Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: September 2023 [Citations: 441 - 530]

Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. V Lissiama James 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 448

Kerala State Horticultural Products Development Corporation Limited V Sunil Kumar S 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 449

Umesh v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 450

M/S Anantham Online Pvt. Ltd. v. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 451

V V Jaya v. M P Rajeswaran Nair 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 452

Sandesh S V The Kerala Water Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 453

Adv. Richard Rajesh Kumar V Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 454

K. Muraleedharan Nair & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 455

Radhakrishnan K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

Sanjeesh S.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 457

Nafeesath Beevi V The Chief Executive Officer Kerala State Wakf Board 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 458

Mohammed Moideen v. Maben Nidhi Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 459

State of Kerala V P M Kunhappan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 460

Sunil Kumar V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 461

Yeshwanth Shenoy v. The Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 462

Kerala High Tension and Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association & Ors. v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 465

Ismail Sahib V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 466

G. Vyasan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 467

Vasu v. Narayanan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 468

Sandeep v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 469

M. Baiju v. The Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 470

N.Sarojini Nambramcheri v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 471

Vishnu K.B. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 472

Aneesh v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

Subeesh v. Vichathran 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 474

Tony Francis Padiyappuram v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 475

Theresa Davis v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 476

R. Sreenath & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 477

N.P. Abdul Nazer v. Union Bank of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 478

Gopakumar v. Madhusoodanan Nair 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 479

Thomas Daniel v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 480

Karlose v. Stella Lasar & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 481

Shaik Zakir Ahmed v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 482

Anil Kumar v. Sunil Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 483

Hariharan P v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 484

Unni Mukundan v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 485

Gokuldas v. Gopalakrishnan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 486

Suo Moto v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 487

Master A (Minor) V District Legal Service Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 489

Fr. Geevarghese John @Subin John v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 490

Suseela & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 491

Sanoj V K V Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 492

Kashyap Saigal v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 493

Sujith Kumar S V Vinaya V S 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 494

Diya Agencies v. State Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 495

Ratheesh V v. S Mary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 496

S Mangalan V The District Collector 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 497

Ramanadhan v. Raji 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 498

XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 499

Santiago Martin v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 500

Archa Unni V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 501

Jisha Mohan v. Vishal V.M. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 502

Sreedharan v. Ahsa 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 503

Neena T V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 504

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v VS Sujatha & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 505

Kerala State Tug of War Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 506

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Advocates Association V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 507

Jayarajan B.C. v. Lakshmi Mallya & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 508

Suo Moto V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 509

Sanil Kumar V. v. Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 510

Smitha T T v. Sreeroop V 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 511

Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam & Ors. v. K.K. Surendran & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

Mansoor & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 513

V.P. Nandakumar v. Assistant Director 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 514

Cochin Devaswom Board V Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 515

Prana Educational and Charitable Trust & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 516

Muneer A. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 517

K Sivanandhan V State of Kerala and other matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 518

Finil Biju V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 519

Malathy Ravi v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 520

M.N. Saji v. K.R. Krishnakumar 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 521

Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair v. Madhu Vadakkepatt 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 522

Sayanth S v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 523

Anitha K. Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 524

Antony Joseph v. The Sub-Registrar 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 525

Akhila Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 526

Sangeetha R. v. The Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 527

Rohit Krishna v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 528

Soubiya & Anr. v. District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs & Ors. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 529

Muhammad Salmanul Faris K Versus The Superintendent 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 530

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 441

The Kerala High Court has held that bar on grant of anticipatory bail for certain rape offences, as indicated under Section 438(4) of CrPC, will not be attracted if such offences are prima facie not made out from the material placed on record or the allegations appear to be false.

Section 438(4) bars anticipatory bail to an accused allegedly involved in offences punishable under Sections 376(3) (rape of woman under 16 years of age), 376 AB (rape on woman under twelve years of age), 376 DA (Gang rape on a woman under sixteen years of age) and 376 DB (Gang rape of a woman under 12 years of age).

Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that merely because any of the offences under Sections 376 (3), 376 AB, 376 DA and 376 DB are incorporated amongst other offences in the FIR, the valuable rights of the accused cannot be denied if a prima facie case is not made out.

"When there are no convincing reasons to find out such a prima facie case as to the said offences, the prohibition contained in the said provision should not be brought into force automatically, without any application of mind, thereby denying the personal liberty of a person, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. When there are reasonable and valid grounds to suspect the veracity of the allegations, the court should not hesitate to pass appropriate orders to protect the personal liberty of the person against whom such accusations are made," the Bench noted.

'Parental Custody Preferred': Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With UK Court Order Removing Child From Grandmother's Custody In India

Case Title: Lalamma John V Jijo Varghese

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 442

The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with an order passed by a competent Family Court in the UK directing a minor child to be brought back from India to England, where her parents reside.

The child was residing with her maternal grandmother in India following a dispute between her parents. She was brought to India by her mother and the UK Court is seized with a plea moved by her father and grandfather, seeking her custody. The mother had given an undertaking that she would produce the child before the UK Court.

A division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that before honouring a competent foreign court's order in child custody matters, it has to ensure that the welfare of the child will be protected.

In the present case, it observed that the UK court had noted the measures to protect the welfare of the child. Thus it said,

“Parental custody is always preferred as the parents are competent to protect the welfare of the child. We are not persuaded to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the UK court had noted the measures to protect the welfare of the children. When the competent court of jurisdiction in UK has already taken measures, the comity of courts demands to respect that order unless such order is passed without any jurisdiction.”

'Nothing To Suggest Sexual Intent': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Youth Accused Of Holding Minor's Hand To Outrage Modesty

Case Title: Anu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 443

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 21-year-old who has been accused of catching hold of a 15-year-old girl’s hand, with an intention to outrage her modesty.

The prosecution case against the petitioner-accused was that he, along with the second accused in the case, came on a bike, and caught hold of the minor girl’s hand intending to outrage her modesty. The duo has been booked under Section 354 IPC (‘Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’), and Sections 8 (‘Punishment for sexual assault’) r/w 7 (‘Sexual assault’) and 16 (‘Abetment of an offence’) of the POCSO Act.

Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the First Information Statement did not reveal that the said act was done by the applicant with 'sexual intent' or with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim.

“The only allegation is that the applicant came in a bike and caught hold of the hand of the victim. There is nothing to suggest in the F.I.S. that, the said act was done by the applicant with sexual intent or with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. For these reasons, it is a fit case where pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant,” the Court observed.

Kerala Education Act | Aided School's Properties Cannot Be Mortgaged Without Obtaining Permission From Educational Authorities: High Court

Case title: Swaroop V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 444

The Kerala High Court held that an aided school's properties cannot be mortgaged without obtaining permissions from concerned authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules.

Justice Basant Balaji observed thus:

“A duty is cast on a Manager, and the Manager should submit a statement of movable and immovable properties to the educational authorities. Without the permission of the educational authorities, the Manager cannot mortgage, sell, or lease the property.”

S.142 NI Act | Third Party Cannot Prosecute Drawer For Dishonour Of Cheque: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Arvind Singh Rajpoot v. M/S Intersight Holidays Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 445

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that a third party cannot prosecute the drawer of cheque for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Section 138 of the NI Act stipulates the penalty for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account.

Perusing Section 142(a) of the Act which provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque, the Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen proceeded to observe:

"...Therefore, a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act shall be filed either by the 'payee' or by the 'holder in due course' of the said cheque and no other person entitled to lodge a complaint and the court shall take cognizance acting on a complaint in writing filed by the 'payee' or 'holder in due course'".

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 18-Yr-Old In Consensual Sexual Relationship With 17-Yr-Old

Case title: Maheen Ali V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 446

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to an 18 year old boy under Section 438 of CrPC who was alleged to have kidnapped and raped a 17 year old girl. The Court held that the applicant and victim were having consensual sexual relationship and that she went voluntarily with him as they were involved in a romantic relationship.

Justice Kauser Edappagath, while allowing the anticipatory bail application observed thus:

“The reading of FIS would show that, the applicant who was aged 18 years and the victim who was aged 17 years, got acquainted through Instagram two years back and they were in romantic relationship. The FIS would further show that, on 09.04.2023, the victim voluntary went along with the applicant to his friend’s house. On 15.07.2023 also, the victim voluntarily went to the house of the applicant. An over all reading of the FIS shows that the alleged sexual act was consensual in nature.”

Use Of Technology For 'Secretive' Drug-Related Transactions Relevant Consideration While Deciding Bail Plea U/S 37 NDPS Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. M/s Sathyam Audios and connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 463

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court recently held that the tax under the KVAT Act applied not to the transfer of goods but to the transfer of the right to use goods.

A division bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias CP added that the taxable event occurs when the contract for goods delivery is executed, irrespective of whether the transfer is exclusive.

"...in a contract for the transfer of the right to use the goods, the taxable event is the execution of the contract for delivery of the goods, and if that has taken place, it was immaterial whether the transfer was exclusively or to the exclusion of all others."

Electricity Tariff: Kerala High Court Strikes Down Regulation Imposing KSEB Pension Liability On Consumers

Case Title: Kerala High Tension and Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association & Ors. v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

The Kerala High Court has held that electricity tariff charged from consumers will not include the amount allocated to the Master Trust, pension fund of Kerala State Electricity Board employees.

