Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: December 2023
Tellmy Jolly
30 Dec 2023 11:50 AM IST
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698-766]Elambilan Nani Amma and Ors. v. Mulavana Antony and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698Lalu Mathew v. Bino Alexander, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 699Ushakumari O. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 700Ali K @ Ragam Ali v Union of India and connected case, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 701Gopakumar V.G. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698-766]
Elambilan Nani Amma and Ors. v. Mulavana Antony and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
Lalu Mathew v. Bino Alexander, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
Ushakumari O. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
Ali K @ Ragam Ali v Union of India and connected case, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
Gopakumar V.G. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
Jeevan Ramesh v. Mahatma Gandhi University 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
T.O.Souriyar v. Muttom Abdulla Kanjirathinkal House 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Athul Sundar v. Bar Council of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Satheesh Kumar S. v. Transport Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
Kiran Kurian Mathew v. Ashly Mathew & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
Vishnu Sajanan v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
XXXXX v. Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 709
Pinchu Chandran v Arya J 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 710
Suo Moto High Court of Kerala v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 711
Baiju v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 712
XXX v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 714
Adarsh Thinkal T.S v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 715
Suo Moto v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 716
Jagadesh Ramachandran v. The Maintenance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 717
Artech Realtors Versus Intelligence Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 718
Maya Venu v. Power Grid Corporation of India & Ors. and other connected matters, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 719
P.H.Fathima V State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 720
Satheesh Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 721
K.N. Abdul Gafoor v. M/S Kasmisons Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 722
Sajani V Sabu, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 723
Praveena Ravikumar v State Election Commission & Connected Case, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 724
Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 725
Animals and Nature Ethics Community (ANEC) v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 726
Dr. Athira P. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
State of Kerala & Ors. v. P.V. Kuryan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
B Suresh v Chief Engineer & Administrator, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 729
Akhil S Kumar v Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 730
Vibin Meleppuram v. Denny Thomas & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
Baburaj & Ors. v. Janeesh P.S. & Ors. and connected matters, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
Rama v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
Asokan K M v State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 734
Jayakumar J. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 735
Badha Ram v Intelligence Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 736
Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
X v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v. Umaimath 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
Rahul Subhash v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
Indira v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
Mathew P J v M/S. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
XXX v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
Sundar v. Director General of Police 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
V.Unnikrishnan v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Connected Case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
N. Basurangan v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
XXX v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
Zamra Endeavours Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
Archana Pius v. Shine 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
Abedur Shekh v State Of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
Biju Sundar v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760
Deepa P.M. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
K Tony Thomas v Vythiri Grama Panchayath, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
Aswathy Surendran v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
Josepheena T.T. v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
XXX v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
Orders/Judgments This Month
Case Title: Elambilan Nani Amma and Ors. v. Mulavana Antony and Ors., RSA NO. 420/2007
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court dismissed a regular second appeal finding that decisions of survey authorities under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules will not affect the right and title of the property which was acquired by a party under a valid title deed.
Justice K. Babu held that title over property can be claimed primarily based on a valid title deed and not with reference to survey demarcation carried by survey authorities. The court further held that the survey result was conclusive proof for the determination of boundaries in a boundary dispute and not for the determination of title or possession of land.
Case Title: Lalu Mathew v. Bino Alexander
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
The Kerala High Court laid down that the first proviso to Section 11(3) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('Act, 1965') does not apply to situations where the landlord obtains vacant possession of a building after the institution of the eviction petition.
The first proviso to Section 11(3) restricts the power of the Rent Control Court in issuing an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if the landlord has another building of his own in possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so, and not in a manner conferring benefit on the tenant.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John reasoned that, "...a landlord who establishes the bona fides of the need for occupation of a tenanted premises and who does not have another building in his possession as on the date of institution of the eviction petition and obtains an order of eviction on that basis, the fate of the order of eviction would depend on the question whether he obtains possession of any other building till the order has become final. In other words, if the tenant in the proceedings is able to prolong the proceedings by hook or crook, the landlord would be deprived of the benefit of the order of eviction".
Case Title: Ushakumari O. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
The Kerala High Court directed the State Chief Secretary to take necessary steps to ensure time-bound and immediate investigation in medical negligence cases, in consultation with the State Police Chief and the Director of Health Service.
"In medical negligence case, both sides want immediate action. Sometime, unnecessary complaints will be there against the doctors alleging medical negligence, and if the investigation is delayed, the doctors may have to face unnecessary humiliation. Similarly, the victims also want early decisions in medical negligence case. Therefore, a time bound investigation is necessary in these types of cases," the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed.
Case title: Ali K @ Ragam Ali v Union of India and connected case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
The Kerala High Court has held that under Section 6 (5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, the central government has the power to direct the National Investigation Agency to investigate not just pending cases, but also offences where no case was registered.
In dismissing the pleas of the accused, a division bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John also observed that a High Court had the administrative power to transfer cases from one Court to another, akin to how the matter had travelled from the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad to the Special Court Ernakulam, in this case.
Case Title: Gopakumar V.G. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
The Kerala High Court laid down that Section 91 CrPC, which provides for the issuance of summons to produce document or other thing for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding, is enabling in nature and the power under it would have to be judged commensurate with the stage or point of time it is exercised.
"The powers conferred under Section 91 are enabling in nature aimed at arming the court or any officer-in-charge of a police station concerned to enforce and ensure the production of any document or other things necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code by issuing summons or a written order to those in possession of such materials," Justice K Babu observed.
Case Title: Jeevan Ramesh v. Mahatma Gandhi University
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
The Kerala High Court recently set aside a show cause notice issued to a final year LLB student of MG University for being named as an accused in an NDPS Case.
The student who was suspended when an FIR had been lodged against him in the aforesaid case, was asked to show cause as to why a compulsory transfer certificate should not be issued to him.
In allowing the student's plea for setting aside the impugned show cause notice, Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the impugned notice would show that the college had already concluded that the student was guilty of possession and sale of narcotic drugs when the trial was not even completed.
Case Title: T.O.Souriyar v Muttom Abdulla Kanjirathinkal House
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
The Kerala High Court has held that a person commits the offence of cheating under Sections 415, 417 and 420 IPC when he issues a cheque to another person for discharging his pecuniary liabilities after the closure of his bank account.
The Court noted that issuance of the cheque with the knowledge that it would be dishonoured would show the presence of mens rea, that is, fraudulent or dishonest intention of the drawer to deceive the payee.
In allowing the present revision petition Justice G. Girish quashed the order of the appellate court exonerating the accused, and observed:
“It seems from the judgment of the appellate court that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was carried away by the impression that if a person issues a cheque after the closure of his account, in respect of an antecedent liability, and the said cheque happens to be dishonoured due to that reason, the above act of that person will not come within the purview of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C. The above conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in my view, is patently wrong.”
Case Title: Athul Sundar v Bar Council of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
The Kerala High Court refused to issue a direction to postpone the 18th All India Bar Examination, 2024 (AIBE) or All India Law Entrance Test, 2024 (AILET).
Justice T.R. Ravi observed that it cannot direct the authorities to postpone the examination at the instance of one candidate who wishes to attend both examinations.
“The Court cannot direct the examinations to be postponed at the instance of one of the candidates who wishes to take the examinations. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the candidate can take another chance for the All India Bar examination and the fee paid will be adjusted towards that chance.”
Case Title: Satheesh Kumar S. v Transport Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that vehicles registered as good carriage vehicles, but fitted with construction equipment and used for construction purposes can be levied with the motor vehicle tax applicable to construction equipment vehicles.
“It is further the definition as provided under clause 10(iii) of the schedule enumerated any other equipment vehicle which is exclusively used for construction purposes is to be considered as construction equipment liable for the purposes of levy of the tax for such vehicles. Considering the use of the petitioner's vehicles only for the construction purposes, I am of the view that petitioner's vehicles are liable to be taxed at the rate prescribed for construction equipment vehicles and not for the goods carriage vehicles.”, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed.
Case Title: Kiran Kurian Mathew v. Ashly Mathew & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that when a dispute arises on the correctness of valuation and Court fees to be paid, it ought to be determined after permitting evidence on the same, before the commencement of trial on merits, due to it being a mixed question of fact and law.
In the present case, a challenge had been raised regarding the correctness of the valuation and Court fees paid. The Sub-Court concluded that since the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, it could only be determined after trial, and issued an order in that regard, which had been challenged before the High Court.
"If the Sub Court is of the opinion that the question of valuation and court fee is a mixed question of fact and law, possibly evidence may be permitted on that question and a decision taken accordingly, before commencement of the trial on the merits of the matter, as clarified by the explanation to Section 12," the Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed while setting aside the order.
Case Title: Vishnu Sajanan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
The Kerala High Court held that arbitrary or stringent conditions imposed on an accused when he was released on default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bail application of the accused was allowed by the Sessions Court as the investigation was not completed even after sixty days of judicial custody. The Sessions Court whilst allowing the bail application under Section 167 (2) CrPC imposed stringent conditions which were challenged before the High Court.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, while lifting the stringent bail conditions imposed upon the accused observed that default bail was a statutory right that cannot be curtailed by imposition of onerous conditions.
