Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: September 2022 [Citations 462-507]
Navya Benny
2 Oct 2022 12:26 PM IST
![Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: September 2022 [Citations 462-507]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/10/01/750x450_437467-408710-kerala-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: September 2022 [Citations 462-507]")
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 462-507]State Tax Officer & Anr Vs. Baiju A.A 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 462xxxx v. xxxx 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 463S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 464Sudheer Ram S. & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 465Howe Engineering Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. and M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt...
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 462-507]
State Tax Officer & Anr Vs. Baiju A.A 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 462
xxxx v. xxxx 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 464
Sudheer Ram S. & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
Howe Engineering Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. and M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd & 2 Ors v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw Ker 466
Jahir Hussain v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 467
Manager, Malankara Syrian Catholic Colleges & Ors v. Dr Reshmi P.R. & Ors and other connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
A. Krishnan v. The Kerala State Co-operative Marking Federation Ltd 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 469
Shaju@Shaju v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
General Convenor, Kerala State School Kalolsavam, 2017-2018 & Anr v. Arundhathi Krishna J. & Anr., and connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
K. M Basheer v. Rajani K.T & Ors and Connected cases 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472
Abdul Majeed & Anr v. P.V. Prajosh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
Sreejith T. v. The Manager, A.M. Upper Primary School & Ors, and Asha P. Vasudevan v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
Abdul Sathar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
Shinas A. Firdaus v. Union of India & Ors and D. Pradeep Kumar v. Union of Indian & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
Arun v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
Baby Letha K. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
Brinda & Ors v. Muktha K.N. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
Dr. Mathew Jacob & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
Dr Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
Renjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
G. M. Sheik & Ors. v. M/s Raja Biri Private Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
Charley Panthallookaran v. Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
Vinson v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
Sujith Lal v. Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
Mohammed Nisam A.A. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Jeenamol Varghese v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
Kasim P.H. v. Union of India & Ors., and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
S. Yadava v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
Marakkar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr and connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
Bhanumathi & Anr. v. K. Abdurahiman Haji & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
Aisha v. Xavier & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
M/S SVS Marketing Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bathtouch Metals Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
Fasalu Rahman v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Sanil James v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Abbas R.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeswari & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
A.G. Dinesh v. KSEB Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
Sadasivan & Anr. v. Sadasivan Nair & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
T. Sunil Kurera & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
Puthukkattu Pareekutty Aliyar v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
Central University Kerala & Anr. v. Joshila J.U. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
State of Kerala v. R. Baji 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
Secretary to Advocate General & Ors. v. State Information Commissioner & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
Judgment/Orders This Month
No Legislative Competence To Amend KVAT Act After Introduction Of GST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: State Tax Officer & Anr Vs. Baiju A.A
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 462
The Kerala High Court has held that legislative competence to amend the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act after the introduction of the GST Act is impermissible.
The division bench of S.V.Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji has observed that the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2018 to the provisions of the erstwhile KVAT Act to enable the department to initiate assessment proceedings in respect of assessments pending as of March 31, 2018 was illegal because the KVAT Act has already been repealed.
Youngsters Avoiding Marriage To "Enjoy Free Life", Live-In Relationships On Rise : Kerala High Court
Case Title: xxxx v. xxxx
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court expressed concerns that the consumerist culture of 'use and throw' has affected matrimonial relationships. The Court lamented that the younger generation is seeing marraige as an "evil", which has to be avoided to "enjoy free life" and that live-in relationships are on the rise.
Remarking upon the sanctity that the institution of marriage has been attributed with, the Division Bench composed of Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas, observed, "Kerala, known as God's own Country, was once famous for its well knit family bondage. But the present trend it seems to break the nuptial tie on flimsy or selfish reasons, or for extra-marital relationships, even unmindful of their children. The wails and screams coming out of disturbed and destroyed families are liable to shake the conscience of the society as a whole. When warring couples, deserted children and desperate divorcees occupy the majority of our population, no doubt it will adversely affect the tranquility of our social life, and our society will have a stunted growth".
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 464
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the plea moved by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, challenging his transfer order to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam. The transfer was made after the judge made the controversial "sexually provocative dress" remark in the order granting bail to Civic Chandran in a sexual harasssment case.
The bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that the petitioner, who is a member of higher judicial service, cannot be said to be prejudiced in any manner for his posting as Presiding Officer of Labour Court, which is a post born from the cadre of District Judge. "I fail to see what legal right of the petitioner is infringed by the transfer order and I am of the opinion that the grounds raised in the writ petition do not justify the grant of any plea sought for", Justice Anu Sivaraman read out the operative portion of the order.
Case Title: Sudheer Ram S. & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
The Kerala High Court recently observed that where there is an anomaly between the pay scale drawn by a senior and a junior in service, particularly when both had been promoted to the same post, albeit from different levels, the competent authority would have to engage its mind as to the circumstances up to the same.
Justice Devan Ramachandran made the observation while dealing with a case in which KSRTC employees who had been promoted to the post of Superintendent from that of Upper Division Clerk (Selection Grade) were drawing less salary when compared to another employee who had been promoted to the same post from the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant.
Case Title: Howe Engineering Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. and M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd & 2 Ors v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw Ker 466
The Kerala High Court on Thursday allowed the petition for police protection to the employees and workmen of M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd., and its contracting company, Howe Engineering Construction, and also for free ingress and egress to the construction site.
Justice Anu Sivaraman while allowing the petition, observed that there is "no doubt in my mind that the right to agitate or protest against any matter including the apathy or neglect of the Government cannot confer any right either on respondents 11 to 25 or any of the protesters to contend that they have a right to obstruct the activities which have due permissions or to trespass into the project site and cause damage to public property".
Case Title: Jahir Hussain v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 467
The Kerala High Court recently, while acquitting a murder convict and reversing the order of the trial court, highlighted the need for a speedy trial and proper assistance to prisoners for filing appeals to avoid the long periods of incarceration.
Division Bench consisting of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran, pointing out the distressing aspect of the continued incarceration of under-trial prisoners and the delay occasioned in conducting trials, opined that High Court could issue directions to Trial Courts to take up matter based on the date of incarceration of convicts.
Case Title: Manager, Malankara Syrian Catholic Colleges & Ors v. Dr Reshmi P.R. & Ors and other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
The Kerala High Court recently observed that where reasonable likelihood of 'bias' in a selection process is alleged on the ground of relationship, the degree of closeness or 'nearness' of the relationship between the parties ought to be 'so great' as to give a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Division Bench composed of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha while observing so, held that in the instant case, a mere relationship between the candidate selected (9th respondent) and a member of the Selection Committee (8th respondent), would not be sufficient to assume bias.