Single Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman struck down Regulation 34 (iv) of the the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2021 (the Final Tariff Regulations). With this verdict, the electricity tariff shall be reduced by 17 paise per unit for the consumers.

Kerala High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Of Man Spotted And Identified By Minor Victim In Public Place 1.5 Months After Incident

Case title: Anil Kumar V State of Kerala

Electricity Tariff: Kerala High Court Strikes Down Regulation Imposing KSEB Pension Liability On Consumers

Case Title: Kerala High Tension and Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association & Ors. v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

The Kerala High Court has held that electricity tariff charged from consumers will not include the amount allocated to the Master Trust, pension fund of Kerala State Electricity Board employees.

Single Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman struck down Regulation 34 (iv) of the the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2021 (the Final Tariff Regulations). With this verdict, the electricity tariff shall be reduced by 17 paise per unit for the consumers.

Kerala High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Of Man Spotted And Identified By Minor Victim In Public Place 1.5 Months After Incident

Case title: Anil Kumar V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 466

The Kerala High Court has held that while issuing summons to show cause under provisions of bond for peace keeping, etc., the Magistrate has to follow the procedure laid down under Section 111 of CrPC.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed thus:

“it is the mandate that whenever a Magistrate intents to proceed acting under section 107, section 108, section 109, or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required and without furnishing such details, the order will be non-est. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.”

Temple Premises Cannot Be Used For Conducting Mass Drill, Weaponry Training: Kerala High Court

Case Title: G. Vyasan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 467

Case name: Vasu v. Narayanan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 468

The Kerala High Court has held that even if an ex parte decree is passed in a suit for specific performance, the Court has to take a liberal view to advance justice by condoning the delay of defendant and affording the party an opportunity to defend the suit.

Justice P Somarajan observed that a party can be penalized for the delay by imposition of cost but, court should not curtail the party's right to defend the suit for specific performance.

“In the matter of condonation of absence of party, especially in a suit for specific performance, the court has to take a liberal view so as to advance justice and not to defeat, unless the negligence is so grave to the extent of outweighing the benefit that can be obtained by the party by prosecuting or defending the suit. It is permissible to penalize the party in terms of money for the laches, not by curtailing the valuable right to proceed with the suit or to defend the suit, especially in the matter of specific performance.”

Kollam Doctor Murder: Accused Sandeep Withdraws Bail Plea From Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sandeep v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 469

Kerala Municipality Act | Property Tax To Be Paid Only From Date Of Issuance Of Occupancy Certificate: High Court

Case Title: M. Baiju v. The Secretary, Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 470

The Kerala High Court recently held that property tax is liable to be paid only from the period of issuance of the occupancy certificate, and not prior to the same.

The Court reasoned that since tax can only be levied on a building which becomes capable of being used for residential purposes as per Section 233 (2)(a) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and since it is only on the issuance of occupancy certificate that a building would get numbered and get electricity, water, and gas, tax would hence be leviable from the date of issuance of such certificate.

Section 233 provides for 'Property Tax', and sub-section (2)(a) defines the buildings on which the property tax can be levied.

"If subsection 2 (a) of Section 233 is read in proper perspective, it could mean that the tax can be levied on the building which becomes capable of use for residential purposes or other purposes which is defined under Subsection 2(a). It is not in dispute that without occupancy certificate, the building would not get numbered and electricity, water and gas connections would not be provided to such building. If these facilities are not provided, the building does not become capable of being used for residential purposes or other purposes as defined in Subsection 2(a)," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed.

Indian Army Can Grant Family Pension To Ex-Serviceman's Second Wife Even If First Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Kerala High Court

Case title: N.Sarojini Nambramcheri V Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 471

The Kerala High Court recently held that there was no impediment for the Indian Army in granting family pension to the second wife of a deceased serviceman even if the first marriage was not dissolved legally, as long as the first wife was not interested in the pension.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Indian Army could consider the claim of the second wife since their marriage was recognised by the Indian Postal Department. It observed thus:

“Even if it is taken that the divorce as reflected in Ext.P2 is not legally valid, it would cause no prejudice to the Indian Army, as long as Smt.K.T.Chandralekha does not stake a claim to the family pension. This is more so because, the marriage of late K.V.Venugopalan and the petitioner appears to have been accepted by the Indian Postal Department, which is evident from Exts.P7 and P8, and hence it would only be in furtherance of such that the Indian Army also considers their marriage to be valid.”

S.227 CrPC | Notarised Affidavit By Complainant Not Sufficient To Discharge Accused: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vishnu K.B. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 472

The Kerala High Court recently held that a notarised affidavit signed by the de facto complainants exonerating the accused person cannot be taken in isolation to discharge the accused.

Justice N. Nagaresh explained that to discharge an accused person under Section 227 of the CrPC, the Court ought to determine if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them. If such grounds are found, an order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused would have to face trial.

"The purpose of Section 227 of the Code is to ensure that the Court should be satisfied that the accusations made against the accused is not frivolous and that there is some material for proceeding against the accused. If there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, an order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face trial... A notarised affidavit subsequently signed by the de facto complainants cannot be taken in isolation by the Court so as to discharge the accused."

Privately Watching Porn Video Without Exhibiting It To Others Will Not Attract Offence Of Obscenity U/S 292 IPC: Kerala High Court

Case title: Aneesh V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man who was arrested by the Police from roadside for watching pornography on his mobile phone.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that "privately" watching obscene photos or videos on one’s phone without distributing or publicly exhibiting it will not attract the offence of obscenity under IPC. It added that watching such content is a person’s private choice and the Court cannot intrude into his privacy.

"The question to be decided in this case is whether a person watching a porn video in his private time without exhibiting it to others amounts to an offence? A court of law cannot declare that the same amounts to an offence for the simple reason that it is his private choice and interference with the same amounts to an intrusion of his privacy," Court observed.

Instead Of Ordering From Swiggy And Zomato, Let Children Enjoy Delicious Food Cooked By Mothers: Kerala High Court Advises Parents

Case title: Aneesh V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

The Kerala High Court emphasized on importance of home-cooked meals for children and advised parents to deter from ordering food from restaurants via online delivery platforms Swiggy and Zomato.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan was dealing with a case concerning access to pornography via few clicks of a hand-held mobile phone when he ventured into the arena of modern parenting where children are handed mobile phones so that parents can "complete their daily routine works in their house".

He implored parents to rather send their children for outdoor activities and welcome them back to home with the "mesmerizing smell of mother’s food". He remarked,

“Let the children play cricket or football or other games they like during their leisure time. That is necessary for a healthy young generation who are to become the beacons of hope of our nation in the future. Instead of purchasing food from restaurants through ‘swiggy’ and ‘zomato’, let the children taste the delicious food made by their mother and let the children play at play grounds at that time and come back home to the mesmerizing smell of mother’s food. I leave it there to the wisdom of the parents of minor children of this society”

[Kerala Rent Control Act] Payment Of Arrears During Pendency Of Appeal No Ground For Setting Aside Eviction Order U/S 12(3): High Court

Case Title: Subeesh v. Vichathran

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 474

The Kerala High Court held that payment of the admitted arrears of rent during the pendency of an appeal against an order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Kerala (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter, 'the Act'), would not be a ground to set aside such an order or to grant an opportunity to the tenant to contest the Rent Control Petition.

Section 12(3) provides that upon the failure of a tenant to pay or deposit the rent or arrears of rent as declared to be paid by the Rent Control Court within a prescribed time period, the Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajith Kumar explained the scope of Section 12 of the Act as follows:

"The object of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act ('Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction') is to deny the defaulting tenant the right to contest the application for eviction before the Rent Control Court or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, unless he pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. The obligation is not merely dependent on an order under Section 12(1) of the Act, but it is statutory".

Baptism Certificate Cannot Be Given Primacy Over Official Documents Like Aadhar Card To Ascertain Date Of Birth: Kerala High Court

Case name: Tony Francis Padiyappuram V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 475

The Kerala High Court has held that baptism certificate cannot be given primacy over official documents like SSLC Certificate, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and driving license to ascertain the date of birth of a person belonging to Christian community.

Justice Murali Purushothaman observed thus:

“A baptism certificate is issued by the Church to record the baptism of a person. No primacy can be accorded to baptism certificate when public documents are available indicating the date of birth.”

Kerala High Court Directs State To Inform All Registering Authorities That Marriages Can Be Registered Through Video Conferencing

Case Title: Theresa Davis v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 476

The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to inform all registering authorities that marriages can be registered by securing the presence of the parties by video conferencing.

Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the State Government to comply with the direction within two weeks so that parties would not have to approach the Court each time with the same request.

“I also deem it necessary to direct the State of Kerala to make sure, through its competent Authority, that all Registering Authorities are informed of the afore precedent through appropriate means, so that parties will not have to approach this Court every time they require the benefits as granted therein. This shall be done in full compliance; and a report to that effect produced before this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

Kerala High Court Rejects Plea To Erect Saffron Flags At Temple; Says Temple's Sanctity Shouldn't Be Diminished By Political Acts

Case Title: R. Sreenath & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 477

The Kerala High Court recently held that in order to maintain the sanctity and tranquility of the temples, it cannot permit putting up of saffron flags and festoons on temple premises.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., while refusing the plea by two devotees of the Muthupilakkadu Sree Parthasarathy temple to permit them to erect flags without any obstruction, observed:

"Temples stand as beacons of spiritual solace and tranquility, their sanctity and reverence being of paramount importance. Such hallowed spiritual grounds must not be diminished by political maneuverings or attempts at one-upmanship".

