- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup:...
Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022
Hannah M Varghese
30 Jan 2022 1:40 PM IST
Judgments This Week1. RSS A Definite & Identifiable Body, Members Have Locus Standi To File Defamation Complaint U/S 499 IPC: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & AnrCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37The Court has ruled that a complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a defamatory...
Judgments This Week
Case Title: Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
The Court has ruled that a complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a defamatory article published in a newspaper about the RSS is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Sophy Thomas noted that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, any individual member of RSS has the locus standi to maintain a complaint against an article defaming the organisation.
Case Title: V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Justice T.R. Ravi annulled the order issued by the Central Government in 1962 which upheld representation voting at the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam elections.
Unlike the past 46 years, now all members will have the right to vote in the elections. This decision comes in the backdrop of the next election scheduled to take place on February 5.
3. Kerala High Court Holds First Urgent Late Night Hearing To Arrest Vessel In Admiralty Suit
Case Title: Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
In a first, the Court held a late-night hearing of an admiralty suit to arrest a vessel, MV Ocean Rose, from leaving the Cochin Port Trust. Justice Devan Ramachandran convened the hearing at 11.30 pm after the plaintiff in the suit approached the Court to prevent a ship from leaving the Cochin port, which was scheduled to leave at 5 am the next morning.
4. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Regulate Crowd Funding For Treatment Of Rare Diseases
Case Title: Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Court has issued a set of directions to the State and the Central governments in an attempt to make available adequate funds for treating patients suffering from rare diseases, particularly for those who cannot afford such expenses, to enforce the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar directed the Centre and State to file affidavits within a month indicating inter alia the progress of the crowdfunding scheme sought to be established in the State.
Case Title: Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Court has recently held that if a judgment debtor appears before the court when served with a notice and contends that he has no means to pay off the decreed debt, the Court is bound to enquire into this contention before issuing a warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen was exploring the procedure to be followed before issuance of an arrest warrant in the execution of a decree for payment of money.
Case Title: Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala & connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Court while acquitting the prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafas in the infamous Kozhikode 2006 twin bomb blast case observed that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) had failed to produce credible evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman also found that had it not been for the agency's hurry to wind up the investigation, there may have been more compelling evidence to find the accused guilty.
Case Title: P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Court recently ruled that the multiplier to be used while computing compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on the basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not based on the running age.
Therefore, Justice C.S Dias observed that when a person aged 50 years and 7 months dies in a motor accident, the multiplier applicable to the age bracket of 46-50 will apply and not the one applicable to the age bracket of 51-55.
Case Title: Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
While upholding a divorce decree, the Court recently observed that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, amounts to cruelty to the persons at the receiving end i.e., the Spouse.
A bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the wife's appeal as it came to the conclusion that the appellant was treating her husband with cruelty both physical and mental, and in the year 2005, she had deserted him.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court held that the prosecution has every right to seek that the accused should surrender mobile phones for forensic examination under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act.
Justice Gopinath P. rejected the argument that the surrender of mobile phones will infringe the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India after referring to a couple of landmark decisions in this area.
Other Developments
Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Single Judge order that rejected the plea challenging the photograph of Prime Minister being affixed on the Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens. The Single Judge had also imposed a whopping cost of 1 lakh on the appellant herein by the impugned order.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while dismissing the appeal, noted that a photo is not an advertisement and that the Prime Minister has a right to give a message.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court directed actor Dileep and the other accused to hand over six mobile phones to its Registrar General in a sealed box by 10.15 am on Monday in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case.
Justice Gopinath P. relying on the Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors and a Karnataka High Court decision, observed that such surrender will not amount to an infringement of Article 20(3).
Also Read: Kerala High Court Expresses Discontent With Dileep Refusing To Hand Over His Phone To Prosecution
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.
The Court reiterated its prima facie view that the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall is not appropriate. It was adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while adjourning the matter to next month repeated its prime facie stand and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit in the matter and added that if this was allowed, they will soon start charging for their lift services.
13. Kerala High Court Grants State 3 More Weeks To Frame Comprehensive Policy On Illegal Flag Masts
Case Title: Vishnu T.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court granted three more weeks time to the State government to draw up a comprehensive policy to deal with the menace of illegal flag masts in the State.
Justice Devan Ramachandran granted the extension upon noting that it is a matter of policy and since the Additional Advocate General was not keeping well at present:
The Court held yet another night hearing at 9 pm to attend a matter where a NEET candidate sought an extension of time to file his documents. This is the second night hearing this week.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner noting that the student is a meritorious candidate and that he was at the risk of losing a seat merely because he had failed to produce the original of a document.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S & Ors
The Court granted the prosecution 10 more days from January 27 to complete the examination of witnesses before the trial court in the sensational 2017 actor sexual assault case. Earlier, the Court had partly allowed the application filed by the State, permitting it to summon 5 additional witnesses. In this order, the Court had directed a new Special Public Prosecutor be deputed to conduct the case and to complete the examination of the witnesses within ten days.
Justice Kauser Edappagath was inclined to grant the extension upon being informed that out of the five witnesses, three had already been examined.
Case Title: Film Exhibitors United Organisation of Kerala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Court seeking approval to run cinema halls in the State with 20% intake and strict adherence to Covid-19 protocol citing that other sectors are still functioning without any interdictions. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Government Pleader to get instructions and posted the matter for consideration on January 27.
The petition was filed by an organisation of film exhibitors in the State challenging the recent Government Orders dated 20th and 24th January 2022 which imposed restrictions on the functioning of movie theatres in the State in the wake of rising Covid-19 cases.
Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.
The Court disposed of the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election, recording that the investigation was progressing in the matter.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran closed the writ petition after the respondents submitted a report indicating that they are carrying on with the investigation and that a man missing case was registered in the matter.
Case Title: Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala
The Court heard a plea alleging that the State auctioned a Mahindra Thar vehicle dedicated to the deity of Sree Krishna in Guruvayoor Temple in total violation of the provisions of the Gururvayoor Devaswom Act and the general principles of auction.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Board to produce the details of the Mahindra Thar including its price by the next hearing date.
Case Title: P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.
In the application seeking anticipatory bail from the Court, Malayalam cinema actor Dileep has made several allegations against director Balachandrakumar.
In his reply to a recent statement filed by the Crime Branch before the Kerala High Court, Dileep alleges that the director assured that he was close to the Bishop of Neyyattinkara, who was quite influential and had strong associations with the Chief Minister and senior police officers.
Also Read: Kerala High Court To Hear Actor Dileep's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea On February 2: Interim Order To Continue
20. Vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Rape Case
Case Title: Sreekanth Vettiyar v. State of Kerala
Popular content creator and vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail after a woman filed an official complaint accusing him of rape. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions and posted the matter to be taken up again on February 2.
Vettiyar, known in the State for his 'woke humour', was accused of having raped a woman on the pretext of marrying her. He was thereby booked under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC.