State Expected To Adhere To Rule Of Law: Kerala High Court Quashes Appointment Of Marketfed MD
Case Title: A. Krishnan v. The Kerala State Co-operative Marking Federation Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 469
The Kerala High Court on Thursday quashed the appointment of S. K Sanil as the Managing Director of MARKETFED (Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited).
A Division Bench consisting of Justice A. K. Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. found Sanil to be ineligible and unqualified to hold the post, citing that he was not an officer in the IAS cadre in the senior time-scale at the relevant point in time. "The State Executive is expected to adhere to the rule of law and set an example in matters of statutory compliance by adhering to its Constitutional role as a 'State' within the meaning of the term under Article 12 of the Constitution of India...we caution the State and the MARKETFED against resorting to such exercises in future."
Case Title: Shaju@Shaju v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
While reiterating the settled law on conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix in a rape case, the Kerala High Court on Thursday observed, "In the conservative, tradition bound, non-permissive society like that of ours, none would make a false accusation of rape; braving ostracism, loss of face, social stigma and shame." The remarks were made while contrasting the Indian law relating to sexual assault trials as against the laws and practices prevalent in the UK. In R v. Neville Benson Henry & R. v Jeffrey Patrick Manning, an English Court of Appeals had held that conviction on the evidence of the woman or girl alone would be dangerous due to the possibility of false stories being foisted. To the contrary, the Indian Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, had remarked that in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a sexual assault victim in the absence of corroboration as a rule would add "insult" to her injuries.
In this light, the Division Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran observed, "Though at first blush the law set forth in both United Kingdom and India are the same, there is a semantic difference in so far as the rule and the exception; which is a subtle reflection of the societal conditions in the two Countries".
Case Title: General Convenor, Kerala State School Kalolsavam, 2017-2018 & Anr v. Arundhathi Krishna J. & Anr., and connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
The Kerala High Court recently held that any question as to whether the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta can entertain any complaint regarding any grievance or allegation, would have to be ascertained according to the factual circumstances, and on a case to case basis and no law can be laid down by the Court in this regard.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly further directed the authorities under various statues such as Upa Lok Ayukta, Human Rights Commission, Juvenile Justice Board, Civil Courts etc., to take note of and abide by the directions issued by the same court in another case W. P. (C) No. 18950 of 2018, while dealing with any complaints as to grievance or allegation in respect of the participation of students in cultural or other events at District or State Levels.
Case Title: K. M Basheer v. Rajani K.T & Ors and Connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that in cases of alleged offences under the SC/ST Act, an application for anticipatory bail can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court constituted under the Act and not before the High Court.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further clarified that High Court has neither concurrent jurisdiction under section 438 CrPC nor original jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for grating bail for offences under SC/ST Act and can only exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A.
Evidence To Be Liberally Construed In Benevolent Legislations: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abdul Majeed & Anr v. P.V. Prajosh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
The Kerala High Court recently held that in the case of benevolent legislations, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, evidence must be evaluated in a liberal manner, without insisting on an extreme form of 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities'.
"It is the trite law that 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities' is the rule of evidence to be applied while querying proof of allegations involved in civil cases. When coming to benevolent legislations, the rule of evidence is nothing but 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities' and in such cases, the evidence shall be evaluated in a liberal manner without insisting for the extreme form of 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities'", the Court observed.
In this light, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that when a person who had been working as a cleaner in a lorry died, it wouldn't always be possible to adduce documentary evidence to prove his job as a cleaner, and in such circumstances, the available evidence ought to be liberally construed.
Case Title: Sreejith T. v. The Manager, A.M. Upper Primary School & Ors, and Asha P. Vasudevan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that regularization of appointments made in leave vacancies, in preference to their juniors, could be only be availed by teachers who had been 'relieved' as per Rule 49 or Rule 52 or on account of termination of vacancies and later accommodated in leave vacancies, in terms of Rule 52 of the Kerala Education Rules.
The Division Bench comprised of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha while observing so, further went on to hold that when a person, who had been appointed on there having arisen a leave vacancy, and thereafter was permitted to continue without break during the extended period of leave, there would not have arisen any occasion for such a person to be 'relieved'. In such a scenario, he/she could not be said to be a 'claimant' in terms of Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Rules, and thus would not have any preferential right of appointment, either.
Case Title: Abdul Sathar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
The Kerala High Court recently held that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the liability for alteration of vehicles is on the owner or manufacturer of the vehicle and not on the shopkeeper.
Justice Amit Rawal, while holding so, observed that in the instant case, the notices issued by the Road Transport Office, Alappuzha, to the petitioner-shopkeepers were without jurisdiction, and hence, the Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction over the same.
Case Title: Shinas A. Firdaus v. Union of India & Ors and D. Pradeep Kumar v. Union of Indian & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
The Kerala High Court recently held that the public sector banks can request for opening of Look Out Certificates (LOC) against defaulting account holders, only if the departure of the defaulter would be detrimental to the economic interest of India or it would not be in the larger public interest.
Justice V.G. Arun, while holding so, went on to observe that the Office Memorandums (OMs) do not empower the banks to originate Look Out Circulars, infringing the petitioner's liberty, as long as their movement to the foreign country is not detrimental to the economic interest of India or is against the larger public interest. "The expressions 'economic interest of India' and 'larger public interest' will not take in violations of commercial contracts between a bank and its customer. Such an interpretation will result in liberty being sacrificed to safeguard the commercial interest of banking institutions. There cannot be such a constructed interpretation of the dynamic concept of 'liberty' enunciated and guaranteed by the Constitution of India", it was observed.
Case Title: Arun v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(ker) 477
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted bail to a man accused of smothering and electrocuting his wife to death with an observation that merely because he was earlier released on bail by a court of incompetent jurisdiction would not be a reason keep him in custody, ignoring the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
"The process and the manner in which the petitioner was granted bail initially, though certainly perverse and against law, the basic principles of grant of bail in a criminal trial cannot be ignored, despite the above illegality brought about by a wrong order," Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed.
Case Title: Baby Letha K. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, observed that a teacher who is relieved on account of reduction in the number of posts and re-appointed in a lower category would not be entitled to claim the pay and allowances applicable to the higher category in which he/she was earlier working.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, while rejecting the contention of the appellant that she was entitled to the pay and allowances applicable to the Headmistress, for the period during which she was working as Lower Primary School Teacher on her re-appointment in another school as LP School teacher, further observed, "...Rule is intended only for granting pay protection to retrenched teachers on re-appointment in the same cadre and the same scale of pay and it does not enable a teacher who is relieved on account of reduction in the number of posts and re-appointed in a lower category to claim the pay and allowances applicable to the higher category in which he/she was earlier working".