Non-Compliance With Centre's MSME Framework Does Not Nullify An NPA Declaration Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: N.P. Abdul Nazer v. Union Bank of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 478

The Kerala High Court recently held that the ‘Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises' issued by the Centre in 2015 is only optional and that its non-compliance does not render an NPA declaration void.

The said Framework outlines a procedure for banks to follow before declaring an MSME's account as an NPA (Non-Performing Asset).

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas added that the Framework does not prevail over the statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the matter of recovery of loans.

"... failure to abide by the terms of the notification of 2015 cannot render the declaration of the account as NPA void or bad in law. The words in the notification do not provide for a mandatory procedural requirement. No consequence is provided for non-compliance with the Framework... Hence the failure of the Banks to abide by the terms of the Framework cannot be condemned as fatal," the Court observed.

[Order 32 Rule 15 CPC] Few Irrational Answers Insufficient To Qualify One As Mentally Unfit, Enquiry Should Be Pragmatic: Kerala HC

Case name: Gopakumar v. Madhusoodanan Nair

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 479

The Kerala High Court while considering the scope of the term ‘enquiry’ by the Court under Order 32 Rule 15, observed that the courts cannot merely find a person to be suffering from a mental disorder based on a few irrational answers given by him.

Justice P. Somarajan added the courts should adopt a more practical approach and seek medical evidence or expert opinion to determine their mental state to decide if they should be represented by a next friend or guardian in a suit.

“Hence, the court should adopt a pragmatic approach and if it is found necessary, call for further evidence including medical evidence, instead of jumping into a conclusion merely on the ground that some of the answers which were given by the person were found to be not convincing or rational. The procedure, then available, is to refer the parties to a Medical Board so as to obtain a report regarding any mental ailment, retardation or disorder or any impairment of mental ability to take a rational decision pertaining to his affairs or to protect his interest.”

'Punishment Before Conviction Anti-Thesis Of Rule Of Law': Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Managing Director In Popular Finance Scam

Case Title: Thomas Daniel v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 480

The Kerala High Court granted bail to the Managing Director of Popular Finance, Thomas Daniel, who is alleged to have committed offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Daniel had been accused of cheating several depositors by collecting fixed deposits without authority, after promising to pay interest and thereafter failing to pay the interest and the amounts collected. It was further alleged that amounts so collected by Daniel were used as untainted money for the acquisition of property. He was thus alleged to have committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when there is only a remote possibility of conviction sometime later in the future, the liberty of the individual must be given preference.

"The constitutional courts are entrusted with the solemn function of protecting the liberty of the individual, which manifests as fundamental rights. Punishment before conviction is the antithesis of the rule of law. When the liberty of an individual is pitted against the remote possibility of a conviction much later, the scales of balance must lean in favour of the former".

S.24 PMLA | No Presumption Of Guilt Of Accused For Predicate Offences Alleged Against Him: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thomas Daniel v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 480

Res Judicata | Civil Court Cannot Grant Liberty To File Fresh Suit On Same Cause Of Action While Drawing Decree On Merits: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Karlose v. Stella Lasar & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 481

The Kerala High Court recently declared that it would be impermissible for a civil court to grant liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action while drawing a decree on its merits, or to remove any statutory bar in instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Justice P. Somarajan, explained that liberty to file a fresh suit could be granted only under Order XXIII Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., when an application is submitted under that provision seeking permission to withdraw the suit.

Hepatitis-B Patients Can't Be Denied Civil, Public Employment: Kerala High Court Seeks Protocols Against Discrimination

Case Title: Shaik Zakir Ahmed v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 482

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a person cannot be denied employment opportunities in the civil or public sector merely on account of Hepatitis- B or HIV infection.

Justice Devan Ramachandran declared that the denial of employment to an infected person was discriminatory and that such practice in this era shocks the collective conscience of the society.

“One can certainly not countenance, particularly in this age and time, that a person be kept out of Civil/Public employment solely because he is suffering from “Hepatitis B” or “HIV” infection. This is contrary to ethos of the times and militates against the collective conscience of the civilized world.”

Order VIII Rule 6 CPC | Can't Reject Counter Claim If Omissions Pointed Only At Appellate Stage, Not During Trial: Kerala High Court

Case title: Anil Kumar V Sunil Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 483

The Kerala High Court has held that counterclaims have to be filed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order VIII Rule 6A-6G of CPC and any omissions in form and content of counterclaims has to be pointed by the opposite party at the trial stage itself.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that if the omissions in counterclaims are pointed out at the appellate stage after the trial, then it will not be grounds to reject the counterclaims and such omissions shall be ignored by the Appellate Court.

“It is true that when the statute mandates the form and content of a counter-claim, the counter-claim shall be in the said format and any omission in complying the rules in the form and content of the counter-claim, that should be raised before the trial court by the adverse party so as to get the defect cured, since the same is a curable irregularity. If omissions of such a nature are pointed out after a full-fledged trial before the first or second appellate court, the same shall not be a ground to reject the counter-claim and such omission to be ignored in the interest of justice.”

Hereditary Trustees Can Be Employed In Temples Upon Relinquishing Trusteeship: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Hariharan P v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 484

The Kerala High Court ruled that a hereditary trustee or a member of the family with a hereditary right of trusteeship is not barred from being appointed as an employee in the temple as long as they relinquish their claims to trusteeship before applying.

A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar discussed the social reality that hereditary trusteeship often does not provide financial security, leading individuals to seek employment in the temple, and pointed out that there is no legal bar under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for hereditary trustees or their family members to apply for temple employment.

"For many, hereditary trusteeship is just an ornamental post, and often then not it would not save one from even starvation. In such cases, it may be totally unjust and inappropriate to deny one from applying for an employment in a temple for the reason that he is or may have a chance on a remote future to become a hereditary trustee of the temple. No doubt, if there is a provision in the statute denying such a right, that will hold the field. There is no such provision in the HR&CE Act. In such circumstances, if a hereditary trustee abandons his right to continue, cannot be denied his right to apply for an employment in the temple."

Kerala High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Actor Unni Mukundan Based On Settlement Between Parties

Case Title: Unni Mukundan v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 485

The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings against Malayalam film actor Unni Mukundan where he was facing prosecution for offences under Sections 354 (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 354-B (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) of the IPC, based on a settlement between the parties.

Justice P. Gopinath observed thus:

“The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire issue between the petitioner and the de facto complainant have been settled. It is submitted that at the instance of the petitioner certain complaints were filed against the de facto complainant and those proceedings have also been terminated on the ground of settlement between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the this is a fit case where the further proceedings against the petitioner can be terminated on the ground of settlement.”

Second Appeals Can't Be Admitted On Equitable Grounds Merely To Refer Parties To Mediation: Kerala High Court

Case title: Gokuldas V Gopalakrishnan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 486

The Kerala High Court recently held that a Court cannot admit and maintain a second appeal merely to refer parties to mediation, if there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a second appeal shall not be heard on equitable grounds and reiterated that it is mandatory to formulate substantial questions of law.

“The legal position is no more res-integra on the point that in order to admit and maintain a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, the Court shall formulate substantial question/s of law, and the said procedure is mandatory.”

Kerala High Court Asks Govt To Issue Necessary Health Advisories To Sabarimala Pilgrims Amid Nipah Virus Outbreak In Kozhikode

Case Title: Suo Moto v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 487

Amid outbreak of Nipah virus in Kerala's Kozhikode, the High Court has directed the Health Secretary to issue advisories, if necessary, to Sabarimala Pilgrims visiting the temple during Kannimasa Pooja.

Total virtual queue booking for the pooja from September 17 has already reached 34,860.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas was hearing a suo moto case registered on the report filed by Sabarimala's Special Commissioner, calling for advisories from the Directorate of Health Services.

Paddy Land Act | Authority Must Consider Feasibility Of Paddy Cultivation While Deciding Plea To Delete Property From Data Bank: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aparna Sasi Menon v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 488

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that when a Form-5 application under Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 is considered by the competent authority for exclusion of certain land from the Data Bank, the predominant factor for consideration ought to be whether the land is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.

"In very small plots of land which are surrounded by commercial or residential buildings, though such land is described as paddy land in the revenue records and though it may be technically possible to cultivate the land with paddy, still such cultivation will not be ordinarily possible and financially feasible. In the case of lands having any extent, the factor whether there are proper irrigation facilities making the land suitable for paddy cultivation would be important. Even if the land is of a comparatively larger extent, if there are no irrigation and other requisite facilities, it cannot be said that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, merely because it was once cultivated with paddy and it is described as paddy land in revenue records," Justice Nagaresh observed.

Acid Attack: Kerala High Court Orders Legal Services Authority To Consider Enhancing Compensation Paid To Victim Mother, Minor Son

Case name: Master A (Minor) V District Legal Service Authority

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 489

The Kerala High Court has ordered the District Legal Services Authority at Thalassery to consider paying higher compensation to two acid attack victims, based on law of reparation and the nature of injuries suffered by them.

