amendment extending the timeline for reopening.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that “…….no doubt, in those cases where the erstwhile period of limitation of five years had already expired before the date of the amendment of Section 25(1) in 2017, the Revenue would not be permitted to re-open assessments that had been settled, through a fresh notice issued thereafter invoking the six-year period of limitation.”
Case Title: Suo Motu JPP initiated by the High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
The Kerala High Court has said that its Registry will seek "administrative orders" from Chief Justice if it receives any judicial orders to connect cases from a different roster without any assigned specific reason or without a direction to obtain permission from the Chief Justice.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu directed the Registry to place before the Chief Justice any such order of the Court without delay, for passing necessary administrative orders.
Case Title: Binumon KP v Kerala Public Service Commission and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
While hearing a plea against the rejection of a man's candidature to the post of a typist on account of his promotion prior to recruitment to the post, the Kerala High Court said that 'recruitment by transfer' under the relevant rules requires that the condition prescribed in the concerned recruitment notification is scrupulously followed till appointment is effected.
A division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that when the notification says that recruitment by transfer shall be made from persons holding low paid post in government services, the qualification of the candidate is expected to be holding the low paid post at the time of recruitment, as appointment by transfer does not envisage appointment of a person with a higher scale of pay.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Jayakrishnaraj G
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
The Kerala High Court has warned the State of the adverse consequences it must face for causing administrative delays in granting promotions to government servants without any reason.
In the facts of the case, a professor who has been entitled to promotion since 2003 was brought to the Court in an appeal preferred by the State against the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal upholding his right to promotion since 2003.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. M. Manoj upheld the order of the Tribunal which found that he was entitled for promotion since 2003, since there was a vacancy of the Professor even prior to 2003 and that his name was on the select list published in 2002.
Case Title: Baburaj Jacob v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
The Kerala High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by Malayalam film actor Baburaj in connection with allegations of sexual harassment that came to light following the Hema Committee report, with stringent conditions. The Court has directed actor Baburaj to surrender before the Investigating officer in ten days.
The crime was registered against him at the Adimali police station in Idukki alleging rape and sexual harassment between January 01, 2018 to December 31, 2019.
While allowing the bail application, Justice C S Dias referred to the decision in Siddique v State Of Kerala And Another, wherein Malayalam actor Siddique was granted bail by the Supreme Court on similar grounds of delay in lodging the FIR.
Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. v The Additional/ Joint/ Dputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
The Kerala High Court held that the income tax authorities, by not considering a request for personal hearing has violated the principles of natural justice. Justice K. Babu observed that due to this violation, the orders passed without considering the assessee's request is bound to be set aside.
“The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a competent statutory authority embarks on an action involving civil consequences. The fundamental principle is that no one should be condemned unheard.”
Case Title: Pooja Anand v Ashokan K. and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
The Kerala High Court while quashing a case of defamation, observed that the complaint filed in the present case before a lawful authority which was enquired by it, will not attract an offence under Section 500 IPC.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in its order said that the fourth exception to Section 499 IPC says that, it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings.
Case Title: Georgekutty C X v Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
The Kerala High Court quashed the punishment imposed upon a Sub-Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL) and exonerated him from all the charges for the delay in issuance of a provisional assessment order, which was imposed by the disciplinary authority by invoking the doctrine of Factum Valet.
For context, the doctrine of Factum Valet which means that an act that was not supposed to be done, is valid once it is done.
Justice K Babu stated that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Sub-Engineer by invoking the doctrine of Factum Valet, was illegal and vitiated in law. The court said this after noting that the principle cannot be invoked to hold that the petitioner sub engineer, who was not authorised to issue a provisional assessment order with respect to a consumer, but had issued it in the interest of the board, is responsible for the delay in issuing the same.
Case Title: Master Jyothis Raj Krishna @ Jyothi Krishna v Sunny George & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
The Kerala High Court has fixed the notional income at rupees 17, 325 per month for a 5-year-old minor boy, who has been in a state of paraparesis and lost his childhood since a 2016 accident.
The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's decision to fix the notional income to rupees 8,000 per month.
Justice Easwaran S. referred to Master Ayush v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others (2022) wherein the Apex Court granted over 50 lakh rupees as compensation to a 5 year old victim who was paralysed for life in an accident. Relying on it, the High Court observed that Courts must undertake a progressive thinking while fixing notional income of a minor child and must not apply a restrictive mind.
Case Title: Shaju Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
The Kerala High Court while dismissing a case for expunging the adverse remarks made against a police officer, observed that such remarks were absolutely necessary to take an appropriate decision in that order.
Justice A. Badharudeen said that in such a case, it will be difficult to issue notice to the officer before making such observation. "...such a finding by the learned Special Judge was absolutely necessary for taking an appropriate decision of the discharge petition as an integral part thereof. Therefore, in such a case, it was difficult to issue notice to the Circle Inspector of Police before making observations."
Case Title: Princy Mol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
The Kerala High Court has held that a lab technician can be held liable for negligence if they deviate from the test prescribed by the doctor on the ground that the test so prescribed was unavailable in their lab.