Case Title: Brinda & Ors v. Muktha K.N.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
The Kerala High Court recently held that in order to attract Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, it must be satisfied that a suit or proceedings for an order or injunction should be in circumstances "arising out of a marital relationship", and the dispute should be one with respect to the properties of such 'parties to marriage'. The provision states that a Family Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of suits and proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them.
Thus, Justice MR Anitha held that a property dispute between a mother and her children cannot be included under Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, for it is a civil dispute and does not involve any questions regarding the marital status or validity of marriage and as a consequence, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in case of such dispute between a mother and child.
Case Title: Dr. Mathew Jacob & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
The Kerala High Court recently considered the question of whether an authority under the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 is empowered to issue notice and conduct enquiry on a complaint regarding alleged misconduct in transplantation of human organs, since the latter is governed by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and answered the question in the affirmative.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter, Ethics Regulations 2002) is a self contained code since it clearly specifies the procedure and manner in which disciplinary action has to be proceeded with, and no bar to this authority could be found in the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter THOTA 1994), either when there is any professional misconduct, or to conduct an enquiry on a complaint received in this regard.
Case Title: Dr Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 481
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University in October 2021 for appointment of assistant professors, insofar as it relates to teaching and research aptitude as interview selection criteria.
A division bench consisting of Justice P.S Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the University Order is contrary to UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018.
Case Title: Renjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
The Kerala High Court recently held that proceedings under Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) culminate in an order framing charge only after the plea of the accused is taken as per sub-section (2) of Section 240 of the Code.
While holding so, Justice K. Babu went on to observe that, "If Section 240 Cr.PC is interpreted in such a manner that even before taking the plea of the accused there is an order framing charge, it will defeat the very purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 240 Cr.PC".
Case Title: G. M. Sheik & Ors. v. M/s Raja Biri Private Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 483
The Kerala High Court recently observed that an order passed without issuing notice to the opposite party cannot be brought under the purview of Section 36 CPC and it cannot be executed through court until the same is merged in a subsequent order after notice to the opposite party.
Justice P. Somarajan observed that in cases where the ex parte order has been passed without issuing notice to the opposite party, including an order passed under the proviso attached to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC, will not have any binding force on the opposite party, since it is deprived of "audio alteram partem" (right to be heard) which is a fundamental requirement for making the order binding on the parties. Furthermore, the only exception to this fundamental principle is with respect to administrative matter when there is no occasion for causing prejudice to the opposite party, and also in the exercise of legislative authority.
Case Title: Charley Panthallookaran v. Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
The Kerala High Court recently considered the ambit of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed that where the respondent in an appeal does not choose to avail the benefit conferred by the said provision then it would not be obligatory for the Court to examine the correctness of the finding rendered in the impugned judgment in a review petition.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha went on to observe that, ".... a contention of this nature which was available to a respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal ought to have been raised by him at that very instance itself. As such, according to us, it cannot be said that non-consideration of such a contention which was not raised by the party, is a ground to seek review of the judgment".
Case Title: Vinson v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday granted bail to an accused, taking into consideration the fact that he is suffering from a psychotic illness and further detention in jail would adversely affect his illness.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that since the major part of the investigation is over and the petitioner, a psychiatric patient, has already spent more than three weeks in jail, further detention in jail would adversely affect his illness.
Case Title: Sujith Lal v. Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that where the 'Doctrine of Desuetude' could find application in the case of statutes, there was no reason for the same not to apply to a scheme that had been framed under the provisions of that Statute.
Justice T.R. Ravi, while observing so, noted that relying upon the findings of the Apex Court in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, only two conditions had to be satisfied for the application of the doctrine of desuetude - whether the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and whether the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time. "The only aspect to be looked into is whether the two conditions for the application of the doctrine are satisfied. Admittedly, even after 40 years, the road has not been widened to 18 metres width. At the same time, the reply received from the Public Works Department shows that at present the proposal that is being considered is widening the road to a width of 12 metres. It is also in evidence that the restriction for construction within 18 metres was not followed for the past 40 years and on the contrary, persons have been permitted to effect construction by applying the restriction to only 12 metres. Both the conditions for the application of the doctrine thus stand satisfied", it was observed.
Case Title: Mohammed Nisam A.A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 487
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, dismissed the appeal filed by beedi tycoon Mohammed Nisham against conviction and life sentence in the Chandrabose murder case.
Division Bench consisting of Justice K Vinod Chandran and C Jayachandran has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to the accused.
"...it is clear that the conscious act of running down a man to cause injuries, which injuries in the ordinary course would lead to death, makes the accused liable for murder. Ramming a man, deliberately with a vehicle, is also an act, imminently dangerous as to cause death, in all probability. Looking at the commission of the act, which cannot be termed to be an accident, it is murder, most foul and vicious, snuffing out the life of a poor soul".
Case Title: Jeenamol Varghese v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 488
The Kerala High Court recently directed all the Registrars under the Municipality and Grama Panchayat to conduct an enquiry adhering to provisions under the Registrations of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, while considering applications seeking correction of Birth Certificates, and not to reject such applications summarily.
Justice Amit Rawal made the direction upon noting instances where the Registrars, without adhering to the provisions of Section 15 and Rule 11 and other rules, are rejecting applications for the correction of birth records. "If any such application is made for correction or cancellation of entry in the records of Registrar, the Registrar is required to hold an enquiry...The Government Pleader is directed to circulate the order of this Court to all the Registrars under the Municipality and the Grama Panchayat to follow the procedure to prevent spate of litigations in this Court wherein the applications are being rejected summarily".
Case Title: Kasim P.H. v. Union of India & Ors., and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that the transfer of consumers from one LPG distributor to another by Oil Marketing Corporations was in pursuance of the policy adopted in this regard, and the consumers had no right to challenge the same and contend that they are entitled to continue with the existing distributors.
The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while holding so, observed, "...the guidelines and the agreement executed by and between the Oil Marketing Corporations and the distributors would show that the consumers are under the direct supervision and control of the Oil Marketing Corporations and the consumer cannot turn around and say that they are entitled to continue with the existing distributors".