Justice Devan Ramachandran, observed thus:

“The law relating to reparation is now well-settled. It has to be adequate and commensurate to the detriment caused to the parties. A specific finding to this effect, based on all necessary and crucial aspects ought to have found place in the orders impugned; but to that extent, I am of the view that it is wanting. I do not propose to speak any further because, am certainly of the view that the entire matter requires to be reconsidered by the DELSA in its true perspective.”

Legislature Should Bring Proper Punishment For Defamatory Posts In This Era Of 'Social Media Mania': Kerala High Court

Case Tite: Fr. Geevarghese John @Subin John v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 490

The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no proper legislation providing punishment for defamatory posts circulated on social media. Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan thus urged the legislature to seriously look into this aspect.

The order stated,

“Defamatory Facebook posts continue to do the rounds on Facebook and other Social Media platforms. There is no proper punishment for such defamatory statements and posters on Facebook. The legislature must look into this aspect seriously, especially in the backdrop of this new era of technology and Social Media mania in existence in our society.”

Kerala High Court Refuses Legal Heirship Certificate To Kin Of Man Missing Since 2002, Says Legal Presumption/ Assessment Of His Death Must

Case Title: Suseela & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 491

The Kerala High Court recently refused to grant Legal Heirship Certificate to the wife and daughters of a man who had gone missing in the year 2002, and could not be found since.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that a Legal Heirship Certificate could only be granted if there is a legally sanctioned presumption possible, or if it is factually assessed that the missing person is no more. It thus observed that an enquiry was required to be done by the Police to ascertain the same, which did not happen till date.

"This Court is persuaded to say as afore because, it is certainly possible that Sri.Rajendran is still available somewhere, perhaps being without the capacity to contact the petitioners for some reason; and it is, therefore, in their interest also that he is traced out, if possible," it observed.

Can't Invoke Article 226 To Impose Penalties U/S 20 RTI Act Against Information Officers: Kerala High Court

Case title: Sanoj V K V Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 492

The Kerala High Court has recently held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to impose penalties against the Information Officers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI).

Justice Murali Purushothaman ruled that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission was the competent authority under section 20 of the Act to order penalties against the Information Officers.

“...the authority competent to impose penalty as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer is the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be and the petitioner cannot approach this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

SC Community Status, Physical Disability No Grounds To Remain In Infinite Possession Of Kiosks Allotted By State's Development Authority: Kerala HC

Case Title: Kashyap Saigal v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 493

The Kerala High Court recently held that no person could seek to remain in possession of a commercial enterprise under the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) ad infinitum, irrespective of their credentials.

Justice Devan Ramachandran held so while hearing a petition filed by a handicapped person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community seeking to retain his possession of the Kiosk allotted to him by the GCDA for a year, despite the expiration of his license to conduct the same.

"No person can – whatever be his credentials or attributes - seek to remain in possession of a commercial enterprise under the GCDA ad infinitum. The said Authority is expected to conduct its affairs as per law and to abide by tendering processes with respect to the allotment of its stalls and ‘Kiosks’."

DNA Tests Cannot Be Conducted To Clear A Mere Suspicion Regarding Child's Paternity In The Absence Of Specific Denial Of Paternity : Kerala High Court

Case title: Sujith Kumar S V Vinaya V S

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 494

The Kerala High Court, upholding an order passed by the Family Court, stated that DNA test cannot be conducted merely because the parties have a dispute or suspicion regarding paternity.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that DNA test or other scientific tests can only be resorted to when there was a specific denial of paternity of the child.

“It has to be held further that when DNA test cannot be resorted to clear a suspicion regarding the paternity of the child, in the absence of specific denial of paternity of the child. In view of the above legal position, the dismissal of the application put in by the petitioner to conduct DNA test with a view to clear his suspicion/doubt regarding the paternity of the child, can only be justified.”

GST - Input Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied To Purchaser Merely Because Seller Didn't Record Transaction In GSTR-2A Form: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Diya Agencies v. State Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 495

The Kerala High Court recently held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchaser merely on ground of non-reflection of the transaction in the GSTR-2A Form.

Remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to give opportunity to the purchaser who is the petitioner herein, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed:

"If on examination of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the petitioner should be given input tax credit. Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the said tax is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the assessee the claim of the input tax credit".

Registration Act | Inadmissibility Of Unregistered Documents Has To Be Raised When Marked In Evidence During Trial: Kerala High Court

Case title: Ratheesh V v. S Mary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 496

The Kerala High Court recently held that a document which was to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, if unregistered, then it cannot be admitted in evidence.

Justice A. Badharudeen also clarified that if the parties have not raised objection to the unregistered document while it was marked as evidence during the trial stage, then they cannot raise objection stating that the document was unregistered during the appellate stage.

"When a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document would be tendered in evidence. Once the court rightly or wrongly decided to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed," the bench reiterated citing Supreme Court's decision in Javer Chand and Others v. Pukhraj Surana (1961).

Sales Tax Officer And Not District Collector Empowered To Permit Payment Of Sales Tax Dues In Instalments: Kerala High Court

Case title: S Mangalan V The District Collector

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 497

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 and Rules, the assessing authority empowered to permit payment of sales tax dues in instalments is the Sales Tax Officer.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus:

“The Kerala General Sales Tax Acts and Rules empowers the assessing authority ie.,the Sales Tax Officer to grant 6 instalments as per the provisions of Rules 30(B) of the KGST Rules.”

Kerala High Court Dissolves 38 Yrs Old Marriage, Says Retaining Marriage Even After Irretrievable Break Down Amounts To Cruelty

Case Title: Ramanadhan v. Raji

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 498

The Kerala High Court reiterated that retaining a marriage that has irretrievably broken down would amount to cruelty to both parties, and no meaningful purpose would be served by the same.

Bar On Anticipatory Bail U/S 438(4) CrPC In Cases Of Rape Of Minors Not Absolute: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter..

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 499

The Kerala High Court reiterated that Section 438(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not create an absolute bar in the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused alleged of raping a minor girl when no prima facie materials exist warranting the arrest of the accused.

Section 438(4) excludes the grant of pre-arrest bail to offences under Sections 376(3), 376-AB, 376-DA or 376-DB of the IPC, which pertain to the offence of rape or gang rape with a minor woman under the age of twelve or sixteen years.

Justice Kauser Edappagath, while noting that the grievous nature of the afore offences certainly warranted and justified the exclusion of pre-arrest bail, however, added that where such cases were patently false or motivated allegations, such exclusion would not come into play.

"If the exclusion of the provision for pre-arrest bail embodied in Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. is treated as absolute, there will be no protection available to innocent persons against whom false and motivated accusations are made. Protecting the innocent is equally important, like convicting the guilty. The criminal justice system needs to strike a balance between punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. Thus, the exclusion clause cannot, by any reasonable interpretation, be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations are patently false or motivated. Limiting the exclusion to genuine cases is essential to protect the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Lottery King Santiago Martin's Appeal Against ED Attachments

Case Title: Santiago Martin v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 500

Writ Courts Can't Hear Appeals Against Municipality Decisions Granting/ Refusing Licence To Occupy Public Place In Absence Of Malafide: Kerala HC

Case title: Archa Unni V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 501

The Kerala High Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the decisions issued by the Municipality, especially on grant or refusal of a licence or permission to occupy a public place, unless the order was illegal or bad in law.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further held that the Municipal Authorities are empowered to make such decisions considering the interests of both the Municipality and the public.

“This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of the authorities, especially when it relates to the grant or refusal of a licence or a permission to occupy a public place.The Municipal authorities who are vested with the powers of control and administration of public places would necessarily have to take decision on the basis of the best interests of not only the Municipality but also of the people. Therefore, in the absence of any perversity or any malafides being attributed or shown to exist in issuing the impugned order, there is no cause for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Mother Can't Be Denied Child's Custody Merely Because She Is Relocating Abroad For Better Job: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jisha Mohan v. Vishal V.M.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 502

The Kerala High Court has held that a mother cannot be denied sole guardianship and custody of a minor child merely on the ground that she is relocating to another country for better job opportunities and fortune.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that merely because there is a parental battle for custody of the child, the same did not mean that the parties would have to remain locally without relocating elsewhere, in order to retain the custody of the child.

“If the relocation of the appellant is for better fortune, that cannot hold against her from claiming custody, provided, that the child's welfare is also protected. The child should recognise his biological parents and have every right to grow under their care and protection. If the biological parents are willing to protect the best interest of the child, denying the child to grow in a natural and familial atmosphere itself is against the best interest of the child,” the Court observed.

Withholding Mutual Consent For Divorce In A Failed Marriage Is Cruelty: Kerala High Court

Case title: Sreedharan v. Ahsa

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 503

The Kerala High Court has said that withholding mutual consent to dissolve a failed marriage amounts to cruelty.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas relied on the concept of "no fault divorce" to state people are starting to realise that there is a "sensible way" of parting on mutually agreed terms.