“While imposing conditions in default bail, the Court can only impose such conditions to ensure that the accused will appear before the court concerned for trial and will also co-operate with the investigation. An accused in detention shall be released on bail after the period of detention mentioned in Section 167(2), if he is prepared to and furnish bail. This statutory right cannot be circumvented by imposing onerous conditions. Such arbitrary condition imposed while granting statutory bail amount to infringement of the fundamental right of the detenue under section 21 of the constitution of India.”
Case Title: XXXXX v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 709
The Kerala High Court denied permission for medical termination of pregnancy to a 14-year-old minor girl who was almost nine months pregnant, in a plea filed by her mother.
The Court reached the aforesaid conclusion based on the findings in the medical report that the pregnancy was at an advanced stage and that the foetus was thirty weeks old with a good foetal heartbeat.
The Court further noted that the accused who was in custody under the POCSO Act, and the minor victim had developed a consensual relationship and that she was not forced into sexual intercourse. However, considering that the age of the victim was only 13 to 14 years, the Court stated that this was certainly statutory rape.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed empathy with the minor victim and her family but denied the request for medical termination of pregnancy considering that the pregnancy was at an advanced stage.
“This Court is saying as afore only for one reason, namely that the pregnancy is now very advanced, with the Medical Board speaking with unanimity that the “uterus corresponded to 30 weeks of gestation with good foetal heart”. The foetus has, in fact, life with heart rate; and hence, termination of the pregnancy at this stage is impossible, as also untenable. The Medical Board is also unambiguously of the view, as available from the record, that termination is not possible, but that the baby can only be taken out through a Caesarean section - which is to say, that it will be born alive, with a prognosis of a good life in future.”
Case Title: Pinchu Chandran v Arya J
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 710
The Kerala High Court recently held that the Family Court can strike off the defence of the opposite party, only as a last resort on failure to pay interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC during the pendency of maintenance proceedings.
In terms of the proviso to Section 125 CrPC, the Court can issue an order for payment of interim maintenance during the pendency of maintenance proceedings and such orders shall be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite side. Section 128 CrPC pertains to the procedure for enforcement of maintenance orders including orders for interim maintenance.
In allowing the plea, by granting the husband a last opportunity to pay maintenance, Justice C.S. Dias relied upon the Apex Court decisions in Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain (2020), Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) and held thus:
“Perhaps, it is keeping in mind the bottlenecks in the procedure and to uphold the majesty of the Court, the Honourable Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents has held the defence of the erring husband/father/son can be struck off in a proceeding under Section 125, as a last resort, on his failure to pay interim maintenance.”
Case Title: Suo Moto High Court of Kerala v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 711
The Kerala High Court recently took suo motu cognizance of pendency of petty cases before Magistrates in the State and noted that as on date, 1.59 lakh petty cases were pending. It was held that in summons cases, Magistrates have power to stop proceedings under Section 258 CrPC, instituted otherwise than upon complaint, when the presence of the accused cannot be secured despite best efforts of the prosecution.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath made it clear that Section 258 CrPC empowered a Magistrate to order stoppage of proceedings at any stage of the trial, after issuance of summons and before completion of trial. It observed that proceedings can be stopped when the Magistrate is satisfied that the presence of the accused cannot be secured before the court owing to the incorrect/fake address of the accused or for any other valid reasons, despite the prosecution having made sincere and earnest efforts.
“In our view, not only is the power vested in the Magistrate sufficiently wide in its nature and scope but also in cases where the presence of the accused cannot be secured notwithstanding the earnest and sincere efforts of the Prosecutor, the Magistrate is duty bound to exercise his/her power to stop the proceedings. The Magistrate must record reasons before stopping the proceedings and releasing the accused. “
Case Title: Baiju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 712
The Kerala High Court observed that the appellate court has to pass a speaking order by applying its mind for ordering deposit of minimum 20% compensation/fine amount under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act as a condition to suspend sentence.
On appeal against conviction for dishonor of cheque under Section 138 NI Act, the appellate court as per Section 148 NI Act has the power to grant suspension of sentence pending appeal with imposition of a condition for payment of minimum 20% of compensation/fine amount as ordered by the trial court.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan, on relying upon the Apex Court decision in in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) observed that deposit of minimum 20% compensation/fine amount was not an absolute blanket rule while considering suspension of sentence. It held that the appellate court has the duty to decide whether it has to impose such a condition for payment of compensation/fine amount and pass a speaking order by recording its reasons.
“Therefore, the duty of the appellate court is firstly to decide whether such a deposit is to be Bhandari's case (supra), when an accused applies under S.389 of the CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls within the exception or not. The appellate court while suspending a sentence cannot pass a blanket order in all cases to deposit 20% of the fine or compensation without assigning any reason.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
The Kerala High Court directed the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge to conduct a fact finding enquiry on the allegations raised by the survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case pertaining to unauthorized access and copy and transfer of the visuals from the Memory Card relating to the incident.
Justice K. Babu, passed the Order on a plea filed by the survivor seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged leakage of visuals from the Memory Card, and the change in hash value of the memory card thereof, that was kept in court custody.
"The District and Sessions Judge is at liberty to seek the assistance of any agency including the police for conducting the enquiry. The petitioner is at liberty to present written submissions before the District and Sessions Judge. In the inquiry, if the commission of any offence is disclosed, the District and Sessions Judge shall proceed as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973," it observed.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
The Kerala High Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to be followed by law enforcement agencies and Courts while handling sexually explicit materials.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu issued the guidelines while ordering a 'fact-finding enquiry' on the allegations raised by the survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case pertaining to unauthorized access and copy and transfer of the visuals from a Memory Card relating to the incident.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 714
The Kerala High Court set aside the Single Judge's order granting permission to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to issue fresh summons to former Finance Minister Dr. T.M. Thomas Issac and the officials of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB), in connection with the Masala Bonds case.
ED had issued summons to KIIFB, and the then Finance Minister, Dr. Issac, alleging violations of provisions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) for raising funds by issuing rupee-denominated bonds (masala bonds) abroad.
Taking note that the Order issued by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun had been a detailed one, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that,
"..propriety demands that without hearing the matter, a Single Judge cannot pass an Order virtually modifying the earlier Order passed by another Single Judge".
Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case Considering Parties Solemnized Marriage
Case Title: Adarsh Thinkal T.S v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 715
The Kerala High Court has quashed a rape case based on false promise of marriage, finding that the parties (accused and de facto complainant) had gotten married under the Special Marriage Act.
Taking into account the Marriage Certificate produced and the submissions, Justice Gopinath P observed thus:
“I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The offences alleged against the petitioner cannot sustain in the light of the fact that the petitioner has now married to the de facto complainant/victim.”
Case Title: Suo Moto v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 716
The Travancore Devaswom Board informed the Kerala High Court that 3 newly constructed Nadapandals in Pamba Manappuram will open for pilgrims in evening, with each having capacity to accommodate approximately 640 pilgrims.
Based on the submission that construction of the 3 Nadapandals was complete, the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice G Girish stated thus:
“In such circumstances, this SSCR is disposed of by directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure that the newly constructed Nadapandals at Pamba Manappuram are opened to the pilgrims today itself.”
Case Title: Jagadesh Ramachandran v The Maintenance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 717
The Kerala High Court recently observed that senior citizens cannot be denied the company and presence of siblings and close relatives, as long as they desire it.
The petitioner's son was aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal that directed the senior citizen mother to be relocated to his aunt's (mother's sister) house.
Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that both the son as well as the sister of the senior citizen were expressing their concern and wanted to ensure her well-being. It thus noted that more inquiries were required to be conducted by the Maintenance Tribunal since the son submitted before the Court that he was providing all facilities to his mother.
Provisions For Self-Assessment Are More Onerous Than Regular Assessment Regime: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Artech Realtors Versus Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 718
The Kerala High Court has held that filing an untrue or incorrect return assumes more rigour in the teeth of the onerous obligation, resulting in the imposition of a penalty.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that provisions for self-assessment create an obligation on the assessee to file a correct return, which is more onerous than in a regime that mandates regular assessment. Filing of an untrue or incorrect return in view of sub-clause (d) of Section 67(1) assumes more rigour in the teeth of the onerous obligation, resulting in the imposition of a penalty without reference to whether there has been disclosure made in the books of account or not.
Case Title: Maya Venu v. Power Grid Corporation of India & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 719
The Kerala High Court clarified that under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the compensation for damages sustained by landowners is not confined to the initial cutting of trees, but also if any further work in the property results in damages to the landowner.
"By using the terminology 'any damage' the legislature has consciously widened the landowners' right to claim compensation. The compensation for damage sustained is therefore not confined to the initial cutting of trees and drawing of lines. If the telegraph authority does any further work in the property after drawing the lines and such action results in the landowner sustaining damage, he can claim compensation, even if he was paid compensation for the damage sustained earlier. The above reasoning is supported by the concept of continuing cause of action, whereby a cause action once arisen will continue and go on, if the act complained of is continuously repeated. Yet another reason being that, every work done in a person's property by another without permission, infringes upon the owner's right to enjoy his property without let or hindrance," Justice V.G. Arun observed.
Case title: P.H.Fathima V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 720
The Kerala High Court observed that as per Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975, the District Collector may exercise revisional power against an assessment order. The Court made it clear that the revisional power of the District Collector was not just limited to an order passed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Aggrieved by the rejection of the assessment order by the District Collector in revision, the petitioner has approached the High Court. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh while quashing the order of the District Collector stated thus: “From the bare perusal of Section 13, it can be gathered that the District Collector may exercise the revisional power against the assessment order, and it is not limited only to the order passed in appeal under Section 11 by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Of course, the power of revision against the assessment order or the appellate order is to be exercised within the parameters provided under Section 13.”
