Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 20 To June 26, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288- 303]

Neethu v. Trijo Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288

T.K Pradeep v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 289

XXX v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 290

Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 291

Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292

M/S C.S Company & Ors v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 293

Subaida Ebrahim v. Moosa C & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 294

Arun P. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 295

Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296

Sister Sephy v CBI, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 297

Rakhi Bose & Anr. v Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 298

Furseen Majeed & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 299

Sujith Narayanan v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 300

Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 301

Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302

Southern Dredging Co (P) Ltd v. K. Muhammed Haji, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 303

Judgments/Orders This Week

1. DV Act | Court Can Strike Off Defence For Willful Non-Compliance With Order For Interim Maintenance: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Neethu v. Trijo Joseph

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288

It has been ruled that a Court can strike off the defence of the defaulter if they deliberately or willfully refuse to comply with its order directing payment of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). Justice Kauser Edappagath held so after observing that in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr, the Supreme Court had upheld the power of the court to strike off the defence if there was willful and contumacious non-compliance with the order of payment of maintenance.

2. KSRTC Employees Complain Of Working Over 8 Hours: Kerala High Court Seeks Explanation On Fixing Schedule

3. Alarming No. Of Women Succumbing To Breast Cancer Due To Inability To Afford Treatment: Kerala HC Asks Centre To Consider Compulsory Licensing Of Drug Ribociclib

Case Title: XXX v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 290

The Court has directed the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade to consider compulsory licensing of Ribociclib, a life-saving breast cancer drug considering the alarming number of women who succumb to the disease merely because they could not afford treatment. Justice V.G. Arun found this issue to be demanding serious consideration at the hands of the concerned authorities and issued an interim direction to the Department to pass a reasoned order on this issue after consulting with the relevant authorities.

4. S.306/307 CrPC | Pardon Can Be Tendered To Any Person Privy To The Offence, Not Only The Accused: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 291

The Court has held that under Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a pardon can be granted to any person even if they have not been arraigned as an accused in the final report, as long as they were privy to the offence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran opined so after observing that the language employed in Sections 306 and 307 is not 'an accused person' but 'any person', which implies that the person to whom pardon is to be tendered need only be 'directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to' the offence.

5. Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case Subject To Conditions

Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the anticipatory bail plea with a condition that limited custody of the actor shall be available to the investigating officer.

Also Read: 12 Circumstances That Persuaded Kerala High Court To Grant Pre-Arrest Bail To Vijay Babu In Rape Case

6. Suit Against A Firm Is A Suit Against All Persons Who Were Its Partners When Cause Of Action Occured: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S C.S Company & Ors v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 293

The Court has held that a suit instituted by or against a firm is a suit by or against all the partners of the firm and that the firm's name stands for all who were partners at the time when the cause of action arose. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha pointed out that the policy underlying Order XXX (Suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own) CPC, is to avoid a long array of parties and to allow a convenient mode of institution of suits by/against partners collectively, who carry on business under a particular name.

7. CPC| Order For Rateable Distribution Of Property Among Various Decree Holders Bars Them From Setting-Off Their Individual Debt: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Subaida Ebrahim v. Moosa C & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 294

The Court recently ruled that under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), when there is an order of rateable distribution for a property in favour of separate decree holders, one of them cannot claim to set-off their entire debt from the sale proceeds. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar held that in a case where rateable distribution is ordered by the Court, the decree-holder only has the right to set off a proportionate amount he is entitled to.

8. Any Hindrance To Medical Workers Qualify As Violence: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Obstructing Doctor

Case Title: Arun P. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 295

The Kerala High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of obstructing a doctor from performing her official duty finding that under the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, even an obstruction or hindrance committed on a healthcare person is a grave offence. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that violence against a medical professional was a non-bailable offence and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would defeat the legislative mandate.

9. Delinquent's Right To Receive Enquiry Report Must Be Read Into Every Statute Even If Not Explicitly Stated: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296

The Court has held that a delinquent's right to receive the enquiry report is considered an essential part of a reasonable opportunity to be extended to them and a refusal to furnish the report amounts to a denial of their right to defend themselves in the disciplinary proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P also held that even if such a right is not explicitly stated in the statute, being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, it must be read into every statute.

10. Sister Abhaya Murder Case: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Convicts Sister Sephy, Father Kottoor With Conditions

Case Title: Sister Sephy v CBI

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 297

The Court allowed the applications filed by convicts Sister Sephy and Father Thomas Kottoor seeking suspension of the life sentence imposed on them in the sensational Sister Abhaya murder case. A Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran thereby granted bail to the convicts with the condition to execute bonds of Rs. 5 lakh each and two solvent sureties. If their conviction and sentence were upheld or even modified, the time during which they are so released was to be excluded in computing the term of their sentence as provided in Section 389(4) CrPC.

Also Read: Sister Abhaya Murder Case : Kerala High Court Raises Prima Facie Doubts At Witness Statements While Suspending Convicts' Sentence

11. 'Assisted Reproductive Technology Act Doesn't Apply' : Kerala HC Allows Development Of Embryo Kept Frozen By Couple For 8 Years

Case Title: Rakhi Bose & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 298

The Court ruled that the right of a frozen embryo to develop into a foetus and then be born cannot be obstructed by relying on provisions in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Justice V.G Arun observed that the main objective of the Act was to prevent abuse of assisted reproductive procedures and not to pose hurdles in the way of aspiring parents.

12. In-Flight Protest Against Chief Minister: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 2 Youth Congress Workers

Case Title: Furseen Majeed & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 299

The High Court granted bail to two Youth Congress workers, Furseen Majeed and R.K Naveen, who were arrested and remanded following their protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Justice Viju Abraham granted bail to the petitioners noting that considering the nature of the allegations, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners did not seem necessary.

13. In-Flight Protest Against Chief Minister: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To 3rd Accused

Case Title: Sujith Narayanan v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 300

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a Youth Congress worker Sujith Narayanan who has been accused of conspiring to protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Justice Viju Abraham granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner observing that while the first two accused allegedly involved in the incident were arrested, there was no attempt at all to arrest him.

14. Consider Placing Hospitals Under Police Protection: Kerala High Court To State Over Increasing Attacks On Medical Personnel

Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 301

Stating that reports of attacks on healthcare persons have become a routine, the Kerala High Court on Thursday asked the State government to consider its suggestion of placing police presence in hospitals, at least in the most sensitive areas for now, which can later be extended to other places in due time. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath also said that while statutory provisions provide for stringent penalties, this does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent for the assailants.

15. School Girl Injured After Conductor Signals Driver To Move While She Was Boarding The Bus: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 308 IPC

Case Title: Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302

The Court recently ruled that a conductor of a stage carriage bus, ringing its bell and signalling the driver to move forward when a passenger was boarding it thereby causing serious injury to the passenger is an act punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 308 punishes the attempt to commit culpable homicide. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held so after finding that the conductor has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of the passengers and that he would thereby have sufficient knowledge that his action of ringing the bell could have fatal consequences.

16. Plea Of Adjustment Should Be Raised Before Institution Of Suit: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Southern Dredging Co (P) Ltd v. K. Muhammed Haji

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 303

The High Court has reiterated that a plea of adjustment can be pressed into service only if raised before the institution of the suit and not afterwards, unlike a plea for set-off. Justice A. Badharudeen also noted that leave for filing additional written statements is usually not granted by courts if they are filed after a long delay. The Judge added that to determine whether a plea raised in defence is a plea of set-off or of payment by adjustment it has to be ascertained as to whether a separate action could be maintained by the defendant on the basis of his claim.