Patriarchal To Deny Pension To Divorced Daughter Of Deceased Freedom Fighter Citing Affluent Brothers: Kerala High Court

Case title: Neena T V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 504

The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of the Kerala Freedom Fighter’s Continuous Pension (KFFCP) cannot be denied to the divorced daughter of a deceased freedom fighter solely on the ground that her brothers were earning and financially settled.

Justice Devan Ramachandran remarked that the reason cited for the rejection of pension, that that the petitioner would be taken care of by her brothers, was based on outdated patriarchal notions:

“I am afraid that the submissions of the learned Government Pleader smack archaic patriarchal notions. Merely because the petitioner has two brothers, an automatic assumption drawn that she would be taken care of by them for her life, can only be seen to be one solely on account of the afore notions and nothing else.”

Motor Accidents | Legal Representatives Entitled To Compensation Even If Not Dependents Or Legal Heirs: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v VS Sujatha & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 505

The Kerala High Court recently held that in motor vehicle accidents, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to compensation even if they are not legal heirs of the deceased.

Justice Murali Purushothaman added that this rule remains true even if there is no loss of dependence and clarified that the compensation would go to the estate of the deceased.

"Even if there is no loss of dependency, if the claimant is a legal representative of the deceased, he would be entitled to compensation. The compensation payable goes to the 'estate' of the deceased...The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased and as a result, the legal representative of deceased would inherit the estate even if he was not dependent on the deceased and even if he is not a legal heir."

Kerala High Court Grants Time To State's Tug Of War Association To File Objection To Show Cause Notice By Tug Of War Federation Of India

Case Title: Kerala State Tug of War Association v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 506

The Kerala High Court granted liberty to the Kerala State Tug of War Association (hereinafter, 'Association') to file their objections within a limited time frame to the order issued by the Tug of War Federation of India (hereinafter, 'Federation'), dissolving the Executive Committee of the Association and deaffiliating the same from their membership.

The Federation had issued a show cause notice to the Association on August 1, 2023, for which the latter sought time to reply. The Federation at this juncture, proceeded to dissolve the Executive Committee of the petitioner Association, and de-affiliate it from their membership, noting that the Association was in a 'sorry state of affairs', and that 'immediate remedial steps' were required to be taken to save the sport of Tug of War in Kerala.

Justice Devan Ramachandran, observed in this regard that apart from generic statements, the only tenable reason that one could find in support of the Federation's decision to dissolve the Executive Committee of the petitioner Association was that the latter had not replied to the former's show cause notice. The Court noted that the Federation had taken the decision to deaffiliate and dissolve the Executive Committee without considering the petitioner's request for a month’s time to offer explanation for the notice, in its proper perspective.

Adoption Of Technology By Courts Not A Matter Of Choice, It's An Obligation: Kerala HC Asks Govt To Assist KAT Earnakulam To Introduce Hybrid Mode

Case title: The Kerala Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Advocates Association V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 507

The Kerala High Court, while hearing a plea submitted by an association of lawyers and advocates seeking for introducing Hybrid Mode at Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Ernakulam, stated that adopting technological means for hearing and disposal of cases was not a choice anymore, but an obligation mandated by the Supreme Court of India.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed thus:

“There can be no doubt, going by the afore rival positions – which, in fact, are not rival but virtually supplementing each other – that adoption of technology by Courts is not one as a matter of choice, but is now more an obligation, going by the requirements of time and the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court.”

Petroleum Rules | District Authority Can't Deny NOC For Fuel Outlet On Ground That Site Location Not Covered By Notification: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jayarajan B.C. v. Lakshmi Mallya & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 508

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, the District Authority is not empowered to reject No Objection Certificate (NOC) for fuel outlet on the ground that the proposed site is different from that mentioned in the notification.

Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 stipulates the grant of NOC.

The application for NOC by the Indian Oil Corporation was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate on noting that the proposed site location for establishment of a petroleum outlet was different from the one mentioned in the notification issued by the Company. The Single Judge Bench, on perusing Rule 144 had held that it was not within the domain of the Additional District Magistrate to interpret the notification and reject the NOC.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, in the appeal before it, perused the scope of Rule 144, and noted that the nature of power under the Petroleum Act and Rules, 2002 lays down that the insistence upon NOC is for the purpose of protecting public interest and public safety.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Fairness In Selection Of Melsanthies Of Sabarimala, Malikappuram Temples

Case title: Suo Moto V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 509

The Kerala High Court issued a slew of directions to be followed while appointing the Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikapuram Temple for the period 2023-2024 in a suo moto case registered to ensure fairness, transparency and adherence to the interview guidelines for shortlisting candidates.

The Sabarimala and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board, and traditionally Melsanthies of the temples are selected every year.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas examined the precedents on the selection of Melsanthies and found that in Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2001), the Travancore Devaswom Board being an entity of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, has to follow proper procedure for the selection of Melsanthies.

Writ Courts Need Not Interfere With Statutory Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act Except In Extraordinary Circumstances: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sanil Kumar V. v. Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 510

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that writ courts should not interfere in matters pertaining to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'), particularly when the factual circumstances do not make out a specific case for issuance of the writs.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Anil K. Narendran observed: "When the tribunal constituted under the SARFAESI Act is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation, the attempt made by the appellant to circumvent the particular mode prescribed under the statute shall not be encouraged by the writ court".

RTO Not Liable To Compensate Victim For Accident From Uninsured Vehicle: Kerala High Court

Case title: Smitha T T v. Sreeroop V

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 511

The Kerala High Court has held that Registration Authorities like the Road Transport Officer (RTO) or the District Collector cannot be made liable to pay compensation for road accidents from uninsured vehicles.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the owner of the vehicle has the primary responsibility to get the vehicle insured, so the owner alone or driver or both will be liable to pay compensation for road accident if the vehicle was not insured.

“The primary responsibility is of the motor vehicle owner to get insured the motor vehicle. In case, if the motor vehicle owner fails to get the motor vehicle insured, the liability for payment of compensation would not fall upon to the registration authority. It means that the responsibility is of the owner alone or the driver or both to make payment of the compensation for the accident.”

Subordinate Courts Empowered To Grant Leave, Try And Dispose Suits Relating To Public Charitable Trust U/S 92 CPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam & Ors. v. K.K. Surendran & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

The Kerala High Court has laid down that the Subordinate Judge's Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to grant leave for institution of a suit relating to a public charitable trust, and thereafter try and dispose of the same under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen passed the order on a reference made by a Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias, which had expressed its doubt as to whether the decision in Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust, Kayamkulam & Others v. K. Gopalakrishnan & Others (2020), laying down that only the Principal District Judge has the jurisdiction to grant leave for institution of a suit under Section 92 CPC would hold ground.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused In Tanur Drugs Case

Case Title: Mansoor & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 513

The Kerala High Court granted bail to four persons arrested in connection with the alleged possession of narcotic drugs in Tanur, Malappuram.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. passed the order.

PMLA | Freezing Order Under Section 17(1-A) Not Valid If ECIR Quashed & FIR Not Registered: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.P. Nandakumar v. Assistant Director

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 514

The Kerala High Court laid down that where the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) has been quashed and no subsequent FIR has been registered against the accused, further proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ('PML Act') shall be dropped and an order issued under Section 17(1A) would not stand.

Section 17(1A) empowers an authorized officer to freeze a property, where it would not practically be possible for such authority to search or seize the record or property.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed.

"...when there is no FIR registered, hypostised on which an 'ECIR' is also not available, any further investigation against the petitioner under the 'PMLA' will have to cease....in view of quashing of the 'ECIR' and in the absence of any further FIR being registered against the petitioner, Ext.P12 cannot be allowed to hold the field, particularly when it causes sure prejudice to the person against which it is issued."

Deity Not Stripped Of Title To Religious Property Maintained By Local Authority Without Acquisition: Kerala High Court

Case title: Cochin Devaswom Board V Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 515

The Kerala High Court has held that a deity cannot be divested of title to a land owned by it which is used for religious purposes, without a legal process such as acquisition or voluntary transfer.

A bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumar found that the property in question was used as a Temple road for religious activities and that the title of Deity will not be divested because the road was maintained by the local authorities under social obligation.

“It is a Temple road and has been in the use of the public, including for the purposes of religious activities. The local authority would have maintained it out of its social obligation. Albeit such maintenance, the road never was brought to the asset register. It being a property of the Deity, by such an overt act of tarring alone, the title of the Deity will not be divested. There shall be a process known to law, such as acquisition, voluntary transfer, etc. for the Deity to lose its title to a property.”

Trust Is 'Juristic Person', Can Be Held Liable U/S 138 NI Act For Cheque Dishonour: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prana Educational and Charitable Trust & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 516

The Kerala High Court laid down that a Trust, either public, private or charitable, is a juristic person and can be made liable for dishonour of cheques punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act').

Justice A. Badharudeen, on taking note of a plethora of precedents, further observed in this regard that such Trust would also be a company in terms of Section 141 of the N.I. Act ('Offences by companies'), and every Trustee who was in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Trust would also be liable for punishment.

Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Under POCSO Act Following Marriage Of Accused & Victim

Case Title: Muneer A. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 517

The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings against a man who had been alleged of having committed offences under Sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act), on the ground that the parties were now married.