Pala Nun Murder | Kerala High Court Confirms Accused's Murder Conviction; Sets Aside Rape Charge
Case Title: Satheesh Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 721
The Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction of the 38 year old accused of murdering a sexagenarian nun in the year 2015 under Section 302 of IPC.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John discerned that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond doubt that the accused had caused the death of the nun, although there was no evidence as regards the weapon used by him to cause her death.
It however set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape, since there was no evidence as to the time of the death of the victim for determining whether she had been alive at the time of commission of rape.
Case Title: K.N. Abdul Gafoor v. M/S Kasmisons Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 722
The Kerala High Court laid down that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can only direct the Company to file its objections along with the statement of affairs when a petition for winding up of the Company before the Tribunal had been filed by any person other than the Company itself.
Justice C. Jayachandran, passed the order on perusing Section 274(1) of the Companies Act, which stipulates the 'directions for filing statement of affairs'.
Parties Cannot Be Penalised For Belated Issuing Of Certified Copy By Family Court: Kerala High Court
Case title: Sajani V Sabu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 723
The Kerala High Court observed that belatedly issuing a certified copy of an order cannot be a reason to penalize the parties, who have done no wrong.
Justice C S Dias relied upon Jang Singh vs Brijlal and others (1966) to refer to the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit to state that a mistake committed by the Court should not prejudice a litigant.
“It needs no second thought to understand that there was laches on the part of the Family Court in belatedly issuing the certified copy. But, that cannot be a reason to penalise the revision petitioners, who have done no wrong. The revision petitioners are entitled to the entire arrears of maintenance claimed in Annexure A2 application.”, the Court stated.
Case title: Praveena Ravikumar v State Election Commission & Connected Case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 724
The Kerala High Court upheld an order of the State Election Commission which observed that the parties defected and were disqualified for their failure to follow the written instructions issued to them by the party whip. It was alleged that the whip was served without authority at the old address and was incomplete and improper.
Upholding the validity of the notice served, the Court observed that the failure to serve notice was attributable to the addressee and not the sender when it was sent to the correct address and was returned as unclaimed or the addressee left. It further held that it was the responsibility of the addressee to leave a new address with the postal authorities when there was a change in the address.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas relied upon the Apex Court decision in M/s Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989) and held thus:
“Apart from the above, if the notice sent to the correct address is returned either as unclaimed or as addressee left, the failure to serve the notice can only be attributed to the addressee and not to the sender. In such circumstances, the addressee should leave necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to redirect the letter to his new address or authorize a person to receive such postal articles. Failure to provide the new address to the postal authorities cannot prejudice the sender in such circumstances.”
Case Title: Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 725
The Kerala High Court laid down that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('JJ Act, 2000') would be applicable in revision, upon the conviction and sentence of a 49 year old person in respect of an offence committed by him in the year 1991, at the age of 17 years, when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force.
Taking note of an Explanation added to Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2000, by virtue of an amendment which came into force in 2006, Justice G. Girish observed that the determination of juvenility of a juvenile in a pending case at the time of commencement of 2000 Act shall be in terms of Section 2(l) of the JJ Act, 2000, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of the Act.
Case Title: Animals and Nature Ethics Community (ANEC) v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 726
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that had been filed challenging the Order that had been issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Wildlife Warden directing appropriate steps to be taken to shoot the tiger that had attacked and partially eaten a farmer in Wayanad.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- while dismissing the plea.
Case Title: Dr. Athira P. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 727
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the disadvantages that women may face due to their biological differences from men, in the context of getting opportunities in public employment. The Court said that the rules relating to public employment must accommodate the concerns of pregnant women and young mothers, so that they don't face discrimination.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen was of the view that, despite standing on equal footing along with men with respect to consideration in the affairs or chances in the public employment, biological differences of women, such as motherhood, may often result in indirect discrimination.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors. v. P.V. Kuryan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
The Kerala High Court held that as an employer, the Government ought not to enquire into the private affairs of a Government servant unless any manifest misconduct is expressed in their activities that warrants action to be taken.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen noted that in such cases, it would be for the affected persons to initiate such action as against any moral conduct of the Government servant, and not for the Government to conduct an enquiry into the private affairs of the employee.
Case title: B Suresh v Chief Engineer & Administrator
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 729
The Kerala High Court held that a long period of absence from service without prior intimation or permission would amount to abandonment of service. It observed that abandonment of service means an act of intentionally or voluntarily abandoning service.
In this case, the Court found that the petitioner remained absent for almost 17 years without any prior intimation or permission and it would amount to abandonment of service.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal that terminated his service due to long absence.
Kerala HC Allows A Law Grad To Enroll With State Bar Post-Deadline By Submitting Application With Provisional Degree Physically
Case title: Akhil S Kumar v Bar Council of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 730
The Kerala High Court allowed a law graduate to enrol in the upcoming enrollment ceremony scheduled to be held on 17th December 2023 by submitting a physical application before the Bar Council of Kerala along with his Provisional Degree Certificate.
In this case, the petitioner was unable to apply for enrollment within the deadline, as he did not possess a Provisional Degree Certificate then.
The Court allowed the petitioner to enroll in the upcoming enrollment ceremony on finding that he had obtained his Provisional Degree Certificate. However, the Court clarified that this shall not be a precedent and directed the Bar Council to obtain verification from the police and allow the petitioner to enrol on 17th December 2023.
“In the case at hand, since the petitioner has already obtained the Provisional Degree Certificate and since the learned Standing Counsel for the University affirms that it is a genuine one, I deem it appropriate to allow the prayers of the petitioner…..The petitioner will be allowed to make a physical application for enrollment, along with all applicable fees and charges. This shall be accepted by the Bar Council of Kerala before the working hours of today (14.12.2023). On such application being received, liberty is reserved to the Bar Council of Keralato obtain verification from the Police, as may be necessary; and they will then allow the petitioner to be enrolled on 17.12.2023”, Justice Devan Ramachandran stated.
Case Title: Vibin Meleppuram v. Denny Thomas & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
The Kerala High Court reiterated that even a blank cheque leaf which has been voluntarily signed by the drawer, towards payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act'), in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
Section 139 of the NI Act raises a presumption that a drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability.
Relying upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019), and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari (2022), the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar reiterated that in such an instance, it would be immaterial whether the cheque had been filled in by any person other than the drawer. It added that the evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the drawer had filled in the details in the cheque would also be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over.
Case Title: Baburaj & Ors. v. Janeesh P.S. & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 732
The Kerala High Court has permitted aggrieved Municipal Councillors to challenge the decision of the Council regarding the identification of a prospective licensee for running 'Bini Tourist Home', a building owned by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, before the State Authority.
The matter pertains to the eruption of an alleged raucous at the meeting of the Corporation Council, following disputes regarding the Council's identification of a licensee for running the tourist home.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun permitted the aggrieved Councillors to challenge the decision taken by the Council before the State authority within one week.
Case Title: Rama v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 733
In a significant decision, the Kerala High Court underscored the duty of jail authorities to consider applications moved by convicts and relatives of convicts for emergency leave, ordinary leave, and so on, within a fixed time frame.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan took note that there were several petitions before the Court moved by convicts and their close relatives for getting emergency leave, ordinary parole, and so on. The Court therefore proceeded to issue a slew of directions on processing such applications, and issuing appropriate orders in that regard within three weeks from the date of receipt of the same. It further directed such orders to be communicated to the convicts and their relatives within a week of passing the Order.
Case Name: Asokan K M v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 734
The Kerala High Court closed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father of Dr Akhila @ Hadiya alleging that his daughter had been missing since the last month and they were unable to contact her.
A division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed that Hadiya is not under any illegal detention and thus the Habeas Corpus Petition was not maintainable. The Court further noted that Hadiya is living her life freely and is not under any illegal custody.
Case Title: Jayakumar J. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 735
The Kerala High Court has quashed an order issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board which permitted the conduct of 'Nava Kerala Sadas' on Chakkuvally Prabrahma Temple premises.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish passed the order on a plea filed by two devotees of the temple alleging blatant violation of provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and judgments of the Apex Court and High Court by which the temple property was being misused to conduct Nava Kerala Sadas.
Case title: Badha Ram v Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 736
The Kerala High Court made it clear the officials can invoke the power to arrest under Section 69 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act, 2017 if there was a reasonable belief that an offence under Section 132 was made out and that custodial interrogation was necessary.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that the accused can be certainly arrested to prevent any possibility of tampering with the evidence or intimidating or influencing witnesses and to ensure a proper investigation.
“The power to arrest under Section 69 can be invoked if the Commissioner has a reason to believe that the person has committed offences that are prescribed and which are punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, the reference to Section 132 in Section 69 is only to indicate the nature of the offences based on which reasonable belief is found and recorded by the Commissioner to pass an order for arrest…… But, once the ingredients of the offence are made out, the Commissioner or the competent authority can determine if the offender is to be arrested or not.”
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 737
The Kerala High Cout recorded the submissions of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that the summons issued by it to the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and former Minister, Dr. T.M. Thomas Issac, in relation to the masala bonds case would be withdrawn.
