Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 201-210]

K Venugopal Nair v Manager, Canara Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 201

Dr Abdul Rasheed V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 202

University of Calicut v Ameen Rashid K P 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 203

Dr. MV Narayanan v. The Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 204

Sheeba C K v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

Binu @ Kari Binu V State of Kerala & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

Rajini and anr. v. Seetha and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

P Sreenivasan v Babu Raj & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 208

Vimalakumari M K v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

Rkec Projects Limited Vs The Cochin Port Trust, The Office Of Chief Engineer And Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

Judgements/orders this week

CIBIL Rating Not Changed Despite Clearing Loan : Kerala High Court Directs Credit Rating Agency To Ensure Requisite Credit Rating

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 201 

Case title: K Venugopal Nair v Manager, Canara Bank

The Kerala High Court directed the Trans Union CIBIL Ltd, a credit rating agency, to ensure that the requisite Credit Rating was given to the petitioner since he had no subsisting loans and the earlier loan account had been fully closed.

The petitioner approached the High Court to restore his Credit Rating despite no subsisting loans pending. His Credit Rating remained very low despite no subsisting loans. 

Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed Trans Union Cibil Limited to consider the reports submitted by the Canara Bank regarding the closure of the loan account and to take a decision on the Credit Rating of the petitioner within three weeks. Further, the Court directed the Trans Union Cibil Limited to ensure the petitioner was given sufficient Credit Rating.

“The third respondent will ensure that the requisite “Credit Rating” is given to the petitioner and reflected in the online portal within the afore time frames", said the Court.

Vigilance Manual Not Statute, Mere Non-Compliance With Directions For Investigators Doesn't Vitiate Probe: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 202

Case title: Dr Abdul Rasheed V State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has observed that the Vigilance Manual is not a statute and was not enacted by the legislature. Thus, it held that mere non-compliance with the Vigilance Manual's directions for investigating officers would not vitiate an investigation.

The petitioner was an Assistant Surgeon at Kerala Health Services and was alleged to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He alleged that the investigation was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) without complying with the directions of the Vigilance Manual. 

Justice K Babu stated that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner due to non-compliance with Vigilance Manual directions.

University Can't Assume Role Of College Principal For Cancelling Student's Admission Due To Lack Of Attendance: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 203

Case title: University of Calicut v Ameen Rashid K P

The Kerala High Court stated that a University cannot assume the role of the College Principal to cancel a student's admission on the allegation of lack of attendance. It stated that the role of the university was only supervisory. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed thus: 

“As observed earlier, the University's role in private College is to the limited extent to ensure that University regulations are followed or not. The University cannot assume the role of Principal and direct the College Principal to act on their direction. Absolutely there is no merit in this writ appeal.”

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea By Former VC Of Sree Sankaracharya University Of Sanskrit Challenging His Removal By The Chancellor

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 204

Case Title: Dr. MV Narayanan v. The Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and ors.

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the appeal of Dr. M. V. Narayanan, Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit against an order of the single judge bench refusing to vacate the order passed by the Chancellor of the university removing the appellant as Vice Chancellor.

A division bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Kauser Edappagathstated that “we are of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge insofar as it is adverse to the appellant herein does not warrant any interference”. 

A single judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nias CP had previously refused to grant a stay of operation, reasoning that as only one name had been forwarded by the selection committee, it is not only in violation of 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018 but also the ratio established in Rajasree's case.

Child Facing Prejudice Due To Being Member Of SC Community Can't Be Denied Community Certificate Merely Because Parents Had Inter-Religious Marriage: Kerala HC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

Case title: Sheeba C K v State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has stated that a Scheduled Caste Community Certificate cannot be denied to a child born out of an inter-religious marriage merely because her father was a Christian and did not convert to the Hindu Community.

The mother of the child belonged to the Pulaya community and approached the High Court against the non-issuance of a community certificate to her minor daughter for educational purposes. 

Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the indignities humilities and the social handicaps faced by a member of a particular community should be the determinative factor to grant or refuse the caste certificate of that community.

[Sunil Babu Gang Rivalry Murder] Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Four Accused For Murder, Acquits Other Accused

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

Case title: Binu @ Kari Binu V State of Kerala & Connected Cases

The Kerala High Court upheld rigorous life imprisonment imposed upon four accuseds 1 to 4 (Sijith alias Rajan, Arun alias Gabri, Vineeth alias Picha, Arun Mali alias Aneesh) for the offence of murder of CITU worker Sunil Babu due to gang rivalry.

The Court also set aside the conviction of rigorous life imprisonment imposed upon accuseds 5 to 8 (Binu alias Kari Binu, Saju alias Kallan Saju, Saji alias Pori Saji, Suresh alias Kopra Suresh) for criminal conspiracy to murder due to lack of evidence. 

The accused persons allegedly murdered the deceased Sunil Babu on December 13, 2015, due to gang rivalry. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John set while upholding the conviction against accuseds 1 to 4 and setting aside the conviction against accused 5 to 8 stated thus: 

“Therefore, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, the conviction and sentence passed against them for the offences under Sections 120B and 326 IPC are set aside. The conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos. 5 to 8 under Section 120B IPC is also set aside and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases.”

[Suit For Partition] Final Decree Court Can Deal With Excess Land Found In Possession Of Parties Along With Extent Covered In Title Deed: Kerala HC

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

Case Title: Rajini and anr. v. Seetha and ors.

The Kerala High Court has stated that the final decree court in a suit for partition, has the jurisdiction to deal with the excess extent of land found in possession of parties, along with the extent specified in their title deed.