Case Title: S. Yadava v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that under Rule 198 (7) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the employer is entitled to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement of employee, as well as withhold the retiral benefits until the culmination of such proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., while holding so, reasoned that, "If the argument that the proceedings cannot continue after the retirement is accepted, any delinquent employee can commit any fraud, misappropriation, grave dereliction of duty etc., on the eve of his retirement and can plead that he is beyond the reach of the employer, which would result in such delinquent employee escaping without punishment. Law cannot allow such a course and in all those cases larger public interest must be the guiding factor to decide the case".
Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Upholds Special Court Order Cancelling Bail To 11 Accused
Case Title: Marakkar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr and connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the appeals challenging a Special Court's order cancelling the bail granted to 11 accused persons in case of lynching of a tribal youth in February 2018.
Justice Kauser Edappagath confirmed the order cancelling bail of 11 of the accused persons by the Mannarkkad Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bail granted to one of the accused was however upheld.
Case Title: Bhanumathi & Anr. v. K. Abdurahiman Haji & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 492
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that although the term 'dwelling house' is not defined in the Partition Act, 1893 however, by way of judicial interpretation, it has been held to include adjacent buildings, gardens, courtyards, orchards, etc., which are necessary for the convenient occupation of the dwelling house.
Justice C. S. Dias further observed that the pre-emptive right of family members under Section 4 of the Act to buy out undivided share of the stranger co-owner can be invoked in such cases, even at the stage of execution, until the decree is fully satisfied.
Case Title: Aisha v. Xavier & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that when the owner of a vehicle is satisfied that the driver has a license and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and hence the Insurance Company would not be absolved from their liability to compensate the victim.
Justice Sophy Thomas, while holding so, observed, "Ultimately, if it is found that the license was fake, the Insurance Company will continue to remain liable, unless they prove that the owner-insured was aware or had noticed that the license was fake and still permitted that person to drive. Even in such a case the Insurance Company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured".
Case Title: M/S SVS Marketing Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bathtouch Metals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
The Kerala High Court on Thursday reiterated that where a plea of fraud is raised in a dispute, the civil aspect of fraud is arbitrable, unless the very arbitration agreement is found to have been vitiated by fraud.
As to the forum to decide upon the arbitrability of the agreement, Justice Satish Ninan reiterated that the Courts would be bound to refer the parties for adjudication unless it was evident that there was no valid arbitration agreement, nor an arbitrable dispute.
'Top Secret' Communication Sent To District Police Chief Leaked, Kerala HC Orders DGP To Probe
Case Title: Fasalu Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State Police Chief to investigate how Fasalu Rahman, an accused in a gold smuggling case, obtained a 'Top Secret' communication sent by the DGP to the District Police Chief Malappuram.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K Nareendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, observed that State Police, which is the executing agency in preventive detentions under COFEPOSA Act, has to maintain absolute secrecy in executing the detention orders and thereby, directed a detailed enquiry into how the 'Top Secret' communication dated 04.06.2022 reached the hands of the petitioner.
Case Title: Sanil James v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while considering a Revision Petition observed that in an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the Court imposes sentence of imprisonment and fine, it has to order payment of compensation from the amount of fine as provided under Section 357(1)(b) of CrPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed: "...in an offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act when the court imposes imprisonment and fine, fine forms part of the sentence. In such cases, the court has to order payment of compensation from the amount of fine as provided under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C."
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that in the transfer petition moved by the victim in the actor assault case, that the petitioner could not make out a case for an order for transferring the case from the principal sessions court.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A., while so holding, fixed a time limit which is to expire on 31.01. 2023 for completion of the trial, and further directed that every endeavor ought to be made by all the parties concerned to complete the trial within the said period.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court on Thursday, while dismissing the petition filed by the survivor of the sexual assault to transfer the case from the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, berated the media for creating an air of distrust brought about through the 'trial' conducted in their studios.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., while observing that the petitioner had been a "victim of such wrong perceptions and aspersions created by the media", went on to observe, "Although criticism is the backbone of democracy and the media is expected to do that, in this case, it is seen transgressed the limits of fairness, reasonableness and rationality".
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court on Thursday appointed former Judge, Justice R. Bhaskaran, as an 'Observer' to oversee the proceedings for selection of 'Melsanthies' in Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, for the year 2022-23 (1198 ME).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar made the direction after perusing the Sabarimala Special Commissioner Report regarding the procedure to be adopted in order to ensure fairness in the selection procedure.
Case Title: Abbas R.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court on Friday declined to grant anticipatory bail to a person, who is also an accused in the Madhu lynching case, in an FIR alleging he trespassed into the house of victim's mother and threatened to murder her for "proceeding with" the trial pertaining to her son's death.
Upholding the order passed by the special court, Justice A. Badharudeen said Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act would apply to the case and therefore anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
Case Title: The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeswari & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that compensation could not be awarded to the heirs of the deceased, who 'stepped into the shoes of the owner', by borrowing the vehicle and whose rash and negligent driving brought about his own death.
Justice Sophy Thomas, while setting aside the order of the Motor Accident Tribunal granting compensation to the heirs of the deceased, observed, "Since he himself was the tortfeasor, his legal heirs cannot maintain a claim against himself who stepped into the shoes of the owner".
Case Title: A.G. Dinesh v. KSEB Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
The Kerala High Court on Monday held that the decision as to whether a particular case where compulsory retirement is imposed warrants reduction in pension or gratuity or both is to be specifically considered by the authority imposing the punishment, at the time of such imposition itself.
Justice Anu Sivaraman, while holding so, observed that if the same was not done, "...the entire exercise of appreciation of the factors which lead to the imposition of the penalty will have to be redone at a later point in time which, according to me, would be impermissible since that would amount to a re-appreciation of the facts involved and therefore to double jeopardy".
Whether Suit Falls U/S 92 CPC Has To Be Decided Before Trial: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sadasivan & Anr. v. Sadasivan Nair & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the question as to whether a suit falls under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) would have to be decided before the trial.
Justice A. Badharudeen reasoned that a suit under Section 92 can be prosecuted only with the leave of the court and if the parties are relegated till the finalisation of the trial and if ultimately it is found that the Suit requires leave, the entire exercise of trial will become futile, as the Suit itself becomes barred for want of leave.
Sri Lankan Fishermen Apprehended On Suspicion Of Involvement In Drug Cartel Denied Bail By Kerala HC
Case Title: T. Sunil Kurera & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday denied bail to six Sri Lankan fishermen who had been apprehended by the Indian Coast Guard officials on suspicion that they are part of international drug cartels and had been involved in transporting the same at the time of apprehension.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that there was "considerable force" in Special Public Prosecutor's argument that petitioners being nationals of Sri Lanka, there is every chance for them to abscond and their presence cannot be secured at the time of trial.