Allowing the plea of Isaac and partly allowing that of KIIFB, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the investigation carried out by the ED, including as to whether it is maintainable, or liable to be continued or deserving to be continued and, added that all such issues were left open.
GST Evasion Prosecution Does Not Depend Upon Completion Of Assessment: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
The Kerala High Court has held that prosecution for offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act does not depend upon the completion of the assessment.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to grant bail on the grounds that there is an alleged evasion of more than Rs. 6.5 crore against the petitioner. A serious allegation is made, which warrants a thorough investigation. When the investigation is going on, no bail can be granted to the petitioner.
Case Title: Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
The Kerala High Court recently elaborated the ambit and scope of 'partial restraint' against the institution of suits within the period of advance notice in writing, envisaged under Section 55 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('Act, 1950').
Section 55 (1) of the Act, 1950 stipulates that "no suit shall be instituted against the board or the executive officer of the Sri Padmanabhaswarny Temple until the expiration of two months after a notice in writting has been delivered or left at the office of the Board, or of the Executive Officer, as the case may be, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left".
Clause (2) of Section 55 states that, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, suits or other proceedings by or against the Executive Office of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple or the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be instituted in the District Court having local jurisdiction."
Justice P. Somarajan observed that the normal principle is that there cannot be any restraint against the institution of litigation before a civil court.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that Indian Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to protect the best interest or welfare of a child or an incapable adult, if so warranted, in circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that the party who approached it has no legal remedy before the Court beyond Indian territory.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the Court, on invoking its writ jurisdiction, would have the power to adjudicate and that the parens patriae and nationality rules would also apply to protect the best interest of the child, or the welfare of the incapable adult.
It however cautioned that the Court ought to be circumspect to exercise its jurisdiction when it finds that the law of the foreign country can be invoked to protect the welfare or best interest of the child or incapable adult.
"There may be different circumstances related to the cases. If parties are ordinarily residing in a foreign country and can avail legal remedy in that foreign country, the courts in India shall not invoke such jurisdiction to regulate the affairs of its citizens living beyond territorial jurisdiction of the country. The Court steps into the shoes of a parent invoking parens patriae jurisdiction, only in those circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that jurisdiction of the foreign country cannot be availed by the party concerned, due to lack of laws or incapability of having legal remedy, or if one party is deprived of availing legal remedy due to issues of domicile or residentiary rights. When an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the Court shall refrain from invoking its jurisdiction over the affairs of its citizens who are living outside its territorial jurisdiction," the Bench observed.
Case Title: X v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order transferring a senior scientist at the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) whose son faces 65% permanent locomotor disability. The Court held that the transfer order violated the legal right of the disabled son to be taken care of by his father.
Relying upon the UN Conventions and Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act 2016, the Court observed that a child with a disability has a right to live in a family environment of their choice and cannot be deprived of the presence of his father in a way it affects his life.
“Thus, the question arises whether absence of the petitioner would deprive the child, the environment he enjoyed in equal measures with others. Considering the age and other factors, it cannot be said that his wife would be able to adequately maintain the child. If any of the rights of the disabled child is denied by his absence, going by Section 5 of Chapter II of PWD Act, the transfer order passed, without adverting to such right of the child, becomes illegal. In the normal routine of matter, an organisation is not expected to have a consideration of the personal matters of an employee. However, when such personal matters are intertwined with the rights conferred under law, the organisation is bound to address such matters and make sure that the transfer would not affect the child's best interest.”
Quashing the transfer order as illegal, Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held thus:
“If a person with disability is affected by such transfer, and in no way the best interest of the child can be protected consequent upon implementing such transfer order, that transfer order will be considered illegal.”
Case Title: Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v Umaimath
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that as per Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, Tribunals and not Civil Courts have jurisdiction to deal with civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
It held that as per Section 29 of the NGT Act, Civil Courts are barred from granting injunctions for actions taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
In this case, the maintainability of the suit was challenged stating that the National Green Tribunal has the jurisdiction to govern 'substantial questions relating to environment' and not a Civil Court.
Justice V.G. Arun observed thus:
“…the relief of injunction is sought based on the allegation that the revision petitioners are flowing out chemical waste and contaminating the environment (padasekharam) in violation of the licence conditions and the statutory provisions. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction over such a case is vested with the Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act. As per Section 29, no civil court can grant injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of dispute relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated by the Tribunal.”
Case Title: Rahul Subhash v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by 28 aspirants for enlistment in the Indian army challenging the Central Government's Agnipath scheme.
Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioners have not advanced any tangible reason warranting interference by this Court in the Agnipath Scheme.
The Court observed that the method of recruitment to the Indian army was a matter concerning policy decisions which should be left to the government to decide, as the same affects national security. It further held that Courts cannot interfere in policy decisions of the government as long as there was no infringement of fundamental rights.
“The issue raised by the petitioners is one concerning the method of recruitment to the Indian Armed Forces. It is a sensitive issue. In matters concerning national security, policy decision should be left to the Government. So long as the decision of the Government does not infringe fundamental rights of citizens, the Courts have no reason to interfere. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government, the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible.”
Case Title: Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
The Kerala High Court has laid down that Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) shall apply to proceedings before the Rent Control Court.
Section 89 of CPC provides for 'settlement of disputes outside courts' including arbitration, conciliation, and judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or mediation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John took the view that Section 89 CPC does not run counter to any of the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter, 'the Act'), including Section 23 of the Act which states that the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority shall have the powers vested in a civil court as per CPC.
Case Title: S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by cricketer S. Sreesanth in a cheating case.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. recorded the submission that the matter had been settled between the parties.
Case Title: Indira v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
The Kerala High Court granted two days' escort parole to 'Ripper Jayanandan', an infamous killer accused of seven murders committed during thirty-five robberies, for partaking in the function organized to release a book written by him. Advocate Keerthi Jayanandan had appeared as the counsel for Jayanandhan in the plea filed by his wife.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while granting the escort parole to the convict, observed,
"Here is a case where the petitioner's husband who is a convict undergoing imprisonment for about 17 years. He wrote a book...He studied only up to 9th standard. The book release is scheduled on 23.12.2023. A convict in detention for 17 years wrote a book and he wants to participate in his book release function is the situation. In such a situation, I am of the considered opinion that the constitutional court should step in, even if the Rules do not permit such release. The petitioner's husband should be given an opportunity to participate in the book release function and also on the previous day for making arrangements for the function. Therefore, the petitioner's husband should be allowed two days escort parole on 22.12.2023 and 23.12.2023".
Case Title: Mathew P J v M/S. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Section 5 Limitation Act has no application in condoning the delay in filing an application challenging for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as this provision separately provides for a limitation period of maximum 4 months.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed thus:
“In so far as a challenge against arbitration award is concerned, the same is in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since a specific period of limitation is provided therein. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to condone delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a Magistrate cannot be prosecuted under 228-A IPC on an inadvertent omission to anonymize the name and details of the victims based on an analysis of Section 228-A and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
For context, Section 228-A IPC relates to disclosing the identity of the victim of certain offences under Section 376 IPC etc. It is an offence triable by a Magistrate and punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a fine.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the protection offered to judicial officers under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 was plenary and protects them from any action initiated qua an act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him/her during the discharge of their official or judicial duties.
“In the case at hand, it is indubitable that the learned Magistrate was acting in performance of judicial duties and the error committed by her, or her office, is that the order was not anonymised qua the petitioner. This Court cannot, therefore, find the request of the petitioner, for initiation of action against the learned Magistrate under Section 228 A of the IPC, to be worthy of grant, specifically within the ambit of the said Section, read with the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. “, the Court stated.
Case Title: Sundar v Director General of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
The Kerala High Court granted police protection to the relatives of Arjun, who was acquitted in the rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old minor girl at Vandiperiyar town in the Idukki district in 2021.
Justice Basant Balaji directed the District Police Chief, Idukki and the Station House Officer of Vandiperiyar Police Station to ensure that there was no threat to life of the relatives of Arjun.
“Taking into consideration the seriousness of the issue that an child aged 5 1⁄2 half years was brutally murdered and the accused was exonerated of all the charges, the local people along with the respondents 4 to 6 very much agitated by the same and therefore the situation is very much tense. Therefore there will be direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondent to see that there is no threat to the life of the petitioners 1 to 7 at the hand of respondents 4 to 6 or their associates.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a father who had been accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter, on doubting the veracity of the allegations raised against him.
Justice Gopinath P. stated that although the allegations that were raised against the petitioner appeared to be serious, some of the factual circumstances indicated the possibility of the same being false.
"While it may not be proper for this Court to make any conclusion regarding the matter. While considering the bail application of the petitioner, the same can be taken note of for considering whether the petitioner can be granted bail. Since investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation," the Court observed.
Case Title: V.Unnikrishnan v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Connected Case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
The Kerala High Court recently upheld orders issued by the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation rejecting commercial building permits for areas earmarked as residential zones as per the Detailed Town Planning (DTP) Scheme, 1987.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that rampant constructions without heeding to zoning regulations will affect the planned development of a town. The Court stated that the planned development of a town based on the DTP Scheme and Master Plans was essential for the future development and growth of an area.
