Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 12 - September 18, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 480 - 487] Dr. Mathew Jacob & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 480Dr Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 481Renjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 482G. M. Sheik & Ors. v. M/s Raja Biri Private Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 483Charley Panthallookaran v. Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 484Vinson v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 485Sujith Lal v. Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 486Mohammed Nisam A.A. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 487Judgments/Orders This WeekTransplantation Of Human Organs & Tissues Act No Bar To Enquiry For Professional Misconduct Under IMC Ethics Regulations 2002Case Title: Dr. Mathew Jacob & Ors v. State of Kerala & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 480The Kerala High Court recently considered the question of whether an authority under the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 is empowered to issue notice and conduct enquiry on a complaint regarding alleged misconduct in transplantation of human organs, since the latter is governed by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and answered the question in the affirmative.The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter, Ethics Regulations 2002) is a self contained code since it clearly specifies the procedure and manner in which disciplinary action has to be proceeded with, and no bar to this authority could be found in the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter THOTA 1994), either when there is any professional misconduct, or to conduct an enquiry on a complaint received in this regard.Assistant Prof Appointment | Teaching Experience & Research Aptitude Relevant Only For Shortlisting Candidates; Selection To Be Based On Interview: Kerala HCCase Title: Dr Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 481The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University in October 2021 for appointment of assistant professors, insofar as it relates to teaching and research aptitude as interview selection criteria.A division bench consisting of Justice P.S Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the University Order is contrary to UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018.Proceedings U/S 240 CrPC Culminate In An Order "Framing Charge" Only After Plea Of Accused Is Taken: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Renjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 482The Kerala High Court recently held that proceedings under Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) culminate in an order framing charge only after the plea of the accused is taken as per sub-section (2) of Section 240 of the Code.While holding so, Justice K. Babu went on to observe that, "If Section 240 Cr.PC is interpreted in such a manner that even before taking the plea of the accused there is an order framing charge, it will defeat the very purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC".Ex-Parte Orders Passed Without Issuance Of Notice Cannot Be Brought Within Purview Of S.36 CPC For Execution: Kerala High CourtCase Title: G. M. Sheik & Ors. v. M/s Raja Biri Private Ltd & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 483The Kerala High Court recently observed that an order passed without issuing notice to the opposite party cannot be brought under the purview of Section 36 CPC and it cannot be executed through court until the same is merged in a subsequent order after notice to the opposite party. Justice P. Somarajan observed that in cases where the ex parte order has been passed without issuing notice to the opposite party, including an order passed under the proviso attached to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC, will not have any binding force on the opposite party, since it is deprived of "audio alteram partem" (right to be heard) which is a fundamental requirement for making the order binding on the parties. Furthermore, the only exception to this fundamental principle is with respect to administrative matter when there is no occasion for causing prejudice to the opposite party, and also in the exercise of legislative authority.If Respondent Does Not Avail Benefit Of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC In Appeal, Courts Not Obliged To Examine Correctness Of Finding In Review: Kerala HCCase Title: Charley Panthallookaran v. Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 484The Kerala High Court recently considered the ambit of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed that where the ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 12 - September 18, 2022

Navya Benny

Tags