'Was Absconding For 12 Years': Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To 70-Yr-Old In Minor's Rape Case
Case Title: Puthukkattu Pareekutty Aliyar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 504
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a 70-year-old accused in a rape case who has been absconding for 12 years.
Justice Bechu Kurain Thomas rejected the contention raised by the petitioner that he was unaware of the crime registered against him. "The investigation against the petitioner was stalled for the last 12 years due to the absence of the petitioner in the country. It cannot be believed that the petitioner was unaware of the crime registered against him. He was thus absconding for the last 12 years and more".
Case Title: Central University Kerala & Anr. v. Joshila J.U.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that possession of higher qualifications by a candidate in a selection process presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification for the said post.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha while holding so, observed that where the candidate does not hold the essential qualification, i.e., a Diploma, but higher qualification, the same could not be taken to disqualify the candidate. "...It is trite that a higher qualification, in order to become eligible for selection to a post for which a lower qualification has been prescribed, must presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. It is also trite that if one holds a higher qualification in the same faculty, the same can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification", the Court reiterated.
State's Appeal Against Order Directing It To Release Funds To KSRTC Infructuous: Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. R. Baji
Citation: 2020 LiveLaw(Ker) 506
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the state government's appeals against an order directing it to release requisite funds to KSRTC. A single bench last month had directed the State to release the funds, required by KSRTC to clear salary dues of its employees for July and August months and the bonus eligible to those below the managerial cadre, on or before September 1
The Division Bench consisting of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P declared the appeals infructuous after considering the submissions of the Advocate General.
Case Title: Secretary to Advocate General & Ors. v. State Information Commissioner & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the legal advice rendered by the Advocate General to the Government is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) as the relationship between the two constituted a fiduciary relationship.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in the ruling said:
"...there may be delicate and sensitive issues, in which the Government wants the opinion of the Advocate General. Those are confidential communications between the Government and the Advocate General. The legal opinions given by the Advocate General to the Government should always be confidential. That is protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005".
Other Significant Developments
Kerala High Court Stays Single Judge Bench Direction To State Govt To Release Funds To KSRTC
Case Title: State of Kerala v. R. Baji
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed an order passed by the single judge bench of the Kerala High Court directing the State directing it to release requisite funds to KSRTC to clear salary dues of its employees for the months of July and August, along with the bonus eligible to those below the managerial cadre on or before the 1st September.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias CP, while admitting the Writ Appeal f, has passed the stay order in the Appeal moved by the Kerala Government challenging the impugned order.
Case Title: Nirmal Infopark(India) Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Mahatma Gandhi University at Kottayam to ensure that it offers and conducts B.Voc. courses only on the strength of required statutory clearances, including those from the University Grants Commission and All India Council For Technical Education.
The direction was made while admitting a plea seeking detailed enquiry regarding the activities of 5 institutions in offering B.Voc. courses and courses affiliated with foreign universities to students in the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran has further directed the University to file a report indicating the approval obtained by the party respondents, if any, before the next posting.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
The Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) on Friday submitted before the High Court that the protracted investigation against it initiated by the Enforcement Directorate had detrimentally affected its borrowing plans, which would not only jeopardize the Board's functioning but would also have the effect of stalling various developmental projects in the State.
Justice V. G. Arun has adjourned to 23rd September the two petitions challenging the summons issued by ED in connection with the probe into the financial transaction of KIIFB.
Case Title: Amal Nasim M. & Ors. v. Kerala University of Health Science & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday admitted a petition filed by a group of students pursuing MBBS course in various colleges under the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), challenging the amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,1997 by the National Medical Commission
The Amendment notified on 04.11.2019 had restricted the maximum number of attempts to clear the first Professional University examination to four. The petitioners contended that as per the earlier guidelines of the Medical Commission of India ( replaced by NMC from 2019), the course could be completed within 10 years.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Proceedings In Assembly Ruckus Case
Case Title: K. Ajith. v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to stay the proceedings in the Kerala Legislative Assembly Ruckus Case.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., while refusing to stay the proceedings further rejected the prayer of the accused political leaders to exempt their personal appearance in trial court.
The case involves ruckus which had happened in the Kerala Assembly in March 2015, while the CPI(M) members were protesting against the then UDF government over the bar bribery allegations against the then Finance Minister KM Mani, who was trying to present the budget speech.
Case Title: Sayeeda K. A. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, directed the National Disaster Management Authority to formulate policy or guidelines for identifying cases of death due to the after-effect of Covid-19 vaccination and for compensating the dependants of the victims within three months.
Justice V. G. Arun observed that there are instances where persons are suspected of having succumbed to the after-effects of immunization; in such circumstances, the National Disaster Management Authority and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are bound to formulate a policy for identifying such cases and compensating the dependents of the victim.
Case Title: xxxxxx v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court, on Tuesday, issued notice on a plea moved by a German national seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the General Secretary of Sister Hatune Foundation, Asia Sector, for various criminal offences committed by him, including the offence of Sexual Harassment.
Justice N. Nagaresh has also stayed the operation of the Exit Permit which was issued to the German national, who was working as a volunteer teacher at the NGO, till 23rd September.
Kerala's First Child-Friendly Family Court To Be Inaugurated At Kozhikode Today
Pursuant to the suggestions made by the Kerala High Court earlier this year, the Family Court at Kozhikode has become the first "child-friendly" Family Court in the State.
Named 'Swapnakoodu', this first of its kind initiative in the State is a joint endeavour of the Calicut Judiciary and the Calicut Bar Association Committee, 2022. This novel venture is set to be inaugurated today by the District and Sessions Judge, S. Krishna Kumar at 1.30 P.M. at the Calicut Bar Association Hall.
Case Title: In Re: Bruno v. Union Of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that the State Administration is obligated to protect the citizens from the attacks of ferocious dogs by identifying and containing such dogs and removing them from public places.
A bench of Justice A. K. Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. J., in the special sitting convened after noting the increasing instances of dog bites reported across the State, observed that it is the obligation of the State to protect the citizens from the attacks of ferocious dogs by identifying and containing such dogs and removing them from public places. "The State Administration must remind itself of the fact that in its role as a welfare state and as a parens patriae of the citizenry, it is obligated to protect the citizens from the attracks of ferocious dogs by identifying and containing such dogs and removing them from public places".
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors.
