Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 8 – July 14, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418 – 436]The Authorised Officer v The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418Vijayakumari v Jayakumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 419Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420Ammanoor Parameswaran Chakyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 421Jesmon Joy Karippery v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 422XX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 423Lijin v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 424M. A. Sathar and Others v Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Forum and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 425Anu George v The National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 426Joy Varghese v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 427Prasad P. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 428X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 429Sindhu v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 430Arun S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 431XXXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 432Suresh and Others v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 433Omana Somanadhan v Deepu Soman and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 434Sri. Johnson Koomullil Thomas Versus The Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 435Aaron Construction Co. Versus Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 436Judgments/ Orders This Week[SARFAESI Act] Nature Of Secured Asset Continues To Remain Same Even After Being Purchased By Secured Creditor: Kerala High CourtCase Title: The Authorised Officer v The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 418The Kerala High Court held that a 'secured asset' continues its nature of 'secured asset' even after it is bought by the secured creditor. The Secured creditor can move under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), the Court said.Justice N. Nagaresh observed that in Balakrishna Rama Tarle Dead through LRs and another v Phoenix ARC Privated Limted and Others (2022), the Supreme Court had said that secured creditors can take possession of secured assets post-confirmation of sale also. High Court held that this would mean that the character of the property as a 'secured asset' will continue for the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.Penalty U/S 31 DV Act Though Confined To 'Protection Orders', Can Be Imposed Where Such Order Is In Addition To Residence Order: Kerala HCCase Title: Vijayakumari v JayakumarCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 419The Kerala High Court has held that the penalty for breach of a 'Protection Order' passed under Domestic Violence Act is applicable even if such order also recognizes the woman's right to a 'Shared Household'. Section 18 of the DV Act pertains to protection orders and Section 19 pertains to residence orders. Ordinarily, an order falling within the category of a residence order does not qualify for being proceeded against under Section 31 of the DV Act. Section 31 prescribes imprisonment of upto one year or fine of upto twenty thousand rupees or both. Bench also said that absence of statutory penalty for breach of residence order is an anomaly, which the law makers must look into.In the present case, the Court stated the order issued by the Magistrate intended it to be treated as an order of protection specifically to protect her from dispossession from a shared household and not merely as a residence order.Kerala High Court Lays Down Guidelines Fixing Time Limit For Statutory Authorities To Pass Orders In Matters Where Hearing Is ConcludedCase Title: Mathew Philip v State of Kerala and OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 420The Kerala High Court formulated guidelines related to passing orders by statutory authorities in matters where hearing is already concluded. The Court directed that orders should be passed within 30 days after the hearing is concluded in appeals, revisions and other statutory proceedings. If the order is passed after one month, the order should mention the reason for the delay. Further, if no order is passed for three months, the authority should rehear the parties. If no orders are passed in 6 months, the orders can be set aside for that reason alone. This is to be followed until the State Government comes out with a rule/ guideline regarding this.Temple Dance Forms Of 'Kootu', 'Koodiyattam' Are Religious Ritual Ceremony, Performance Cannot Be Altered Without Tantris Consent: Kerala HCCase Title: Ammanoor Parameswaran Chakyar v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 421The Kerala High Court held that temple dance art forms 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' are religious and ritual ceremonies and whether they can be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of a certain family are matters to be decided by the Tantris of the Temple. The Court stated that Devaswom Managing Committee cannot make performance alteration decisions without the consent of the Tantris.The Court was considering whether the decision of the temple management committee...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 8 – July 14, 2024

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags