Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171 - 180]Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175T....
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171 - 180]
Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh Jayaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
Minor v. Ministry of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Lloyed Insulations (India) Ltd versus Foremexx Space Frames, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
Suryansh Broadcasting Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
Judgments This Week
Case Title: Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
The High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the high court cannot waive the statutory mandate of pre-deposit merely on the plea of financial hardships. The court observed that the amendment to section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, clearly manifests the intention of the legislature that the waiver of pre-deposit, which was being resorted to quite often by the courts of law, needed to be amended to make the pre-deposit mandatory. Thus, after the Amendment Act came into force, no discretion is available to the courts of law to waive the mandatory requirement of a pre-deposit of 7.5% even if it is assumed to be onerous.
Case Title: X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
The Court has established that the promise alleged to have been made by the accused to a married woman that he would marry her before engaging in sexual relations with her is not enforceable in law and thus it cannot be a ground for the prosecution to argue that the woman had consented due to a misconception of fact. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath quashed all proceedings against the accused observing that according to the sequence of events and the survivor's statement, it appeared to be a consensual act.
Case Title: Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
The Court while releasing a man on bail observed that the forensic science laboratories (FSL) in the State were collapsing and required an upgrade upon noticing that the FSL report in the case was not submitted to the Sessions Court despite the passage of two years. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, therefore, suggested that the State government take immediate note of the same and make sure that the system is equipped to submit FSL reports within three weeks of the samples being furnished.
4. Right Of State To Provide Reservations Unaffected By UGC Regulations: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
The Court has established that the regulations notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) that determine qualifications for selection to various posts in universities in a State do not impact the right of the State government to provide reservations for backward classes. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P stated that it did not see how the UGC Regulations can affect the reservation policy of a State.
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
A vacation bench of the Court granted interim relief in the plea moved by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the respondents to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps while clarifying that this relief was subject to the outcome of the petition.
6. Party May Not Press Relief But Can't Prevent Family Court From Finding The Truth: Kerala High Court
Case Title: T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh Jayaram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
The Court recently held that the master of the proceedings before the Family Court is the presiding officer of the Family Court and not the parties while reiterating that the Family Court is competent to undertake any enquiry to find the truth. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that a party may be able to not press the relief sought, but they cannot refrain the Family Court from the finding of truth.
Case Title: Minor v. Ministry of Education
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
The Court has established that where a policy decision has been given effect to through a scheme announced by an educational agency, it would not interfere or suggest alternate policies for adoption by the said educational agency. A Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. however permitted a student who attended an urban school to be accommodated in the rural quota of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya since several seats in the quota was found to be vacant despite the admission process being complete, and the student as found meritorious for admission otherwise.
8. Dissenting Views Of Minority Members Does Not Constitute An Arbitral Award: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lloyed Insulations (India) Ltd versus Foremexx Space Frames
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
The Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal can pass only one arbitral award and not multiple awards. The Bench, consisting of Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, ruled that the dissenting views of the minority member(s) of an Arbitral Tribunal do not constitute an Arbitral Award, and the dissenting views cannot be made the basis of a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for setting aside the arbitral award or proceedings under Section 36 for its enforcement.
Case Title: Suryansh Broadcasting Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
The Court has dismissed an appeal moved by the broadcasting team of the popular Malayalam sitcom 'Uppum Mulakum' seeking an injunction on the telecasting of another programme which was allegedly an imitation of the appellant's programme. Justice P. Somarajan observed that although copyright is intended to protect one's work, that does not stop others from adopting the very same theme so long as the theme has an individual quality of its own with an element of innovation from the creator apart from the general theme and its natural sequences.
Case Title: Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
The High Court while dealing with a tenancy case, established that simply because a contention was raised in the written statement, there is no necessity for the court to refer it to the Land Tribunal if it prima facie appears to be a baseless assertion. Justice A. Badharudeen held that a civil court is only bound to refer a tenancy matter to the Land Tribunal if it finds sufficient force in the contention raised by the parties.
Other Developments
Case Title: Jean George & Anr v. Serum Institute Of India & Ors.
The parents of a 19-year-old student have moved the High Court seeking justice alleging that their daughter died due to the compulsory administration of the Covishield vaccine and they have sought Rs 1 crore as compensation for the death of their only daughter. Justice N Nagaresh has sought the view of the central government on the petition.