M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd has moved the High Court of Kerala by filing a Memorandum of Contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging willful disobedience of the respondent State government in complying with the Kerala High Court Order dated 01.09.2022 granting police protection for the petitioners.
Vide the said Order, the Kerala High Court had granted the police protection to the petitioners sought for, while adding that the protests could go on peacefully, without causing any obstruction and without any trespass being permitted into the project area. "The right to agitate or protest against any matter including the apathy or neglect of the Government cannot confer any right either on respondents 11 to 25 or any of the protesters to contend that they have a right to obstruct the activities which have due permissions or to trespass into the project site and cause damage to public property", it had been observed.
Case Title: Dr. Ranjith Kumar P. v. Ethics and Medical Registration Board, National Medical Commission
The Kerala High Court has admitted and issued notice to the concerned authorities in a plea challenging Clause (F) in Chapter 2 of the National Medical Commission, Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2022 which prevents registered medical practitioners from practicing any other system of medicine, once licensed to practice Modern Medicine under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Justice V.G. Arun, while admitting the matter, further sought response from the Central Government and the National Medical Commission (NMC) on this matter.
File No.: 10/03/2022-NCLT
The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, has been re-constituted vide a Circular dated 14.09.2022, issued by NCLT as per Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The new NCLT Kochi Bench shall comprise of:
NCLT Kochi (First Half)
1. Shri P. Mohan Raj (Judicial Member)
2. Shri Satya Ranjan Prasad (Technical Member)
The Circular has been issued in partial modification of Order of even number dated 01.07.2022 and is applicable from 15.09.2022 till further orders. The reconstituted Bench shall conduct proceedings on every Wednesday, Thursday and Friday only and the matters shall be heard through Video Conferencing.
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, S. Krishnakumar, who passed the controversial 'Provocative Dress' order in Civic Chandran's case, has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the dismissal of the plea moved by him challenging his transfer to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam.
In the Writ Appeal moved through Advocate Mathew J Murikan, the appellant challenges the order passed by the Single Judge on the ground that it is not sustainable in law as the finding of the Single Judge that the transfer norms are only guidelines and that it will not confer any right on the transferred employee. It is contended that order is against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in a recent decision on a similar matter.
Kerala High Court Stays Transfer Of Sessions Judge Who Passed 'Provocative Dress' Order
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday stayed the order transferring the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, S. Krishnakumar, who passed the controversial 'Provocative Dress' order in Civic Chandran's case, to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam.
Division Bench consisting of Justice A K Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P, while admitting the appeal, has stayed the transfer order till 26th September.
Case Title: Nirmal Infopark(India) Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday sought the stand of University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education on colleges said to be offering B.Voc. Courses and courses in collaboration with Foreign Universities without obtaining all statutory and regulatory approvals required for conducting such courses.
Justice Devan Ramachandran adjourned the matter to 27th September for completion of counter pleadings of all the parties and also extended the order directing the Mahatma Gandhi University at Kottayam to ensure that it offers and conducts B.Voc. courses only on the strength of required statutory clearances, including those from the University Grants Commission and All India Council For Technical Education till 27th September.
Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed that during the time taken by the State to establish and set up the machinery in the State to contain the menace of stray dogs, prompt, efficient and free medical assistance shall be provided to all victims of dog bites by government hospitals and hospitals attached to government medical colleges. It added that the said treatment shall also be without prejudice to the right of the person concerned to separately seek compensation from the State for the injuries, mental and/or physical, sustained by him/her, before the appropriate forum.
The Division Bench composed of Justice A. K. Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. J., while directing so, observed that adequate medical and vaccine supply shall also be ensured at these hospitals. "Once the State machinery has been established and set up to deal with the issue, we will lift the obligation for free treatment", the Court added in its oral observations. The Court further declared that in order to ensure that the machinery would be brought about efficiently, it shall monitor the steps taken in this regard on a weekly basis and requested for reports to be submitted accordingly.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court on Friday took suo moto cognizance of the unaffordability of patented life-saving medicines. Justice V.G. Arun, on being informed of the petitioner's death during the pendency of the proceedings, observed that, "the unfortunate incident should not result in the cause disposed by the petitioner to go in vain".
In the plea moved through Advocate Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, the petitioner who was a bank employee diagnosed with breast cancer and undergoing targeted therapy, averred that her treatment required three drugs, the monthly expense for which went over ₹63,000, out of which Ribocicilib alone costs ₹58,140.
Kerala High Court Constitutes District Collector Led Committee To Resolve Issue Of Flooding In Kochi
Case Title: Treasa K. J. v. State of Kerala and Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, directed the District Collector to convene a committee of all the stakeholders to resolve the issue of flooding in the city of Kochi.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his displeasure at the fact that despite various orders being issued by the Court, the City of Kochi was flooded due to heavy rainfall last month and observed that one agency alone "cannot be trusted" with resolving the issue. "It is clear from real experience that one Agency alone cannot undertake, or be trusted with the resolution of the issues, particularly when rains are very heavy. I am, therefore, of the firm view that a Committee of the all stakeholders will have to be formed, to be headed by the District Collector, because the said officer is also the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority".
Case Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop, the Archeparchy of Kottayam & Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy & Ors.
The Court of the Additional District Judge - V, Kottayam on an appeal before it from the judgment of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, held that endogamy within the Knanaya Catholic Community is not an essential religious practice and on this basis, the expulsion of the Knanaya Catholic member and their family unit permanently from the Church for marrying outside the community is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
In the Judgment delivered by the Additional District Judge-V, Sanu S. Panicker, while holding so, it was observed, "..I am of the view that endogamy is nothing but a marriage custom prevailing in the community, which is not an essential religious practice for limiting the membership of the Church, and as such, I am of the view that the Church would not be justified in regulating the membership of the Church on the basis of the custom of endogamy prevailing in the community".
Case Title: Virginia Shylu v. Union of India And Other Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court, on September 15, heard a batch of petitions seeking the removal of identifiable information from judgments or orders published in various online portals and the High Court Website, alleging that it is a violation of the Right to Privacy and Right to be Forgotten.
Division Bench consisting of Justice A Mohammed Mushtaq and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that when competing interest is involved certainly, the public interest will overtake the individual interest. It observed, "When Apex Court declared it as a Fundamental Right, right to be protected, then we, an institution, are we not bound to protect it? That is where the competing interest comes in one right of a citizen to publish and the fundamental right of another citizen to be protected. When competing interests are involved, certainly, the public interest will overtake the interest of the other citizen. Publishers like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench and Indian Kanoon are protected under Article 19, but we as an institution are not protected under Article 19".