Justice Gopinath P. observed,

"The petitioner and the victim are now living together as husband and wife. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by continuing with the prosecution against the petitioner".

'We Swear By Rice': Kerala High Court Directs Supplyco To Clear Paddy Farmers' Dues In A Month, Criticises It For Shifting Liability

Case title: K Sivanandhan V State of Kerala and other matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 518

The Kerala High Court has held that Supplyco, implementation agency for Decentralized Paddy Procurement Scheme in the State, is liable to ensure that payments under the scheme are effected to the farmers, that they are not delayed and that farmers cannot be prejudiced any further stating that Supplyco could not obtain a bank loan within time.

Justice Devan Ramachandran directed Supplyco to obtain a bank loan for making payments to the farmers based on a tripartite agreement between the bank, Supplyco and the Government.

“The petitioners cannot be put to any further prejudice, solely because the ‘Supplyco’ has not been able to garner resources to comply with their contractual commitments; nor can anything be attributed to them if the financing Bank causes any delay in grant of loan to the ‘Supplyco’ under the tripartite agreement between two of them and the Government. The shifting of any such responsibility onto the shoulders of the farmers is uncharitable and, in any case, wholly impermissible.”

'Roads Ordinarily Deserted At Night, Likelihood Of Causing Death By Accident Less': Kerala HC Modifies Charge Against Biker From 304 IPC To 304A IPC

Case title: Finil Biju V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 519

The Kerala High Court discharged a person charged under Section 304 IPC stating said that the offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' will not be attracted to motor accident death caused by him late at night, when roads are deserted.

Justice N. Nagaresh observed that knowledge and intention of causing an accident or death could not be presumed in this case and thus the accused would have to be tried for offence under Section 304 A of IPC.

“The petitioner was riding the motorcycle during night hours and at about 1.45 am when ordinarily roads will be deserted...There is no allegation that the petitioner had any intention to cause death of the deceased. The petitioner's offence would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 304A IPC. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to have been charged under Section 304A IPC instead of Section 304 IPC. The rejection of the application for discharge as far as Section 304 IPC is concerned is therefore unsustainable.”

Article 22(4) | State Must Confirm Order Under Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act Within 3 Months From Detention: High Court

Case Title: Malathy Ravi v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 520

The Kerala High Court declared that the State Government ought to confirm the detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAPA, 2007') within 3 months from the date of its execution.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that while Article 22 (4) of the Constitution does not create an embargo for detention beyond the period of three months, the Apex Court had held in Ujjal Mondal v. the State of W.B (1972) that unless the power of confirmation is exercised within 3 months from the date of detention, further detention upon expiry of the said period would be without the authority of the law.

CPC | Parties Can't Adduce Evidence Not Supported By Pleadings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M.N. Saji v. K.R. Krishnakumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 521

The Kerala High Court laid down that no party could succeed a case by adducing evidence without support of pleadings, since the law is well-settled that one could be permitted to let in evidence only in tune with the pleadings.

Justice A. Badharudeen added that the basic rule governing pleadings is founded on the principle of secundum allegata et probate, that a party is not allowed to succeed where he has not set up the case which he wants to establish.

"...the object and purpose of pleading are to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial, it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that the other party may not be taken by surprise. Pleadings help the court in determining the burden of proof. The burden of proof is fixed on the basis of the contentions of the aggrieved party. If some evidence has been produced which is not in conformation with the written statement or plaint, it may disturb the position of the whole case."

Order VII Rule 11 | Waiting For Conclusion Of Trial To Reject Plaint Defeats Purpose Of Law: Kerala High Court

Case title: Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair v. Madhu Vadakkepatt

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 522

The Kerala High Court held that a trial judge cannot wait until conclusion of trial to decide if the plaint has to be rejected, and added that such decision should be made solely on an assessment of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that Trial judge waiting for rejecting the plaint until trial was completed defeats the purpose of law laid down under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

“Obviously, the holding of the learned Munsiff in Ext.P11, that the petitioner will have to wait until the trial is completed, for his application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC to be considered, is not merely anachronistic, but militates against the very purpose for which said provision has been brought into force.”

Court Can't Decide Whether Competition In Particular Sports Category Should Be Conducted Or Not, Prerogative Of State: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sayanth S v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 523

The Kerala High Court stated that decisions such as if a competition has to be conducted in a particular category or not is a prerogative of the Government and has to be decided by a competent authority of the State.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the writ court under Article 226 cannot make such decisions as it requires evaluation of necessary factual and documentary inputs.

“The question whether a competition in a particular category should be conducted, and in what manner, are to be decided by competent Authority of Government of Kerala at the first instance and it cannot be done by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, because it requires evaluation of necessary factual and documentary inputs.”

Village Panchayat Has Exclusive Power To Administer Anganwadi Matters: Kerala HC Quashes Appointments Made By Child Development Officer

Case Title: Anitha K. Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 524

The Kerala High Court quashed the appointment of two Anganwadi workers to the permanent post with the Kadapra Panchayat as illegal, since the appointments had been made by the Child Development Project Officer and not the Village Panchayat.

Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. perused Section 166 (2) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which provides that the Village Panchayats shall have exclusive power to administer the matters enumerated in the Third Schedule and to prepare and implement the schemes relating thereto, and proceeded to observe as follows:

"...on a conjoint reading of Section 166(2) and the relevant clause in the Schedule, it would be evident that the Village Panchayat would have the exclusive power to administer matters relating to the running of Anganwadis and the only requirement is that it has to be subject to the other provisions of the Act and guidelines and financial, technical or other assistance of the Government. In other words, it is for the Village Panchayat to decide matters relating to the running of Anganwadis."

Not All Divorces Have To Be Mutual, Nature Of Previous Divorce Irrelevant To Permit Marriage Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Antony Joseph v. The Sub-Registrar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 525

The Kerala High Court has held that the registering authority did not have to look into the nature of divorce obtained by the parties while considering their marriage applications under Section 8 of the Special Marriage Act.

The bench observed that the Registering Authority only has to be satisfied that neither party who intends to marry has a living spouse at the time of registration of marriage.

“Going by the mandate of Section 8 of the ‘Act’, it only requires the parties to satisfy the Registering Authority that they have no living spouses at the time when the application is made and the marriage is registered. Therefore, the only aspect to be decided by the respondent is this and nothing more.”

Kerala High Court Closes Plea By Asianet Journalist As Her Name Is Dropped From FIR Over Alleged Conspiracy To Defame SFI Leader

Case Title: Akhila Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 526

The Kerala High Court has closed the petition filed by the Chief Reporter of Asianet News Channel Akhila Nandakumar to quash the FIR registered against her for allegedly conspiring to defame CPI(M)'s student wing leader PM Arsho in connection with the Maharaja’s College examination controversy.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the order, taking note of the submission made by the Public Prosecutor that Nandakumar had already been removed from the array of accused in the crime.

Kerala High Court Invokes Parens Patriae Jurisdiction To Select Name Of Child Born To Warring Parents

Case Title: Sangeetha R. v. The Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 527

In an interesting development, the Kerala High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction to select the name of a child, caught in a dispute between her estranged parents with respect to what her name should be.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reasoned that attempting to resolve the dispute between the parents will cause inevitable delay and in the meanwhile, the absence of a name would not be conducive to the welfare or the best interests of the child.

"In the exercise of such a jurisdiction, the paramount consideration being the welfare of the child and not the rights of the parents, the Court has to perform the task of selecting a name for the child. While choosing a name, factors like the welfare of the child, cultural considerations, interests of parents and societal norms can be reckoned by the court. The ultimate objective being the well-being of the child, the court has to adopt a name, taking into consideration the overall circumstances. Thus, this Court is compelled to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to select a name for the child of the petitioner," the Court observed.

Affixing Poster Of Political Party Symbol Like 'Lotus' On Electric Poll Not Necessarily Mischief, Wantonly Provoking Riot: Kerala HC Quashes FIR

Case Title: Rohit Krishna v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 528

The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man for affixing poster of a lotus, which is a symbol of a political party, on an electric poll with gum. It was alleged that the accused caused a commotion near Annamkulangara Devi Temple and the Electricity Board had to spend Rs. 63 for removing the poster.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed that affixing a poster containing the symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as an act done malignantly or wantonly. It added,

"The only overt act attributed to the accused is that he affixed a poster of a lotus, which is a symbol of a political party, on an electric post and made commotion. I am of the considered opinion that even if that act is accepted in toto, the offence under Section 153 IPC is not made out. Of course, it may be an illegal act to affix a poster on an electric post. But affixing a poster containing the symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as an act done malignantly or wantonly."

Can't Dilute Organ Transplant Rules For Individual Cases: Kerala High Court In Plea By Kidney Patients On Life Support

Case Title: Soubiya & Anr. v. District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs & Ors. and connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 529

The Kerala High Court called upon the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs (DLAC) to decide if a 'Certificate of Altruism' was required to be obtained by petitioners, kidney patients who are presently on dialysis and other life support mechanisms.

Justice Devan Ramachandran highlighted the importance of adhering to the legal requirements outlined in the Rules for organ donation and acknowledged that these rules should not be relaxed or diluted on a case-by-case basis.