“The micro-level plans for development are made in the DTP Schemes, while the Master Plans provide for schemes to a larger extent. If the private interest of an individual is given predominance over the public interest, the same would cause prejudice to the development of the State itself. It is taking into reckoning these aspects that the detailed town planning schemes and the Master Plans are prepared”, the Court stated.
Case Title: N. Basurangan v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application moved by the President and Secretary of the Kandala Co-operative Bank noting that granting anticipatory bail in economic offences would hamper effective investigation in the casw.
The allegation against the accused persons was that they cheated and deceived depositors and misappropriated crores of rupees. A crime was registered against them under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and Section 34 (criminal act in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
Justice Mohammed Nias C P stated that economic offences have to be treated separately as they involve deep-rooted conspiracies including huge loss of money. It also held that there was an apprehension that the accused persons would try to intimidate or influence the depositors.
“The grant of anticipatory bail will frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting useful information and materials that might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would delude the accused knows that an order of court protects him. Grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, in such economic offences would certainly hamper an effective investigation. The charges being multiple, I do not think that this is a case where section 438 Cr.p.c can be invoked.”,
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
Reiterating the importance of masking the identity of parties in sexual offences, the Kerala High Court has held that no person shall print or publish details revealing the identity of 'parties' including their name and address without the permission of the court.
The High Court, on analysing previous judgments of the Court and the mandate of Sections 327 CrPC, 228-A IPC, made it clear that the protection of confidentiality is extended to all parties of litigation, including the accused.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed thus:
“Hence, the law as it stands now clearly provides that it shall not be lawful for a person to print and publish any matter in relation to the inquiry or trial of rape or an offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or 376E of IPC except with the previous permission of the Court, that too subject to maintaining confidentiality of name and address of the parties, both the victim and the accused.”
Case Title: Zamra Endeavours Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
The Kerala High Court directed the handover of Zamra Convention Centre, where bomb blasts had occurred, to its Managing Director.
On October 29, 2023, bomb blasts had occurred at the Convention Centre during a Jehovah's Witness meeting. The explosion killed 8 persons and injured several others.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Convention Centre could not be put to prejudice 'ad infinitum', particularly considering that it had been over 60 days since the incident occurred.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Former Senior Government Pleader In Rape Case
Case Title: P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea moved by former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu in the case pertaining to alleged sexual assault of a female client in the guise of providing legal assistance for her.
Justice Gopinath P. however added that if the petitioner were to surrender within 10 days from today, he shall be produced before the Magistrate and that his bail application ought to be considered without undue delay.
Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail plea moved by Dr. Ruvais, who had been accused of abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana.
Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, died by suicide due to financial constraints faced by her family, and their failure to meet the alleged demands for exorbitant dowry sought by Ruwais.
It is alleged that Ruwais' family had demanded 150 sovereigns of gold, 15 acres of land, and a BMW car from Shahana's family, which the latter could not meet. When the incident came to light, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had suspended Ruwais' medical license for abetting Dr. Shahana's suicide.
Ruwais was thereafter charged with the offences under Section 306 IPC ('Abetment of Suicide') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('Penalty for demanding dowry').
Taking note that Ruvais has been in custody since December 7, 2023, Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner was not necessary for the purposes of investigation, and that he could be granted bail.
"The allegations against the petitioner are no doubt serious. I had also observed while granting bail to the 2nd accused in the case (Ruvais' father), that there are clear allegations against the petitioner in the suicide note recovered from the apartment where the deceased was staying. However, as rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a condition under Section 306 IPC can be sustained only if there are clear indications that the petitioner had the mens rea to drive the deceased to suicide, and the actions of the petitioner had left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide," the Court observed.
Case Title: Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
The Kerala High Court closed the plea moved by story and screenplay writer Deepu K. Unni, against the release of the Mohanlal-starrer Mollywood film, 'Neru'.
Justice Devan Ramachandran today allowed the request made by the petitioner and granted him liberty to approach the competent civil court with appropriate suit or other remedy.
"In the afore circumstances, the writ petition is closed with the afore requested liberty being reserved to the petitioners," the Court said, adding that it had not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions.
Case Title: Archana Pius v. Shine
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
The Kerala High Court recently held that an anti-suit injunction by a wife against her husband who had instituted a suit in a Canadian court, would only be maintainable with respect to properties held in India.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha observed:
"Canadian court would not have jurisdiction with regard to the property/properties located in Kerala. Either of the parties have to seek relief by filing a suit in court having proper jurisdiction...we modify the order of the trial court and injunct respondent No.1 not to stake the claim in respect of properties in joint ownership or in individual names situated in India...with regard to the property in Canada, there shall be no such injunction."
Case Title: Abedur Shekh v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
“ There is no Keralite alone or Bengali alone or Kannadiga alone or Tamilian alone. All are brothers and sisters”, observed the Kerala High Court while holding that Courts cannot insist that surety should be from a particular state. It stated that such bail conditions would be unmindful of the fact that we are all Indians.
Aggrieved by the bail condition that one surety should be from the Idukki district itself, the petitioner who was a native of West Bengal has approached the Court.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that all persons are citizens of this country and Courts cannot insist that surety should belong to a particular area.
“If a Keralite unfortunately became an accused in West Bengal, he would find it extremely difficult to get a surety at West Bengal as he is not a resident of that State. He can produce a surety from his native place where his kith and kin are residing. Similar is the case if a native of West Bengal becomes accused of an offence in Kerala. All are citizens of this country. The sureties are executing the bond to produce the accused as and when required. It cannot be insisted that the sureties residing within the jurisdiction of the Court should execute a bond in all situations.”
Case Title: Biju Sundar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a fine balance has to be found between the requirements of administration and the imperative to provide greater opportunities to PwD Candidates.
The petitioner, in this case, challenged the 2023 notification for appointment as District & Sessions Judge in Kerala State Higher Judicial Service (KSHJS) by direct recruitment from bar (hereafter, notification) for being violative of the rights of disabled persons.
Disposing of the writ petition, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V issued directions for the identification of posts, working out backlog vacancies, providing age relaxation, granting grace marks and filling up backlog vacancies through a special recruitment drive for ensuring full and equal rights to disabled persons to fulfil the constitutional mandate as per the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Case Title: Deepa P.M. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala High Court recently berated the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP), Thrissur Rural, for refusing to issue a Letter of Altruism to a maid to enable her to donate her organ to her previous employer who is suffering from renal failure.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the said authority had refused to grant the Letter, on acting upon certain surmises and conjectures entered into by the Station House Officer of the Valapad Police Station (SHO) who doubted the intention behind the transplant on account of the poor financial background of the petitioner.
Case title: K Tony Thomas v Vythiri Grama Panchayath
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) cannot expand the term 'landslide prone area' without approval from the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA).
Relying upon Section 31 (2) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the Court held that the District Plan prepared by DDMA has to be approved by the State Authority.
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
The Kerala High Court recently quashed proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man alleged to have sexually abused the victim.
Justice Gopinath P. noted that the allegations against the petitioner accused had been launched following his withdrawal from marriage with the victim, after the engagement ceremony had been performed. The Court also took note that the proceedings were being sought to be quashed herein following the reconciliation and marriage of the parties.
Case title: Aswathy Surendran v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that medical termination of pregnancy can only be sought when the competent medical board has diagnosed substantial foetal abnormalities.
“Statutorily, under the mandate of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ('Act' for short), it is only in cases where the foetus has substantial abnormalities diagnosed by the competent Medical Board, can the termination of pregnancy be sought for”.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, on considering a plea moved by the petitioners-husband and wife did not approve the medical termination of the pregnancy of a 30-week-old foetus since the Medical Reports did not suggest lethal foetal abnormalities endangering the life of a newborn baby.
Case Title: Josepheena T.T. v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
The Kerala High Court has laid down that the failure to inform the transfer of property under Rules 19(1) or 19(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 ('KMBR Rules, 2019') cannot render a building permit that has already been issued invalid, when the building has not been constructed or completed.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of the considered view that the failure to inform the Secretary is only an irregularity and a curable defect, and that the prior owner and purchaser would be at liberty to apply to the Secretary, intimating him about the transfer and even request for a change of name for the building permit already issued, and that the Secretary would then have to take a decision on the same.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
The Kerala High Court has held that a consumer in a brothel house comes within the purview of Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act). Section 5 makes persons liable who procure, induce or take persons for prostitution.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that since the word 'procure' had not been defined in the ITP Act, it has to be understood to achieve the object behind the statute. The Court stated that the statute was enacted to prevent commercialisation of the vices and trafficking among women and girls, a consumer in a brothel house can also be made liable for procuring a person for prostitution under Section 5 of the Act.
Other Significant Developments This Month
Case number: WP(C) 28153/2023
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order directing the Registry to remove name and details of a lady published on the court's website in connection with a matrimonial appeal, as it affected her reputation and dignity.
Justice Devan Ramachandran directed:“Since the issue is delicate and affecting the reputation and dignity of the petitioner, I direct R5 to take steps to anonymise the judgment with respect to her name and address and upload it as per the usual terms. Action in this regard shall be intimated to this Court in due course.”
Case title: Shiju Joy A. v Nisha and connected matter
Case number: OP(FC) Nos.352/2020, 89/2021 and connected cases
In a significant order, the Kerala High Court has directed the state government and police to provide adequate police protection in all court premises and to the officers of the district judiciary.
