- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup:...
Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup: January 31 To February 6, 2022
Hannah M Varghese
7 Feb 2022 8:51 AM IST
Judgments This Week1. Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused HusbandCase Title: Mohammed Suhail v. State of Kerala & AnrCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46The Court granted bail to Suhail, the husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. Justice Gopinath P. was inclined to grant bail with...
Judgments This Week
1. Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Husband
Case Title: Mohammed Suhail v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
The Court granted bail to Suhail, the husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. Justice Gopinath P. was inclined to grant bail with conditions since according to him, continued detention may not be necessary considering that he had already spent more than 65 days in jail and because the final report had been filed in the matter.
Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Court found merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner who had sought to quash the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT to apply to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC). Finding the condition prima facie discriminatory, Justice V.G. Arun observed that there was no rationale for precluding candidates like the petitioner from the post.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
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.
4. Kerala High Court Temporarily Defers Centre's Ban On News Channel MediaOne
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Court deferred the order issued to popular Malayalam news channel MediaOne by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting revoking its license to broadcast till the next hearing date. Justice N. Nagaresh posted the matter to be considered on Wednesday and issued notice to Planetcast Media Services Ltd, the third respondent.
Case Title: Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Court observed that a party to litigation is entitled to be informed of the reasons behind the denial of their claims. Thus, setting aside a non-speaking order passed by the Family Court, Justice Mary Joseph observed that although there is no rule that all reliefs sought for should be allowed, a party is qualified to know why their relief was denied. The impugned order directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.6,000/- as interim maintenance allowance to the child till disposal of the plea. However, the wife was denied any interim maintenance allowance without assigning any reasons.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Court recently held that the authorised officer exercising power under Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act need not issue a notice of confiscation proceedings to the person from whom the property has been seized before ordering the confiscation if he is not the owner of the property. A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha observed that the Act does not provide for notice to the person from whom the property sought to be confiscated has been seized if he is neither the de facto nor the de jure owner of the property.
Case Title: Dr. George Thomas & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
The Court ruled that under the Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules, the State was obliged to reimburse the government servants if they or their family undergoes medical treatment in recognised hospitals, either private or government. While setting aside a Government communication rejecting the petitioner's claim for reimbursement, Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the respondents were not permitted to reject such claims under Article 21 and the aforesaid Rules.
Case Title: Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Court held that a mere temporary shift of residence cannot be the basis on which a matter pending before the competent jurisdiction is transferred, particularly when the petitioner's permanent residence is within the jurisdiction of the competent court. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen refused to entertain a transfer petition filed by a woman who had sought for a transfer of the four cases pending before the Pathanamthitta Family Court to Ernakulam merely because she was presently residing with her cousin.
Case Title: M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Court in a Bench comprising of Justice T.R. Ravi held that the litmus test is whether the default exists as defined in amended Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code w.e.f. 24.3.2020, increasing the default amount from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1 Crore, on the date of the application, and not on the date when the notice was sent to the Corporate Debtor u/s 8 of the Code.
Case Title: Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Court established that individuals with criminal antecedents or those without a Police Clearance Certificate are not allowed to run or be employed in stalls in the premises of temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed so while dismissing a petition filed by a bidder whose power of attorney holder had criminal antecedents.
Case Title: K. Jayarajan & Ors v. Sambasivan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Court ruled that the grounds available to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be available in a petition filed under Section 47 even if it is for the same relief. Dismissing a revision petition, Justice A. Badharudeen held so after referring to a few judgments on the issue and exploring the law laid down in this area. However, it was observed that where there is inherent illegality in the execution application, this is a matter arising in execution outside the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 and thus within the scope of Section 47 of the Code.
Case Title: P.A. Noushad v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Court has directed the State and the concerned authorities to disburse arrears of commission payable to Authorised Retail Distributors (ARDs) for distributing Covid-19 free food-kits at the rates specified in 2020 and 2021 Government Orders within two months. Although the State took the stand that the kit distribution was a humanitarian service to be treated as voluntary and not a paid job, Justice N. Nagaresh opined that a service becomes voluntary only when the person performs it willingly without pay.