Consequently, the Court refused to quash the final report alleging offence punishable under Section 336 (rash or negligent acts endangering human life) IPC against a lab worker, who conducted the Elisa Test by 'Particle Gel Immuno Assay' method, instead of the 'Hit Antibody Test' method on complainant's mother.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the lab technician was duty-bound to conduct the test prescribed by the doctor or to send back the patient if the test was unavailable in their lab.
Case Title: Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
The Kerala High Court has held that the bar under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) does not apply if the police officer does not have any 'personal grievance' against the accused.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vaijayaraghavan V. and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that such a grievance cannot be said to have existed if the crime relates to obstruction of discharge of duty.
Case Title: Prasanna E.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 27) ordered the authorities to conduct periodical inspections and supervisions on hotels, vendors and restaurants selling Shawarma to ensure that there is strict compliance of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The Court further ordered that the license of eateries selling Shawarma without adhering to safety standards must be cancelled and stringent action must be taken against them.
Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the authorities to ensure strict compliance of its interim order dated November 14, 2023. The interim order was issued directing all eateries selling Shawarma to exhibit the date and time of preparation of food articles on its packaging.
Case Title: State of Kerala v P V Mohan & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when pay scale is revised retrospectively, then the revised pay scale must be considered while calculating pension even if the pensioners have retired prior to the issuance of the pay revision order, provided they are entitled to the revised pay scale.
In doing so the high court upheld an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal which set aside a government letter which had said that revised pension of university teachers in the state who receive UGCpayscale would be effective from 2009 and not from 2006.
A Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ordered thus: “The law is settled that when the pay is revised retrospectively, that revised pay should be taken into account when calculating the pension, even if the pensioner retired prior to the issuance of the pay revision order, provided he is entitled to get the revised pay.”
Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking CBI Probe Into Former ADM Naveen Babu's Death
Case Title: Muraleedharan Koncherillam v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation moved by a social activist seeking CBI probe into the death of former ADM Naveen Babu, stating that there is another writ petition moved by the wife of the deceased which is already under the Court's consideration.
Stating that the wife's plea seeks similar relief, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu disposed of the PIL.
“We are informed by the state that the wife of the deceased has already moved this Court for the same relief. In thereof, not necessary to entertain a public interest litigation as the matter is already seized before this Court in another writ petition. The PIL is accordingly disposed of.”
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v Vilayathulla P. H. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 760
The Kerala High Court held that the Kerala Administrative Tribunal does not generally have the power to extend the life of the ranked list of candidates issued by Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), and the latter alone has the power to decide the extension period.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. M. Manoj emphasized that PSC is a constitutional body. It referred to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure which pertains to the lifespan of a ranked list and circumstances in which the lifespan of the ranked list can be extended. The Court held that as per the rules, only PSC has the power to extend the lifespan of the ranked list.
Case Title: Sunil Rajan K. v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala High Court held the criteria for the Magistrate to direct any person to give voice sample under Section 349 of BNSS is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that such sample is required for the purpose of investigation.
“Under Section 349, the criteria is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that it is expedient to direct any person to provide his voice sample, again, for the purposes of the investigation or proceeding under BNSS. Therefore, the thrust is upon the question whether the voice sample is required for the purpose of investigation of the crime.”
Justice C. Jayachandran held that as per Ritesh Sharma and BNSS, the determining factor is whether the voice sample is required for the purpose of investigation.
Case Title: Dr.Beena Bahuleyan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor under Section 166B of the IPC, who was accused of showing unwillingness to examine the victim in a child missing case and failing to issue a medical certificate, on finding that the ingredients of the said offence were not made out.
The Court however, expressed that enquiry has to be conducted against the doctor and opined that departmental action must be taken, if necessary.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the victim was admittedly not a victim of offences like acid attack or rape-related offences and therefore offence under Section 166B cannot be attracted.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v Bhaskaran N.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
The Kerala High Court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) should not lightly interfere with the opinion of medical board as to the nature of disability of ex-service personnel in the question of granting disability pension.
The Court observed that whether the disability has connection to the personnel's service is a crucial factor for granting pension and it depends upon the opinion of the Medical Board.
Case Title: Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. v CP Mohammed Basheer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against a media house for allegedly publishing a defamatory article about the 'Popular Front of India' (PFI).
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that PFI is a banned association in India; therefore, defamation cannot be alleged against a banned organization, since it has no legal entity. While quashing the defamation case against the media house, the Court observed that a banned organization cannot raise a complaint of defamation.
Sophisticated Medical Beds For Expecting Mothers Are Subject To Luxury Tax: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. Cradle Calicut Maternity Care Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
The Kerala High Court has held that 'sophisticated medical beds' provided for expecting mothers would be subject to luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act of 1976.
In doing so, the high court underscored that what was ultimately being taxed under the Act was the "experience of luxury as regards the accommodation/amenities in the hospital".
Justice Harisankar V. Menon stated that admittedly expecting mothers are being permitted the use of amenities and services while being accommodated in the hospital rooms which was not disputed. It said:
“Thus, ultimately, what is to be looked into is as to whether the facility provided is a necessary requirement of an average member of the society. There cannot be any dispute that even without the aid of the medical bed provided by the petitioner, an expecting mother can give birth.”