The Court observed that there was an increase in sporadic untoward incidents in the Courts of the district judiciary and it cannot wait for untoward incidents to happen for providing security arrangements in Courts. Thus, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice C.S. Dias suo moto impleaded Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home Department) and State Police Chief as 5th and 6th respondents and directed thus:
“In the result, we direct the additional respondents 5 and 6 to immediately provide adequate police protection in all the court premises in the State of Kerala and to the officers of the District Judiciary as stated in Annexure A report. The Registrar (District Judiciary) and the Chief Security Officer of this Court shall coordinate with respondents 5 and 6 and work out the modalities to implement the order. A compliance report shall be placed on record before the next posting date.”
Case Title: Beena P.R. @ Beena Sasidharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 39668 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court categorically laid down that the State Government cannot direct Municipalities to expend its own funds for the conduct of 'Nava Kerala Sadas'.
The Chairperson of Paravur Municipality had approached the Court with the present plea, challenging the Order issued by State Government stating that the Local Self Government Department shall issue permissive sanction to the local authorities to incur expenditure for Nava Kerala Sadas programme. Municipal Secretaries were also granted permission to expend amounts for the organization and promotion of the programme, as per the specified limits, vide an order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary on behalf of the Governor.
Perusing the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Constitution (74th) Amendment Act, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas discerned that no provision in the said statutes conferred power on the State Government to direct the local authority to expend its own funds for the Government.
Action Should Be Taken Against Cyber Bullying Of LGBTQ+ Community : Kerala High Court To Police
Case Title: Daya Gayathri & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 40030 of 2023
The Kerala High Court expressed strong criticism of a cyber attack launched on persons belonging to the LGBTQ+ community. The Court was seized of a plea by certain persons belonging to the community seeking action against a registered society, named 'Youth Enrichment Society' for circulating fake news, unscientific data, and spewing hatred and derogatory remarks against the transgender community and sexual minorities through their social media platforms. The petitioners were aggrieved by the 'cyber lynching' carried out against them by the 'Society,' and submitted that such hateful remarks was likely to mislead the general public to instigate offences against the LGBTQ+ community, akin to mob lynching.
Emphasizing that every citizen had the right to live which could not be 'attenuated or suppressed by persons having propagandist ideas or deleterious philosophies', the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed: "Cyber space is no longer a myth, it is a reality. It is one where reputations of persons are easily attacked and deracinated and the perpetrators believe that they can do so being without any accountability. This has to necessarily change because, in a civilized world, the Authorities are to acknowledge the issues involved and to take necessary repertory action because, otherwise, it is possible that certain sections would certainly be subjected to great prejudice".
Case Title: Jins Francis v. State of Kerala, BAIL APPL. NO. 10695/2023
The Kerala High Court granted interim protection from arrest to a 37-year-old man accused of assaulting a female doctor and staff nurses who examined and treated him at the hospital.
Justice Gopinath P ordered that the petitioner-accused shall not be arrested for a period of 10 days.
The petitioner, who is reported to have inappropriately touched and assaulted doctor and staff nurses of St. James Hospital, is accused of the offence under Section 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012.
Case Title: M.S. Sajeev Kumar v. Hewlet-Packard Global Soft PVT Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CC No. 498/2021
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that the issuance of poorly printed bills on low-quality paper or with inferior ink amounts to 'deficiency of service' or 'unfair trade practice'.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. relied upon the decision in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. (2001), which laid down that the inclusion of terms and conditions and other particulars in bills is crucial for ensuring consumers' rights to be informed about the prices of products or services they purchase or hire.
It added that this also provides them with documentary evidence to support claims in Consumer Commissions that they had indeed bought products or hired services from a specific trader or service provider.
"In many countries, including India, consumer protection laws ensure the right to a durable and legible bill or receipt when making purchases, which includes clear and readable details of the transaction, durability against wear and tear, comprehensive itemization including prices and charges, clear indications of taxes and surcharges, information on return policies and warranties, recommendations for retention period, options for electronic receipts, and support from consumer protection authorities in case of disputes or issues," the Bench observed.
Case Title: P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 10796/ 2023
The Kerala High Court orally noted that former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu who is presently facing allegations of sexual assault of a female client on the guise of providing legal assistance for her, ought not to be given special consideration solely on the ground that he is a lawyer.
Manu had resigned from his post as Senior Government Pleader following allegations of raping the woman victim who had approached him for legal advice.
"It should not appear that because the accused is a lawyer, some special consideration is being granted...whatever be the status of the accused, the same considerations ought to apply," Justice Gopinath P. said.
Case Title: Aloshius Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 40569/2023
Kerala Students' Union (KSU) President Aloshius Xavier has approached the Kerala High Court seeking judicial inquiry into the stampede deaths that occurred at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) campus on November 25, 2023.
The tragic incident had claimed lives of 3 engineering students and one outsider, during a music concert that was to be conducted at the open air theatre in the campus, as part of the tech-fest.
Case Title: Aloshius Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 40569/2023
The Kerala High Court sought report on the enquiries conducted over stampede deaths at Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Campus on November 25, 2023.
The order came in response to KSU President Aloshius Xavier approaching the High Court for a judicial inquiry into the stampede deaths that occurred at CUSAT campus, claiming lives of 3 engineering students and one outsider, during a music concert that was to be conducted at its open air theatre as part of the tech-fest.
The petitioner alleged that the stampede had occurred due to several lapses on the part of the University and the investigation team was not conducting a fair investigation.
Taking note of the submissions of the Additional Advocate General and the Standing Counsel for the University Aravindakshan Pillai that a judicial enquiry may not be ordered at this juncture when the official agencies and the University had commenced their own enquiries, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed:
"The incident in question has perhaps never happened in Kerala before, but it shocks conscience of collective community because of horrible aftermath it has left on collective conscience. Brilliant lives who would've been treasures to the nation were lost, and obviously, answers will have to be found so that solutions can then be put in place not in the manner of a pavilonian reaction as is normally done, but with integrity and certainty in future".
Case Title: Santhosh M.S. v. Manager, Sports Terrain
Case Number: CC No. 240/ 2021
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that repeated installation of inferior quality football turf despite payment of the full amount for installing a superior quality turf, would constitute unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. held that the failure of the supplier to provide FIFA standard 'LIMONTA' brand artificial turf despite accepting full payment for the same, amounted to a clear deficiency in service, and consequently awarded Rs. 1,14,700/- as compensation to the complainant.
Indian Law Silent On Giving Child Right To Renounce Adoptive Parents: Amicus Tells Kerala High Court
Case Title: XXX v. Child Welfare Committee
Case Number: WP(C) 35823/2023
The Kerala High Court has been told that the "emancipation process" which could bestow an adopted child the right to renounce his/her adoptive parents as the legal guardians, could prove to be detrimental to the child in the long run.
The development arises in the interim report submitted by Advocate Parvathi Menon A., who had been appointed as the Amicus Curiae in a plea moved by the adoptive parents seeking the permission of the Court to annul the adoption of a girl (now a major).
The petitioners had sought annulment of adoption on the ground that the child was unable to integrate with the family, and was also attacking the adoptive mother.
Advocate Menon informed the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran today that the Indian legal scenario is silent on the concept of emancipation of minors from parental authority both antecedent to and subsequent to the attainment of 18 years of age.
Case Title: Muhammed Ismail K. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 40825/ 2023
The Kerala High Court restrained the Panchayat Secretaries from disbursing amounts from Panchayat funds for the conduct of 'Nava Kerala Sadas' against the resolution of the panchayat council.
'Nava Kerala Sadas' is a program involving direct interaction of top officials with the people and redressal of their grievances. It seeks to address the issues faced by the community in four main sectors, namely, health, education, agriculture and housing, with the aid of local self-governments.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the interim order on a plea filed by the Presidents and Vice Presidents of certain Panchayats in Malappuram and Kozhikode Districts.
Case Title: Aliyar T.M. v. M/S SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 380/ 2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that unauthorized transactions exceeding the credit limit of an account holder, particularly when such a person did not opt for over-the-limit transaction, would constitute a deficiency of service.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. relied upon the decision in State Bank of India v. P.V.George (2019) which laid down the duty of care banks have in protecting the interests of the customer, including safeguarding them from unauthorized transactions.
"As per the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines, customers are not liable if the fault lies elsewhere in the system. In this case, the bank's failure to prevent unauthorized transactions and secure the electronic banking environment constitutes a breach of its duty, and it cannot evade liability by shifting the blame entirely onto the customer," the Bench observed.
Case Title: V.V. Pankajakshan Nair v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 1272/ 2023
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court seeking proper and effective investigation under the supervision of the Director General of Police in the case involving the looting of 100 crores of money by a group of persons under the guise of the National Federation of Tourism and Transport Co-operatives of India (NFTCI), which is a multi-cooperative society functioning under the Central Government.
The petitioner, who is the former Chairperson of NFTCI, avers that a parallel website of NFTCI was started by one Ram Naresh Thakur, who claimed to be the Managing Director of the society and several others claiming to be office bearers of the same.
Case Title: Zeba Salim v. M/S VLCC Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No. 365/ 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered a refund of fees to a student who had enrolled in courses offered by VLCC Institute, Kochi, but subsequently got cancelled due to failure on the part of the institute to offer timely classes, even through online mode.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N., underscored the importance of protecting consumers in the education sector, by ensuring refund of fees to students who choose to leave a course midway.