"...it is indubitable that there are certain specified prescriptions stipulated in the ‘Rules’, to apply in the process of organ donation. This Court cannot, certainly, dilute the same or relax it in individual cases...the petitioners will have to follow the mandate of law strictly and scrupulously, because it is only if the systems are robust, can the laudable intent behind organ donation be preserved. That said, since the learned Government Pleader says that all which the petitioners require is to obtain a ‘Certificate of Altruism’ from the Superintendent, or Deputy Superintendent of Police, of the area where both the recipient and donor are residing and not a 'PCC'; and that too, subject to it being insisted by the 1st respondent – DLAC, I am certain that this is a matter that should be left to such Authority to decide".

GST Registration Cancellation: Superintendent Of Central Tax To Take Independent Decision Without Influenced By Direction Of DGGI: Kerala High Court

The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice C.S. Sudha as a permanent Judge of the Kerala High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, had, on August 18, 2023, recommended Justice Sudha's name for appointment as a permanent Judge of the Kerala High Court.

A resident of Thrissur attempted suicide inside the Kerala High Court, in front of the chambers of Justice Anu Sivaraman.

The man was called to the Court in a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of a 23-year-old law student.

Plea Filed In Kerala High Court After Vigilance Court Refuses To Order Probe Into Bribery Allegations Against CM Vijayan, His Daughter

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

Sharon Murder Case: Accused Greeshma Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Territorial Jurisdiction, Says Alleged Offence Took Place In Tamil Nadu

Case name: Greeshma @ Sreekutty & Others V State Of Kerala

Case number: : Crl.MC 6811/ 2023

The Kerala High Court has admitted a plea moved by prime accused in the Sharon Murder case, Greeshma, claiming that courts in Kerala lack the jurisdiction to try the case as the alleged offence took place beyond their territorial limits, in Tamil Nadu.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed that framing of charges will be deferred for three weeks, in case not already framed.

Kerala Consumer Forum Calls For Action Against Manufacturers Who Deliberately Put Warranty Conditions In 'Fine Print' Which Public Can't Understand

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar M.R. v. M/S Classic Motors

Case Number: C.C. NO.486/2018

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has criticised the practice of manufacturers deliberately including conditions of a product's warranty in 'fine print' which ordinary citizens are unable to comprehend.

The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. said the National Consumer Commission has already held such practice as 'unfair trade practice' and urged the regulatory bodies to take action against manufacturers who engage in such practices to harm consumers.

"The deliberate inclusion of such conditions in fine print, deliberately designed to be practically illegible, raises significant concerns regarding the manufacturers' underlying motives...Even individuals with a good education might struggle to fully understand the rules and terms set by companies and manufacturers. But what about ordinary people?" it remarked.

AI Cameras Don't Violate Citizens' Privacy; All Data Encrypted And No Question Of Leakage: State Defends 'Safe Kerala Project' In High Court

Case Title: V.D. Satheeshan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 19992/2023

Defending its 'Safe Kerala Project' in the High Court which encompasses installation of AI-cameras on the streets for capturing traffic violations, the Kerala government has assured that there is absolutely no privacy violation by the Project.

"All the data related to the traffic rule violations are securely stored in the servers at the State Central Control room...programming [of AI cameras] is such that only images of violating vehicles and offenders will be captured...will be sent as encrypted data to the servers...respective data operators access their allotted violation data through VPN...challan information are in NIC servers which is under the control of the Central Government. Therefore, there arises no question of data leakage or data transfer to private servers," an affidavit filed by State's Transport Secretary claims.

Tanur Custodial Death: Kerala High Court Directs CBI To Take Over Investigation

Case title: Haris P.M. V State of Kerala

Case number: WP (Crl.) No. 860 Of 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the CBI to take over investigation into the custodial death of 30 years old Tamir Jifri at Tanur Police station in Malappuram last month.

Considering the seriousness of the offence, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police Crime Branch to hand over entire case records to the central agency, within a period of one week.

Kerala High Court Advocate’s Association Passed Resolution To Support Procuring 17.73 Acres Land For HC Development And Expansion

The Kerala High Court Advocate’s Association (KHCAA) passed a resolution supporting the procurement of land for the development and expansion of the High Court of Kerala. The decision was taken in a meeting conducted by the General Body of the KHCAA on September 4.

The KHCAA has decided to support the procurement of 17.73 acres of land located near to the Mangalavanam which is under the possession of Kerala Housing Board. The general body has also decided to form a sub-committee to support the Executive Committee of the KHCAA to take immediate steps to procure the land. The special nominees of the Sub Committee are Senior Advocate N N Sugunapalan, Advocate Thomas Abraham, Advocate Babu Paul, Advocate Krishnadas P Nair, Advocate P K Santhamma and Advocate C B Sreekumar.

Kerala High Court Laments Govt's Failure To Disburse Paddy Procurement Dues To Farmers Despite Its Orders

Case name: K Sivanandhan V State of Kerala and other matters

Case number: WP(C) Nos.23267, 24835, 25152, 25410 and 25575 of 2023

The Kerala High Court expressed regret over the State government's failure to clear paddy procurement dues to farmers, despite repeated orders.

"The failure of the respondents to pay the amounts due to the farmers despite the orders passed by this Court cannot be countenanced. The learned Government Pleader submits that all measures shall be taken to pay the amounts due and he shall come up with positive inputs on 11.9.2023 as regards the time frame,” a bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V noted.

Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case Number: W.P.(C) 29565/ 2023

The Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Association and the Headmasters of certain government and aided schools have approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Director of General Education to absolve the Head Masters from the responsibility of running the 'Noon Meal Scheme' and to entrust the same with an independent agency.

The noon-meal scheme was introduced by the Government for students upto Grade VIII in Government and Aided Schools in the State. The plea is filed in light of alleged untimely and inadequate disbursal of funds under the scheme.

Food Packing In Plastic Containers Raise Serious Public Health Concerns: Kerala High Court Seeks Response From Food Safety Commissioner

Case Title: Nebu Thomas Cherian, Proprietor Anna Polymers v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) 25246/2023

The Kerala High Court has sought the response of the Commissioner of Food Safety on a plea drawing the attention of the Court to the quality and nature of the packing materials being used in the State for serving food articles.

The plea was filed seeking action to be initiated on the use of plastic, uncoated papers and newsprints for packing food articles at restaurants.

The Single Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran took serious note of the issue, and observed that,

"The lives of citizens will be rendered in peril if the materials used for packing food articles are not properly monitored and supervised, especially when plastics are put to use for such purpose".

CMRL Bribery Case: Kerala High Court Says Can't Probe CM Pinarayi Unless Allegations Disclose Prima Facie Offence Under Corruption Act

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

Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. 890/ 2023

The Kerala High Court orally observed that it cannot order a probe against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in connection with the CMRL bribery case, unless the allegations against him disclose a prima facie offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

CM Pinarayi's daughter Veena Thaikandiyil is the prime accused in the case. It is alleged that she received kickbacks through her company Exalogic Solutions in connection with the mining and other business interests of the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).

Justice N. Nagaresh was hearing a revision petition filed against dismissal of a complaint in this regard. Thea plea sought to probe high ranking public officials of the State including the CM, leader of the Opposition and Congress MLA Ramesh Chennithala, MLA Kunhalikutty, former Minister for Public Works V.K. Ibrahim Kunju, and A. Govindan.

Bank's Failure To Provide Insurance Policy Despite Deducting Premium 'Unfair Trade Practice': Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Compensation

Case Title: George V.T. v. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Ayappankavu

Case Number: C.C. No.245/2022

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam has ordered the Canara Bank to compensate a customer for its failure to provide insurance coverage and certificate to him, despite deducting the premium for the same.

The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. observed,

"The actions of the opposite party, i.e., their assurance of providing insurance coverage and a certificate, coupled with their subsequent failure to fulfil this promise despite deducting the premium, signify a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This deficiency in service has led to the complainant's inability to claim cashless benefits for medical expenses incurred, resulting in substantial hardship and emotional distress."

[Noon Meal Scheme] Kerala Govt Cites Dispute With Centre Over Funds, Assures High Court To Clear Arrears Soon

Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case Number: W.P.(C) 29565/ 2023

The Kerala government today assured the High Court that arrears of payments to government and aided schools under its 'Noon-Meal Scheme' will be cleared soon.

Government pleader informed the High Court that the issues between the Centre and the State with respect to the funds have been resolved and hence, payments will be made soon.

Single Judge Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi in its order today recorded,

"The GP has placed before me an Order dated 13.09.2023 issued by the Govt wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs. 81,57,73,500/- being the 50% share of the State in the total amount of 1631514000/-, has been deposited into the account of the Director of General Education. It is further stated by the GP on instruction that the entire amounts payable will be paid off since the issues between the State and the Centre has almost been resolved. The above submission is recorded."

'Entire Evidence Cooked-Up': Kapil Sibal Argues For Lakshadweep MP In Kerala High Court Seeking Suspension Of Conviction & Sentence

Case Title: Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and Ors. v. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep

Case Number: CRL.A 49/ 2023

The Kerala High Court has commenced re-hearing on the suspension of conviction and sentence of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal and three others in a case of attempt to murder. The matter was recently remanded back to the High Court for reconsideration by the Supreme Court.