Case Title: Dr. Jibin C.P & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Court recently held that NEET-PG candidates engaging in Rural Area service or Difficult Rural Area service cannot claim an exclusive sub-quota as a matter of right. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that this was more so since the Prospectus for Admission to Medical Postgraduate Degree Courses 2021-2022 provided for 2% service weightage for Rural Area service and 5% for Difficult Rural Area service.
Case Title: T.K.Sundaresan v. District Police Chief
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The High Court recently pronounced a judgment declaring that the practice of demanding gawking charges, often referred to as 'nokkukooli' in Malayalam, is illegal and unconstitutional. Justice Devan Ramachandran made this observation in a plea filed by a man who was not being provided with the necessary registered headload workers for his construction work by the trade unions pursuant to a dispute between them over nokkukooli.
Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Court while dismissing an appeal challenging the Single Judge's rejection of the plea against Prime Minister's photograph being affixed on Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens, observed that an individual fundamental right is subservient to the larger public interest. However, the cost imposed on the appellant was reduced from Rs. One Lakh to Rs. 25,000. Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly maintained that inscriptions and the photograph of the Prime Minister would not interfere with the freedom of speech and expression conferred to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Other Significant Developments
16. 'A Publicity Litigation' : Kerala High Court Reserves Orders In Plea Against Movie Churuli
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
The Court reserved orders in the petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' citing excessive use of abusive and obscene language. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing the matter also noted that prima facie, he was of the opinion that no statutory provision was violated by the publication of the film and that it was merely another 'publicity litigation'. The Court also noted that since it was streamed on an OTT platform, no question of captive audience arises in the matter.
17. RSS Worker's Murder: Certain Aspects Require CBI Probe, Says Kerala High Court
Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala
The Court observed that certain aspects of the murder of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith, who was hacked to death in November last year, need to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal noted that some of the accused in the case had hideouts outside the state which warranted the interference by CBI.
18. Dileep Case : Kerala High Court Directs Handing Over Of Surrendered Mobile Phones To JFCM Aluva
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court ordered that the mobile phones surrendered by the actor Dileep and other accused before the Registrar-General of the HC shall be handed over to the jurisdictional magistrate (Aluva). The accused were also directed to provide the JFCM with the unlocking pattern/number of the respective phones.
19. Murder Conspiracy | Kerala High Court To Pronounce Order On Dileep's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea On Monday
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court will pronounce its verdict on Monday, in the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. heard the prosecution and the accused at length on Friday before reserving its orders.
The Court took suo motu cognizance of a news report which alleged massive corruption behind fake food bills submitted by the Travancore Devaswom Board and the disbanding of the Devaswom Vigilance Wing that immediately followed. Malayalam daily Mathrubhumi had recently reported that top officials were responsible for dissolving the Vigilance Wing apprehending arrest in case the fake bills and other irregularities are brought to light.
Case Title: Film Exhibitors United Organisation of Kerala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala government in its statement filed before the High Court has attacked the maintainability of the plea seeking approval to run cinema halls with 20% intake in the State. 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.
22. Kerala High Court Admits Plea Alleging Unauthorised Lab Conducting Covid Tests At Calicut Airport
Case Title: Muzammil Varikkottil v. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Others
The Court has admitted a plea alleging that an unauthorised lab is conducting Rapid-PCR Covid tests at the Calicut International Airport. The plea also challenged the airport's denial to accept the passenger's recent RT-PCR test results. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit in the matter within 4 weeks.
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
The Court extended the interim order deferring the Union Government's decision to cancel the permission to telecast Malayalam news channel MediaOne till next Monday. Justice N. Nagaresh also directed the Union Government to produce before the Court the relevant files of the Ministry of Home Affairs which recommended the cancellation of the license of the channel citing national security reasons.
Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Kerala Women's Commission has filed an impleading application in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved by Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) before the High Court. The plea by WCC was filed in 2018 seeking the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), a body of Malayalam actors.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr
Actor Dileep has moved another plea before the High Court seeking to suspend further investigation into the recent report filed by the Investigating Officer accusing the actor of conspiring to kill the officers investigating the 2017 sexual assault case. In the petition filed before the Court, he has alleged that furtherance of this 'sham investigation' infringes the right of a fair trial and added that it is an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr
The Court heard the petitioners in the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai appearing for Dileep in the matter elaborately argued his case before the Court today, primarily pointing out that most of the allegations put forth by the prosecution in this case, were concocted efforts to frame the actor.