Case Title: Olorumemi Benjamin Baba Femi v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court on Thursday, pulled up the State Authorities for failing to implement its orders for setting up of temporary detention centres for foreign citizens, who do not possess travel documents, and has directed the Secretary to Social Justice Department and Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance Department to set up the temporary facility on a war footing basis.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A in the order dated September 15 remarked that despite various orders passed by the Court, the government is not taking proper steps.
Case Title :Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. vs. Bijesh Kumar M and Ors.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in an appeal filed by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee assailing the order of the High Court of Kerala where it was held that the Committee had no authority to donate money to the Chief Minister's Disaster Relief Fund and it amounts to violation of Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978.
The bench of Chief Justice of India U. U. Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat ordered status quo in the matter and stayed the operation of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala.
The Advocates practising at the High Court of Kerala boycott and abstain from Court work in protest against police atrocity in solidarity with Kollam Bar Association today. The Advocates are abstaining from Court work as the Government has not taken evident action against erring Police Officials in relation to the issue of police brutality against Advocate Jayakumar of Kollam Bar Association, says the notice issued by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association.
Lawyer Moves Kerala High Court Against Bharat Jodo Yatra Led By Congress MP Rahul Gandhi
Case Title: Adv. Vijayan K v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court against the Bharat Jodo Yatra led by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, seeking direction to regulate the Yatra for causing traffic problems.
The petition filed by Advocate Vijayan K, sought for a direction to regulate the Yatra by permitting them to occupy half portion of the road and leaving the other half for the free movement of the vehicles and the public.
Kerala High Orders Status Quo In Renaming Kaloor-Kadavanthra Road
Case Title: Lawrence Alex & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently, issued an interim order directing that status quo ought to be maintained in the re-naming of the Kaloor-Kadavanthra Road for a period of one month. Justice N. Nagaresh passed the above order while admitting the petition.
In the petition moved through M/S Basil Mathew, Ninan John, Sanjana Sara Varghese Annie, and Ajay Krishnan S., it was averred that the petitioners, who are residents of the area, were personally affected by the decision of the Kochi Municipal Corporation (2nd respondent) to change the name of the Kaloor-Kadavanthra Road, in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995.
Kerala HC Adjourns Plea Alleging Bharat Jodo Yatra Is Causing Traffic Snarls To Monday
Case Title: Adv. Vijayan K v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday adjourned to Monday a petition seeking a direction to regulate the Bharat Jodo Yatra led by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi and asked the petitioner to inform it whether there was any violation of the police instructions that were given regarding traffic norms to be followed during the Yatra.
The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the matter briefly on Friday. When the case was taken up by the Court, it instructed the petitioner to find out whether the police instructions that were given regarding traffic norms to be followed during the Bharat Jodo Yatra were violated and inform the Court regarding the same on September 26.
Four Cops Suspended For Assaulting Lawyer Inside Kollam Police Station, Kerala High Court Told
Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v. Gopakumar & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday was informed that four police officials were placed under suspension on Wednesday for allegedly thrashing and handcuffing a lawyer inside a police station on September 5.
The submission was made during the hearing of a contempt petition filed against the action of the officials of Kollam police station. The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. issued notice and posted the matter for further hearing on a later date after it was informed about suspension of the policemen.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Chruch v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, took a critical view of the flags and banners erected along the highways in the State as part of the "Bharat Jodo Yatra" led by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The Court expressed dismay that the authorities have not removed the banners, boards and flags erected in violation of the earlier directions.
At the request of the Amicus Curiae Advocate Harish Vasudevan, the Court held an urgent hearing on the matter. The Amicus Curiae, in the report filed before the Court, submitted that a "particular political party", had illegally erected a large number of boards, banners, and flags in connection with the visit of a dignitary.
Case title: Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malayalavedi v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, strongly condemned and initiated suo motu proceedings against the leaders of Popular Front of India (PFI), noting the illegal call for flash hartal in the State, which was earlier banned by the Court. The PFI called for dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State today following the the arrest of its leaders by the NIA yesterady.
Division bench consisting of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that stringent action must be taken against the violators of the Court order.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Chruch v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, pulled up the Government for its failure to implement the directions for removal of illegal flags and banners erected along the highways in the State by various political parties. A bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his distress on the allegations that the High Court is aligning with certain political parties while passing orders. The bench observed in the order as follows :
'Accusing fingers are being pointed at the High Court that it acts with an agenda because some of the violations are not being dealt with as was done in the case of others. It is extremely unfortunate. When the Court has already passed orders, it is for the Government and its agencies to implement it continually in future, and it does not require this Court to intervene every time there is a violation.'
Case Title: T.G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in Kerala High Court against the police's alleged inaction and failure in registering a case with regard to the "attempted criminal assault" on Governor Arif Mohammed Khan during a conference at Kannur University on December 28 in 2019.
The Petitioner, T.G. Mohandas, who is a retired engineer, advocate and a public worker has also been a former State Convenor of the Intellectual Cell of BJP. It has been stated in the plea that the Governor's speech at Kannur University during the conference was interrupted and he had been "overawed" by Prof. Irfan Habib, a prominent historian.
Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court on Friday continued its hearing on the stray dog menace in Kerala, and issued further directions in this regard.
The Court questioned what measures were taken to identify rabid dogs, based on the alarming figures it had noted in recent media reports which showed that there was 50% Test positivity. The Court asked the Additional Advocate General how many dogs had been identified as rabid. The Court further noted that rabies could be spread even by other animals such as rats and mongoose, and directed the Additional Advocate General to submit a report on the steps taken in that line.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
The Enforcement Directorate has filed the counter affidavit in relation to its probe against the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB), with respect to the latter's alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) by the issuance of "Masala Bonds" in 2019.
Apart from the KIIFB, Dr. Thomas Issac, who was the Finance Minister during the issuance of Masala Bonds by KIIFB, had also approached the High Court challenging the summons issued to him, contending that the agency was seeking to conduct a "fishing and roving" enquiry against him without revealing what the exact nature of violations are.
Case Title: R. Baji v. KSRTC
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, observed that Popular Front India and its officer bearers who called for a flash hartal in the state following the arrest of its leaders by the NIA, should be held responsible for the losses suffered by the KSRTC during the protest.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed the State Government to inform how it proposes to recover from the Popular Front of India and its office bearers the losses caused to the KSRTC on account of the attacks against the buses and the loss of trips during the flash hartal called by the PFI party.