The re-hearing of the matter commenced before Justice N.Nagaresh.

Kerala High Court Directs Counselling Of Parents, Sibling Of 21-Yr-Old Trying To 'Find Her Proper Gender Identity'

Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. Station House Officer & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 903/ 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the counselling of the parents of a 21-year-old individual, who is seeking help from a Community Organisation to find her real 'gender identity'.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C. Jayachandran directed that the family be sensitized about Transgender persons by an expert, to be identified by the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha.

"Having interacted with the petitioners and their children, we are of the opinion that the petitioners also require a counselling to accept the factum of the different gender identity, which the alleged detenue seeks to express. We therefore direct the Secretary, DLSA, Alappuzha to take appropriate steps to identify a proper person for interaction and counselling with petitioners for the specific purpose as stated above," the Court ordered.

State Obligated To Maintain Confidentiality Of HIV Patients Availing Govt Schemes, Right To Privacy Constitutional Guarantee: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Kerala High Court has sought the response of the State government on steps taken to ensure that confidentiality of persons infected with HIV is not prejudiced while availing the benefits of a Government Order granting them Rs. 6,000/- largesse every 6 months.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that since right to privacy is a constitutional guarantee, the government is obligated to ensure that the confidentiality of such persons is maintained at every stage.

"There can be no doubt at all that the requirement of maintenance of confidentiality of the information related to persons like the petitioner is paramount and unassailable...specific safeguards have to be put in place. It is not sufficient that Government has issued Ext.P1 [GO]; but for its implementation, specific modus and protocols have to be made, for the reasons already said above," Court observed.

Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Appointment Of IAS Officer B Ashok As Agricultural University's Vice Chancellor

Case Title: Dr Rejil T V The Chancellor, Kerala Agricultural University

Case number: WPC No. 29750 of 2023

The Kerala High Court has issued notice on a writ petition questioning the qualifications of IAS officer Dr B Ashok who was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of Kerala Agricultural University earlier this year.

The plea has been moved by a member of the General Council of the University, stating that Dr Ashok does not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed by the UGC for holding the post of Vice Chancellor.

The Agricultural Production Controller was given full additional charge as the University's VC with effect from March 01, 2023 at directions of Chancellor, Governor Arif Khan.

Bench of Justice T R Ravi has issued notices to Khan, Pro-Chancellor and Minister of Agriculture P. Prasad, Registrar of the Kerala Agricultural University and the Principal Secretary to State's Agricultural and Farmers Welfare Department.

Plea In Kerala High Court Opposes Construction Of Toilet Block In Lord Ayyappa Temple Compound

Case Title: P.N. Sreeraman v. The Secretary & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) 24711/ 2023

A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court challenging the construction of a toilet block as part of the 'Take a Break' scheme on the Devaswom land of Ayyappan Kavu Temple, Cherpulassery.

The agreement entered into between the Cheruplassery Municipality Secretary and Temple's Managing Trustee also provided that the operation and maintenance of the 'Take a Break' centre shall be vested with the Municipality, which can take assistance from Kudumbashree workers.

Petitioner, a devotee of the Temple, apprehends that entrusting the temple land to the Municipality will result in encroachment of the temple property for other public purposes than the temple necessities.

"The entire temple ground is utilizing for the purpose of all temple festivals. Now the act of the respondents by the constructing the public toilets in the temple properties permitting the Beneral publie for using the same will cause the damage to the faith and belief of the devotees and the customs and the rituals prevailed to the temple," the plea states.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas was informed that toilet blocks were being constructed in other temples also, with permission from the Devaswom Commissioner. It was averred that toilet facilities in Cherpulassery Temple were insufficient.

Kerala District Judiciary Proposes To Change Sitting Time Of Courts

A proposal to change the sitting time of courts in the District Judiciary of Kerala is currently underway.

The sitting time of courts in the District Judiciary is prescribed under Rule 9 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice (not later than 11:00A.M. - not before 5:00 P.M.) and Rule 5 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice (10:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.).

Farmers' Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks Judicial Intervention To Revamp Paddy Procurement System

Case number: K Mohanan V State of Kerala

Case title: WPC No. 30251 of 2023

The Kerala High Court has directed the government to consider the grievances of paddy cultivating farmers in Palakkad district, seeking to revamp and improve the procurement system in the State.

Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed the Competent Secretary of the Government to look through the petitioners' complaints "very carefully" and file a report indicating as to what action has been taken and what is proposed.

Case Title: V. Mohanlal v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: Crl.MC 7350/ 2023

The Kerala High Court stayed the ongoing trial against against Actor Mohanlal in case for alleged illegal possession of ivory.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan granted an interim stay of proceedings before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, for a period of 6 months.

Canada PR Visa: Consumer Forum Orders Compensation To Kerala Student 'Cheated' By Immigration Consultancy

Case Title: Ancy K. Alexander v. Parvathy Maya Shaji & Anr.

Case Number: C. C. No. 74/2023

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam ordered an immigration consulting agency to compensate a student for cheating the latter in the name of obtaining permanent residency (PR) visa to Canada.

The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held the Managing Director and General Manager of Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. liable to refund the 75,000 deposit made by the complainant as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.

Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Ford India To Compensate Lawyer For Failed Car Booking Taken 3 Weeks Before Closing Operations In India

Case title: Adv. Manu Nair G V Ford India Pvt. Ltd

Case number: CC/57/2022

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kottayam ordered Ford India Pvt. Ltd to pay compensation to a lawyer for failure to deliver an EcoSport Titanium car to him, after taking advance booking just 3 weeks prior to cessation of its operations in India.

The booking was taken by Ford's authorized dealer at Kottayam, Kairali Ford, unaware of then forthcoming closure of Ford India.

The Bench comprising the President Manulal V.S. and Members Bindhu R. and K.M. Anto held that if Ford India was ceasing its operations, then the dealers should not have been allowed to take advance booking from the consumers. It observed,

"Had there been any decision to cease the production and sale of the vehicle in India, the first opposite party [Ford India] should not have allowed their dealers to receive the booking from the general public who were not aware of the decision of the first opposite party, which they later-on cancelled."

Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks Investigation Of Kandala Co-Operative Bank Scam By Crime Branch Or SIT

Case Title: Rajendra Kumar v. State Police Chief & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 951/ 2023

A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court seeking investigation of the Kandala Service Co-Operative Bank scam to be entrusted to the Crime Branch or in the alternative seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team to conduct the probe in the matter.

The issue relates to the siphoning off of an amount of over Rs 180 crores in the Saving Bank Accounts and Fixed Deposits of the depositors by office-bearers of the Co-operative Bank during the period 2018-2023.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan has sought the State's response in the matter.

Case: Kumari Ivana William and ors. vs M/s Velankanni Matha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and others

Case No.: C.C. No. 61/2013

The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Justice Sri. K. Surendra Mohan, along with Judicial Member Sri. Ajith Kumar D. and Member Smt. Beena Kumary, dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who had undergone a delivery procedure at Velankanni Matha Hospitals. The State Commission rejected her allegations of negligence against the attending doctor, which had resulted in a condition known as brachial plexus in her newborn baby. The bench ruled that such events were unpredictable, and the doctors could not be held responsible for them. Additionally, the woman failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims.

Fake Drugs Case: Kerala High Court Prevents Arrest Of Kin Of Beauty Parlour Owner

Case Title: Liviya Jose v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 7993 OF 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam, not to arrest Liviya Jose, the kin of beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny, in connection with the fake drugs case.

Sunny who had been accused of possessing 0.106 grams of the drug LSD stamp, was exonerated and the proceedings against her were quashed in July 2023, on the ground that the chemical analysis of the seized articles had revealed that the same was not LSD stamps as had been alleged. The contraband had been seized from Sunny's scooter. It was following her allegation that her daughter-in-law and sister had used her scooter the day before the drugs were seized, that the Excise Crime Branch issued notice to Jose to appear for questioning.

Jose thus filed the present anticipatory bail plea. She alleged that she had been made a scapegoat by the investigating officers in the present case.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. took note of Sunny's exoneration and the finding that the seized articles were not LSD, and it thereby issued the present directive to the Assistant Excise Commissioner not to arrest Jose till the next date of posting on October 3, 2023.

Sharon Murder Case: Kerala High Court Says Question Of Territorial Jurisdiction Can Be Decided During Trial

Case name: Greeshma @ Sreekutty & Others V State Of Kerala

Case number: : Crl.MC 6811/ 2023

The Kerala High Court left the issue of territorial jurisdiction in Sharon murder case to be determined during trial. This was after both defence and prosecution made a statement to that effect.

“Now both sides submitted that the question may be left open and that may be decided during the trial…granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the question of jurisdiction during the trial,” ordered Justice PV Kunhikrishnan.

Humans Dictate Animals' Rights, Occupy Every Inch Of Space They Have: Kerala High Court Laments Rising Man-Animal Conflicts

Case Title: In Re: Bruno

Case Number: WP(C) 13204/ 2021

The Kerala High Court lamented the rising encroachments on forest lands leading to increased human-animal conflicts in the State by the day.

"Right now, every inch of space animals have, we occupy – and we expect animals to live as per the laws that we make. And we decide what their rights are," the Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. orally observed.