A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran clarified that “it is well-nigh within the powers of the final decree court to deal with the excess extent of land found in the possession of the parties, along with the extent covered by their title deed”.

S.148 NI Act | Appellate Court Has Discretion To Waive Or Order Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine But It Must Give Reasons: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 208

Case title: P Sreenivasan v Babu Raj & Connected Case

The Kerala High Court has held that the Appellate Court has the statutory discretion to either order a deposit or waive the deposit of the fine or compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court clarified that since the Appellate Court would be exercising statutory discretion, it would be legally obliged to give reasons for either ordering a deposit or waiving the deposit of fine or compensation amount.

While hearing an appeal against conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138, the Appellate Court may under Section 148 direct the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation or fine amount as awarded by the Trial Court.

Pension Is Employee's Savings, Can Only Be Denied In Cases Of Fraud & Not Due To Pending Litigation Regarding Caste Status: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

Case title: Vimalakumari M K v State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court directed the disbursal of pensionary benefits to a woman who retired in 2013, stating that she had not committed any fraud even though issues regarding her caste status were pending before the Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated that the pension cannot be denied to the petitioner due to the delay on the part of the State in conducting an inquiry to ascertain whether she belonged to the Moger community or not. 

“Pension is a savings of an employee, that can be deprived only in accordance with the procedure established by law or when it is shown that the employment itself has obtained by playing fraud. In the light of the factual situation as above, we cannot hold that any fraud has been committed by the petitioner, though her status as a member of moger community, is set to be retained by this Court.”

Court Empowered To Extend Time For Passing Arbitral Award Even If It Is Already Passed: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

Case Title: Rkec Projects Limited Vs The Cochin Port Trust, The Office Of Chief Engineer And Another.

The matter pertained to an arbitral award for which the time allotted lapsed on 28.2.2022. However, the award was not rendered until 6.5.2023, without any formal extension of the tribunal's mandate.

The High Court held that the termination of the arbitrator's mandate does not strip the Court of its authority to consider applications for extension under Section 29A(3) and (4). Rather, the termination is contingent upon the Court's power to extend the mandate, as provided by the Arbitration Act. The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to extend the time for passing the award even after its issuance, provided there exist sufficient grounds for such an extension.

The High Court found that the circumstances surrounding the COVID period, as stated in the interlocutory applications, constituted sufficient cause to justify an extension of the time for passing the award until 6.5.2023. Thus, the High Court affirmed its authority to intervene and extend the time limit even after the issuance of the award.

Other developments this week

Don't Commence Vacation Classes Without Court Permission: Kerala High Court To Unaided Minority School

Case title: Principal v State of Kerala & Connected Cases

Case number: WP(C) NO. 1931 OF 2024 & Connected Cases

The Principal of an unaided minority senior secondary school has approached the Kerala High Court seeking permission to conduct vacation classes in May for standards IX to XII.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated that classes cannot be commenced without obtaining orders from the Court. 

“If the petitioners want to intimate the students about the commencement of the vacation class, they are free to do so. However, the commencement of the vacation class shall only be after obtaining the orders from this Court. The petitioners, therefore, are free to intimate the staff as well as the students”, stated the Court.

[Masala Bonds Case] Probe Delayed Due To Non-Cooperation Of Dr Thomas Isaac, Conduct Unbecoming Of Law Abiding Citizen: ED To Kerala High Court

Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Thomas Issac v Deputy Director

Case number: WPC 1377/2024 & WPC 3719/2024

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has informed the Kerala High Court that its probe into alleged irregularities in masala bonds floated by Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) is being delayed since August 2022 due to non-cooperation of former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac and officials from the KIIFB.

In an affidavit filed by its Deputy Director before the bench of Justice TR Ravi, ED said Dr Thomas was Chairman of the Executive Committee and Vice Chairman of the General Body Committee and was instrumental in making decisions regarding the utilization of funds in connection with the masala bonds. However, he did not appear despite issuance of summons and direction from the Court to cooperate with the investigation.

EPF Pension : EPFO Circular To Fix Higher Pension On Pro-Rata Basis Questioned In Kerala High Court

Case Title: VR Balu v. Union of India and ors. 

Case Number: WP(C) No. 8177 of 2024

A retired employee of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation has moved the High Court challenging a circular of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, implementing pro-rata (in proportion) system for higher pensions for those retiring from September 1, 2014.

Petitioner seeks that his pension be calculated by taking an average of 60 months salary as provided under the Pension Scheme, 1995. Pro-rata system leads to a significant reduction in the pension sum, he contended.

On March 26, single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that certain portions of the pension are admitted by the government and thus directed them to pay those sums, subject to further orders from the Court. “Needless to say, if any further amounts are found due by this court, the same shall be also be paid by the respondents to the petitioner in due course,” it ordered.

Kerala High Court Partially Stays Centre's Ban On 'Ferocious & Dangerous' Dog Breeds

Case title: Limjith K J v State of Kerala 

Case number: WP(C) NO. 12760 OF 2024

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday partially stayed the operation of a circular dated March 12, 2024, issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, whereby import, trading and selling of around 23 breeds of dogs which were identified as ferocious have been prohibited.

The Court passed the above order while considering a writ petition filed by certain dog lovers who were also owners of such breeds of dogs. 

While partially staying the circular, Justice T R Ravi held thus:

“I have gone through the orders issued. In such circumstances, there will be a direction staying the operation of notification dated 12.03.2024 except with regard to prohibition on import and selling of the dogs for the breeds specified therein, subject to further orders in this writ petition.”