Kerala High Court Extends Stay On Transfer Of Sessions Judge Who Passed 'Provocative Dress' Order
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors
Adjourning the matter to a later date, the Kerala High Court Monday extended its stay on the transfer of Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, S. Krishna Kumar - who had passed the controversial 'Provocative Dress' order in Civic Chandran's case, to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice A K Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P adjourned the case for after a week, as the High Court Registrar sought time for filing an explanation on the reason for the judge's transfer.
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Monday has closed all the Writ Petitions filed in connection with the K-Rail Project for the time being, with full liberty to the petitioners to seek a rehearing when any further actions are taken by the Government of Kerala, either for the social impact assessment or acquisition of land.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that since the SIA notifications issued have lapsed and the land acquisition orders issued by the Kerala Government are at a standstill as the Central Government is yet to approve the DPR, the Court should not consider the matter at this stage.
Case Title: X vs Union of India
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court Monday said that the drastic changes in matrimonial life of a pregnant woman fulfils the condition of 'change of her marital status' in Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules, thus making her eligible to undergo medical termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks.
Citing a Supreme Court judgement in which it was held that a woman's reproductive choice is also a dimension of her personal liberty and also relying on the apex court's recent order in an MTP case, Justice V.G. Arun said: "If interpreted and understood in the above manner, the drastic change in the matrimonial life of a pregnant woman is equivalent to the 'change of her marital status.' The word 'divorce' cannot in any manner qualify or restrict that right".
It was further added by the Court that, "the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not contain any provision requiring the woman to obtain her husband's permission for terminating the pregnancy. The reason being that it is the woman who bears the stress and strain of the pregnancy and the delivery".
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Filed Against Bharat Jodo Yatra Alleging Traffic Snarls
Case Title: Adv. Vijayan K v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition which alleged Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's Bharat Jodo Yatra was causing traffic snarls in the state.
The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to produce documents proving the allegations averred in the plea. The Court had previously instructed the petitioner to find out whether the police instructions that were given regarding traffic norms to be followed during the Bharat Jodo Yatra were being violated.
KSRTC Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Over Rs 5 Crores From PFI For Hartal Losses
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport v. Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation moves Kerala High Court seeking directive to Popular Front of India to pay Rs. 5.06 Crores as compensation for the damages caused to the corporation during the flash hartal called the party in the state following the arrest of its leaders by the NIA.
In the petition moved through the Standing Counsel for KSRTC, Advocate Deepu Thankan sought direction to the Popular Front of India party to pay compensation to the KSRTC for the loss sustained by them.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday initiated a suo motu public interest writ petition to include 'Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia' in the group of rare diseases and to grant financial aid and support to the patients. It is a genetic disorders that affects adrenal glands.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly has issued notices to the State government and the Principal Secretary to its Health and Family Welfare Department and has posted the matter after a week.
Justice V.G. Arun of Kerala High Court, on Sunday, inaugurated and addressed 'Life Without Religion Award Distribution and Humanist Youth Movement Convention' conducted by the Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham and the Kerala Misra Vivaha Vedi as part of 'SECULAM 2022' event.
"To live without adhering to any religion in our democratic secular country is certainly in tune with our Constitutional principles", Justice Arun said at the event.
M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reiterated that State must take steps to ensure unhindered access to under-construction Vizhinjam Port site, in compliance with its previous order issued last month.
Justice Anu Sivaraman was hearing the contempt petition filed by M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd, alleging willful disobedience of Court's order dated September 1, whereby it had granted police protection to company's employees and workmen and had ordered free ingress and egress to the construction site.
Case title: Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malayalavedi v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the Popular Front of India (PFI) to deposit an amount of Rs. 5.20 crores with the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, towards the damages estimated by the State Government as well as the KSRTC on account of its 'flash hartal'.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that PFI and its general secretary are "wholly and directly responsible" for the injuries inflicted by their supporters on the citizens, as also for the damage caused to public/ private property.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
Taking serious note of the unaffordability of a life-saving patented medicine for breast cancer, the Kerala High Court on Thursday directed a competent officer of the union health ministry and the department of pharmaceuticals to file their response on the issue within a month.
The Court issued the direction after noting that the matter had to be taken up at the higher level.
Justice V.G. Arun warned that if the counter is not filed within the stipulated time, the court would be constrained to proceed with the case based on the "uncontroverted averments in the writ".
ED's Probe On Masala Bonds Affecting Infrastructure Development Plans In Kerala: KIIFB To High Court
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
The Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) has told the High Court that the Enforcement Directorate's protracted investigation into the issuance of Masala bonds is detrimentally affecting infrastructure development plans in the state.
The submission is part of a rejoinder filed by the KIIFB in response to a counter affidavit of the central agency. ED is probing the alleged violations of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) in issuance of Masala Bonds in 2019. KIIFB had challenged the summons issued by Enforcement Directorate.
Right To Be Forgotten Can't Be Used As Tool To 'Erase History': Google Tells Kerala High Court
Virginia Shylu v. Union of India and Other Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court this week continued hearing a batch of petitions seeking enforcement of 'Right to be Forgotten' and consequent removal of identifiable information from judgments or orders published in various online portals and the High Court Website.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen heard the case of a dentist who is aggrieved by the appearance of his name on Google search engine and reflection of a previous case he was embroiled in. It was alleged that the petitioner's second marriage, his sister's marriage and several other personal hardships had befallen due to publication of the case against him.
Case Title: Mr. Sreenath Bhasi v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Friday stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against actor Sreenath Bhasi over using filthy language against a female interviewer during an interview conducted by 'Bihind Woods' social media channel.
The stay has been granted on actor's plea filed through Advocates Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, R. Githesh, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Anna Linda V. J., and Harikrishnan S, claiming that the matter has been settled between the parties.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Dr T.M. Thomas Isaac v. The Deputy Director
The Kerala High Court on Friday heard two petitions filed by Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and Former Finance Minister of Kerala Dr Thomas Issac challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the investigation into the financial transactions of KIIFB.
Justice V G Arun heard the contentions raised by various counsels appearing in the petitions at length and posted the matter for 10th October for orders.
Fake Antique Dealer Case | Kerala High Court Stays Release Of Recovered Articles
Case Title: Monson M.C. @ Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently stayed an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam for release of various curios recovered from infamous fake antiques dealer Monson Mavunkal.
The counsels representing Mavunkal before the bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. argued that even though he was a party to the proceedings before the Additional CJM, no notice had been served on him, and that the order had been passed by the Court below under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. without hearing him. The petitioner was represented by Advocates M.G. Sreejith, Vidyajith M., P. Jaya, and Luke J. Chirayil.