"ln the field of education, while many coaching institutions offer valuable services to prepare students for higher education, there unfortunately exists a presence of unscrupulous coaching institutions engaging in unethical practices. exploiting students and their families. These institutions should not have the right to retain the fees of students who choose to leave a course midway due to dissatisfaction with the services provided. It is essential to ensure fairness and prevent these institutions from imposing unfair terms and conditions. Protecting consumers, particularly in the education sector is of utmost importance to guarantee that students and parents are treated with the respect and honesty they deserve," the Bench observed.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat said that the Constitution cannot be termed as a colonial document merely because it was a modification of the Government of India Act 1935 and emphasised that the Constitutional ideals cannot be discarded as some colonial vestige.
He was delivering a lecture on 'Shedding the Colonial Hangover-Perspectives on Indianizing the Legal System', organized by the Kerala Judicial Academy and the Indian Law Institute - Kerala Chapter, at the Kerala High Court.
Case Name: Kevin Peter Thomas v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 41078/2023
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Government of India and to the Election Commission of India to prohibit 26 opposition political parties from using the acronym “I.N.D.I.A.” (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance) as the name of their political alliance for upcoming 2024 Parliamentary elections.
A Division Bench Comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V. G. Arun adjourned the plea for hearing at a later date.
Case Title: Unmesh V. v. Vijayan George & Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No.318/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently directed a food catering service to pay a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to a complainant who got afflicted with food poisoning, after consuming unsafe food served at a wedding reception.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. found that the complainant endured significant inconvenience, mental distress, hardship, and financial loss due to the negligence of the caterers, which amounted to deficiency in service.
Case Title: Aravind G. John v. M/S Arya Bhangy Motors
Case Number: C.C. No. 173/2018
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held M/S Arya Bhangy Motors liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for providing a 2017 model Honda Unicorn motorcycle with bent chassis and instability to a customer who had specifically requested the 2018 model.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. ordered the dealer to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,05,660/- to the complainant for the 'significant service deficiency' as a result of which the latter endured considerable inconvenience and hardship.
Case Numbers : WP(C)Nos.13652, 23970 & 37874 of 2023
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order allowing petitioners who had approached the Court through three different pleas to undergo surrogacy using donor oocytes since they were unable to produce oocytes naturally due to medical conditions.
The Court passed the order while hearing pleas challenging the recent amendment introduced by the Central Government in the Surrogacy Regulations Rules, 2022.
Case Title: Gireesh Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. 890/ 2023
The Kerala High Court suo moto impleaded and issued notice to the respondents in a revision petition filed by (deceased) Gireesh Babu that sought investigation into the alleged bribery carried out by high-ranking public officials of the State including the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter- Veena Thaikandiyil, and her company Exalogic Solutions Pvt. ltd. (1st and 7th accused respectively), of having received illegal consideration under the guise of her father in connection with the mining and other business interests of the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).
Case Name: Manoj Kumar B v. Ministry Of Consumer Affairs & Others
Case Number: WP(C) 41145/ 2023
A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court against various private educational institutions for removal of prefixes such as 'India', and 'Indian' before their names, contrary to the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act. The plea stated that such prefixes are used to mislead and deceive the students that such private institutions are promoted by the Government.
While considering the matter, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and V.G. Arun has issued notice to the educational institutions who are arrayed as respondents- Lakshya Indian Institute Of Commerce Private Limited, Indian Institute Of Emergency Medical Services, Indian Institute Of Hotel Management Studies, Indian Institute Of Financial Planning, Indian Institute Of Dental Technology And Indian Institute Of Paramedical Science & Technology.
Case Name: Asokan K. M. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(Crl) 1285/ 2023
A new Habeas Corpus petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court by the father of Dr Akhila @ Hadiya whose conversion to Islam and subsequent marriage to Shafin Jahan was considered by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court on various earlier occasions.
The present plea filed by Ashokan, Hadiya's father stated that he was unable to contact or trace her whereabouts for the last month and thus sought for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar And Justice Johnson John will take up the case next week.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter
Case Number: WP(C) 26228/ 2022 and WP(C) 25774/ 2022
The Kerala High Court heard the arguments of counsels appearing for former Minister Dr Thomas Issac, Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and Enforcement Directorate (ED), in the masala bonds case.
A Division Bench had set aside the order of the Court that permitted issuance of fresh summons to Dr Issac and KIIFB.
The Court has asked the ED to provide verifiable reasons on which the investigation was being conducted against Dr Issac and KIIFB. It also sought information from the ED to prove its jurisdiction to conduct the investigation under the FEMA.
Case Title: Mrs. Sindhu Suryakumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.34989/2023
The Kerala High Court directed Facebook-India to submit an affidavit regarding compliance of its earlier order that ordered removal of an offending Facebook post made by a former sub-court judge against Executive Editor of Asianet News Network Sindhu Sooryakumar.
“The 4th respondent is directed to file an affidavit as to how and in what manner the orders of this Court dated 17/11/2023 and 24/11/2023 have been complied with.”, Justice Mohammed Nias CP said.
Case Title: XXX v. Child Welfare Committee
Case Number: WP(C) 35823/ 2023
“Had you been the biological parents, would you decide not to keep the child? This is a case which shows me that adoptive; parents are different. If a child is not well or has some disorder, will parents say that they don't want the child?" the Kerala High Court lamented, while considering the plea moved by the adoptive parents seeking the permission of the Court to annul the adoption of a girl (now a major).
Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that there were several cases wherein children beat up, and even kill their parents.
"There are several Senior Citizens coming before this Court and several such cases. Since the parents in those cannot annul it, they don't. You (the petitioners) seek that because you have the privilege of annulment. If those parents had the liberty, they'd have written those aren't their children. This is an adoption which happened. You saw the girl, now you say she has behavioural problem. Fact remains that soon after you came here, there were problems between mother and child. There was no attempt from parents, either... Had you been biological parents, would you have decided to do the same," the Court pointedly asked the petitioners.
Case Title: Justin & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 10334 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court took exception to a Magistrate for dismissing a bail application when a plea was already pending before the High Court for quashing the proceedings.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan expressed his dissatisfaction towards the Magistrate for dismissing the plea for bail in the present circumstances.
Case Title: K Sivanandhan v. State of Kerala and other matters
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23267 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 24835 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 25152 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 25410 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 25575 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court observed that banks cannot reduce credit ratings of farmers solely on account of Paddy Receipt Sheet (PRS) loan.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said that banks cannot reduce the credit rating of farmers, in violation of the judgment of the court which was disposed of unequivocally stating that farmers who sell their paddy to the Government of Kerala through Supplyco under the tripartite agreement cannot be treated as borrowers. It held:
“The judgment of this Court is unambiguous, and the banks were parties to it. Therefore, even if the SupplyCo has taken a stand that farmers are borrowers, which appears to be extremely unfortunate; the banks cannot act as if the farmers are the borrowers. Therefore, if they had given any input to the CIBIL negatively on the credit rating of the farmers solely on the account of PRS loan, it would amount to a violation of the judgment.”
Case Title: P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 10796/ 2023
The Kerala High Court directed in-camera proceedings to be held for hearing the case against former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu who is presently facing allegations of sexual assault of a female client in the guise of providing legal assistance for her.
“Based on the submissions of the Additional Director General of Prosecutions, it is better that hearing of case is held in camera. Considering the above request, proceedings will be held on 4 PM on 14.12.2023 in camera.”, Justice Gopinath P stated in the anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner.
Kerala High Court Stays Two Student Nominations Made By Chancellor To Kerala University Senate
Case Title: Nanda Kishore & Anr. v. Chancellor, University of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) 41766 of 2023
The Kerala High Court stayed two student nominations made by the Chancellor to the Senate of the Kerala University.
Justice T.R. Ravi issued the interim order today.
The petitioners in this case, who had performed well in Fine Arts and Sports respectively, averred that as per Chapter IV Section 17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974, the Chancellor ought to nominate four students having outstanding abilities (one each in Humanities, Science, Sports and Fine Arts) to the Senate of the University.
Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines For Crowd Management Of Pilgrims At Sabarimala Temple During Mandala-Makaravilakku Festival
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR Nos.29, 36, 41 and 42 of 2023
The Kerala High Court has issued directions for crowd management of pilgrims at Sabarimala during the Mandala- Makaravilakku festival season. The Division Bench comprising, Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish issued directions to Police, officials of Motor Vehicles Department and Travancore Devaswom Board for crowd management.
The Court passed the above order in a suo moto petition considering the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala regarding crowd management during the Mandala- Makaravilakku festival season. The Special Commissioner had submitted a report before the Court regarding steps to be taken to provide adequate facilities to pilgrims at Sabarimala.
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR Nos.29, 36, 41 and 42 of 2023
The Kerala High Court (December 13) issued various guidelines to the State Police Chief for vigilant crowd management of pilgrims at Sabarimala during the Mandala- Makaravilakku festival season.
The Division Bench comprising, Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish directed the State Police Chief to be vigilant over crowd management at Sabarimala and ordered thus:
“We deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent State Police Chief to have a constant vigil over crowd management activities in connection with Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199 ME. The State Police Chief shall collect regular inputs on crowd management from the Chief Police Co-ordinator, Sannidhanam and also the Special Police Officers at Nilakkal, Pamba and Erumeli.”
