Kerala High Court
Road Accident | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Inferred From Scene Mahazar Alone: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court, in an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, held that contributory negligence cannot be fixed based on the scene mahazar alone. It can be relied on if there is a police charge alleging contributory negligence or evidence to support the mahazar.“If the police charge attributes contributory negligence, the same can be relied on by the tribunal,...
S.77 Customs Act Mandates Declaration Of Contents Of Not Just Baggage, But Also Posts And Couriers: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 77 of the Customs Act, which obliges every owner of a baggage to make a declaration of its contents to the customs officer for the purpose of clearing it, deals with the declaration of contents of not just baggage but also posts and couriers.Justice P G Ajithkumar observed thus:“Section 77 of the Customs Act obliges every owner of a baggage to make...
Parental Love Or Concern Can't Fluster An Adult's Right To Choose The Person She Wants To Marry: Kerala High Court
“Parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married,” the Kerala High Court has observed.The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. M. Manoj made the observation while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman's partner in thisThe petitioner is a Masters Student in Germany....
Right Of Choice: Kerala High Court Refuses To Put "Fetters" On Adult Woman's Decision To Live Separately From Parents
The Kerala High Court has held that it has to recognize the right of 'choice' of an adult woman and no fetters can be placed on her decision to live her life in the manner she desires. It stated that the court or family members cannot substitute their opinions and preferences for those of an adult.The father of the woman in this case had filed a habeas corpus petition for her release from...
Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 03 - June 09, 2024
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327-341]Geetha v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 327M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v The Deputy Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 328Prabhakaran P. V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 329Suo Moto v Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 330Jewel Roshan T v Union of India,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 331Vignesh Kumar Balasundar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw...
S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act | Lack Of Sanction Not Bar When Constitutional Court Orders Enquiry Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when a Constitutional Court passes an order to conduct enquiry or investigation into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 17A of the Act does not operate as a bar. The provision requires that before a police officer conducts an enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant...
What Action Taken Against Vloggers Promoted Illegally Modified Vehicles? Kerala High Court Asks Ministry Of Transport
The Kerala High Court has sought instructions from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways about the action against vloggers who promote the use of modified and altered motor vehicles in public places that violate safety standards.The Government Pleader informed the Court that the Transport Commissioner could appear before the Court on the next posting date, if necessary, to explain...
Kerala High Court Directs ED To Retain And Preserve CCTV Footage Of Interrogation Of CMRL Officials
The Kerala High Court passed an order directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to preserve and retain the CCTV visuals of the interrogation of officials of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) who the ED summoned.It was alleged that CMRL committed cognizable offences warranting investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and a summons was issued to its officials. The...
Separate Calculation Of Gratuity Amount For Parent Service And Deputation Service Impermissible: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the total gratuity payable to an employee has to be calculated based on the monthly salary last drawn by the employee immediately preceding his termination, irrespective of the deputation service of the employee.In the Writ Petition, the question to be decided was how much amount the company should contribute towards the gratuity of its deputed employee....
Time Limit To Avail ITC Is Till 30th November In Each Financial Year From Beginning Of GST Regime: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the time limit to avail ITC is November 30th in each financial year from the beginning of the GST regime.The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that prior to the amendment in Section 39 by the Finance Act 2022, the date for furnishing the return under Section 39 was September 30th. Considering the difficulties in the initial stage of...
[S.34 IPC] Mere Participation Or Sharing Same Intention Independent Of Each Other Not Sufficient, Prearranged Plan Has To Be Proved: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that mere participation in an offence would not be sufficient to attribute common intention unless it was proved that they shared a premeditated plan. The Court stated that common intention has to be proved through the conduct of the accused, surrounding circumstances or other incriminating evidence.In the facts of the case, three accused have approached the...
Doctrine Of 'Paternity' By Estoppel: Kerala High Court Says Child's Parentage Can't Be Challenged When Conduct Proves Otherwise
The Kerala High Court has held that it is not permissible for a man to challenge the paternity of a child when his conduct proves otherwise.The facts of the case were that in 2022, the petitioner approached the Family Court seeking DNA test stating that he reasonably suspects the minor child's paternity. The Family Court observed that the petitioner suppressed material fact that he had...











![[S.34 IPC] Mere Participation Or Sharing Same Intention Independent Of Each Other Not Sufficient, Prearranged Plan Has To Be Proved: Kerala High Court [S.34 IPC] Mere Participation Or Sharing Same Intention Independent Of Each Other Not Sufficient, Prearranged Plan Has To Be Proved: Kerala High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/05/30/500x300_542246-justice-p-b-suresh-kumar-and-justice-m-b-snehalatha-kerala-hc.webp)