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR Nos.29, 36, 41 and 42 of 2023
The Kerala High Court (December 14) issued another set of guidelines for ensuring that the pilgrims at Sabarimala are not exploited by collection of higher fees/charges at parking grounds or by persons conducting hotels and restaurants.
The Court issued the guidelines while hearing a suo moto petition where it was considering issues regarding crowd management of pilgrims at Sabarimala during the Mandala- Makaravilakku festival season.
Taking note of the fact that the High Court registry received around 300 complaints by email regarding various issues faced by pilgrims in Sabarimala, the Division Bench comprising, Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish observed that the pilgrims should be made aware of the orders issued by the Court. It noted that most of the grievances raised by the pilgrims were already addressed by the Court through its previous orders.
Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 11024 of 2023
A bail application has been moved in the Kerala High Court by Dr. Ruwais, who had been booked for abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana.
Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, had committed suicide due to financial constraints faced by her family, and their failure to meet the alleged demands for exorbitant dowry sought by Ruwais.
Lawyer Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Serious Fraud Investigation In Business Affairs Of CMRL
Case Title: Shone George v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 42092 of 2023
A lawyer has moved a plea before the Kerala High Court seeking a Serious Fraud Investigation in the conduct of business affairs of the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).
CMRL is presently entangled in a slew of bribery allegations.
It is alleged that the Company indulged in corruption, and handed bribes to Veena Thaikandiyil (Veena Vijayan), daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, and her company Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., as well as other public servants in order to facilitate illegal objectives.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has sought the response of the opposite parties in the matter.
Case Title: P.V. Prakashan & Anr. v. Karandi Valley Adventure & Agro Tourism Resort, Pune & Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No. 192/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam on Saturday directed Karandi Valley Adventure and Agro Tourism Resort, Pune to pay a compensation of Rs. 1.99 Crore to the parents of two employed youngsters who drowned in a pool at the resort in 2020.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. found that the resort had failed to provide critical safety measures and also did not fulfil its obligations to ensure the safety and well-being of their guests, which constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
"The Commission deeply understands that no compensation can ever heal the profound wounds of parents who have endured the heartbreaking loss of their beloved children in a tragic incident at such a tender age. However, collecting compensation from those accountable for this devastating loss serves as a gesture of remorse a way to acknowledge and share in the immense sorrow that weighs upon the hearts of these grieving parents. It is also a crucial step in ensuring that such heart-wrenching tragedies do not repeat themselves in the future, thereby offering a glimmer of hope amidst the darkness of their grief," it observed while awarding the compensation.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.MC 5136/ 2023
Amicus Curiae Advocate A. Parvathi Menon informed the Court that subjecting the children of rape or POCSO victims, who had thereafter been given in adoption, to DNA tests would tantamount to defeating the purpose of 'the divine concept of adoption'.
"An adopted child cannot be at any point of his/her/their growth be violated of his/her/their privacy. There are instances where blood samples for DNA tests are ordered to be collected from adopted children who have attained an age of reasonable comprehension. In some cases, adopted parents would not have even divulged the fact of adoption to the child. The child would have blended so well with the adopted family that a sudden revelation that he/she/they is an adopted child and that too of a rape victim can imbalance their emotional status and can result in them exhibiting behavioural disorders and aberrations. This exercise of subjecting the child to DNA tests will only defeat the purpose of the divine concept of adoption especially when Law protects the rights of the rape survivor otherwise," Advocate Menon averred.
The development arises in the suo motu case initiated based on a report submitted by Advocate Menon highlighting the legality and the adverse impact on the adopted children and the respective families following the issuance of orders by competent courts to collect the DNA samples of children born to rape victims (POCSO or otherwise) on applications preferred by the prosecution to strengthen the case of rape.
Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu had earlier stayed various lower court orders which permitted such collection of blood samples of children of rape and POCSO survivors for DNA Testing.
Kerala High Court Reserves Orders In Former Govt Pleader's Anticipatory Bail Plea In Rape Case
Case Title: P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 10796/ 2023
The Kerala High Court reserved for orders the anticipatory bail plea moved by former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu in the case pertaining to alleged sexual assault of a female client in the guise of providing legal assistance for her.
Justice Gopinath P. is set to pronounce the verdict in the case on Friday (December 22, 2023).
Case Title: Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 41359 of 2023
The Kerala High Court refused to stay the release of the film 'Neru', starring Mohanlal and directed by Jeethu Joseph.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran today issued notice on a writ petition filed by a person alleging that the script of the movie has been plagiarised. The bench issued notice by special messenger to the respondents. The Court however refused to stay the release of the movie tomorrow.
Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 11024 of 2023
The Kerala High Court orally noted that the only aspect in favour of Dr. Ruvais, who had been booked for abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana, was that he is a student.
Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, died by suicide, allegedly due to Ruvais backing out of marriage since the dowry demands were not met.
It is alleged that Ruvais' family had demanded 150 sovereigns of gold, 15 acres of land, and a BMW car from Shahana's family, which the latter could not meet. When the incident came to light, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had suspended Ruwais' medical license for abetting Dr. Shahana's suicide.
Ruvais has been charged with the offences under Section 306 IPC ('Abetment of Suicide') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('Penalty for demanding dowry').
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered view that certain aspects were clear from the suicide note left by Dr. Shahana, including that of Ruvais being aware of her financial background.
"Reading the suicide note, certain things are clear.. one - you were aware of her financial position. There are eyewitnesses to suggest that when your parents had gone to the house, there were talks regarding financial background. Brother and mother says that. She also tried to contact you on day she committed suicide. You deleted that message.. The only thing in your favour now is that you are a student. For granting bail… your case is that your career should not be destroyed," the Court orally observed.
Case Title: Seba P.A. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 43275 of 2023
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by a 24-year old suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), against the overpricing of the life-saving medicine, Risdiplam.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice to the concerned Government authorities in the matter
The petitioner averred that the medicine she had been adviced to take, namely, Risdiplam, costs around Rupees Six Lakhs per bottle. She added that for a patient weighing more than 20 kg, a bottle of Risdiplam would last only for 12 days and that the said person would require 31 bottles per year.
Case Title: Mariyakutty v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) 42861/ 2023
The Kerala High Court directed the State Government to inform the Court as to the time within which five months of arrears of widow pension due to 78-year-old (named Mariyakutty) could be disbursed.
Taking note of the submission of Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose that the State was undergoing a financial crisis and was unable to pay Mariyakutty and other similarly situated persons, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran orally noted,
"I accept your problem that Govt has no money to pay. My question is this – who will take care of this citizen?.....On one side is the Government which can garner resources and I see that the Government is spending resources for various other things. And on the other side is a person who says she has nothing else to live. How do I weigh the scales? How do I get that scale equal? Sitting here, this is the problem I face. I am expected and enjoined by the Constitution to stand with our citizens. Simple. Please pay her. There is no other way. She has to live. Or you take care of her medical bills and food so that she can survive this Christmas".
Case Title: Mrs. Sindhu Suryakumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.34989/2023
The Kerala High Court granted one week time to Facebook-India to permit former sub-court judge S Sudeep to access his account to delete the offensive post created by him against Executive Editor of Asianet News Network Sindhu Sooryakumar.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP has directed Facebook-India to permit the Ex-Judge to access his Facebook account to delete the post.
“Accordingly, a week is granted to the 4th respondent to permit access to the 5th respondent, so as to enable him to remove the post in question. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent shall intimate the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, who in turn will intimate the 5th respondent to remove the post in question, once access is given by the 4th respondent.”
Case Title: Ayshakutty M. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 34770 OF 2023 (U)
The Kerala High Court recently permitted husbands aged 55 or 56 years and wives aged 50 years or below to avail of Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART) services.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that Section 21(g) of the ART Act which provides that such services could be availed by women below 50 years of age, and men below 55 years of age, did not 'prima facie' reveal that both the conditions ought to apply simultaneously.
"In the cases at hand, the women are below 50 years, therefore, fully within the ambit of the afore provision, to apply for the ART services; though their husbands may not be. But, as long as the statute does not, prima facie, maintain that both the man and woman should be able to apply for the services together, the women are entitled to relief," the Court said.
Case Title: Mariyakutty v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) 42861/ 2023
The Kerala High Court granted liberty to the 78-year-old Mariyakutty who is waging a legal battle for disbursal of five months of her widow pension arrears, to approach the District Legal Services Authority or other such authorities, in case she required any urgent financial assistance.
Mariyakutty had approached the Court stating that she was a beneficiary under the Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme and that she had no land in her name, and was also unable to work due to her advanced age and related ailments. She added that her only source of income was the monthly widow pension of Rs. 1,600/- which had not been disbursed to her for the past five months now, and which she depended upon for buying medicines, food, and other essentials.
Special Government Pleader T.B. Hood informed the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran today that the present financial condition of the State Government was not conducive to honour its financial commitments under the Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension, under which Mariyakutty was seeking relief.
Case title: Suresh Gopi V State Of Kerala
Case number: Bail Appl. 11627/ 2023
Malayalam Actor and Politician, Suresh Gopi has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case lodged against him for allegedly misbehaving with a female reporter. A complaint against him was initially filed alleging sexual harassment under Section 354A (1)(i)(iv) IPC, which was later altered to Section 354 IPC for assault or criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman.
Hearing his plea, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar sought instructions in the matter and posted the bail plea for the first week of January 2024.
