Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 01 – April 07, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 211-230]Anoop v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 211K M Habeeb Muhammed v The Managing Director, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 212Sister Annamma Mathai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 213Aynikkal Plantations Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 214Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 215Anil Kumar and ors. v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 216Eby @ Philip Ninan v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 217Manaf Ali Hassan Versus The National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 218M/S Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational And Cultural Trust Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 219Shyju v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 220State Bank of India v Jespin Raju, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 221The Income Tax Officer Ward Versus Vazhakkulam Block Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 222Anwar Sadique K v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 223R. Krishnaprasad Versus Commissioner of Customs, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 224Nilesh Ramachandra Japthap v. State of Kerala and ors.,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 225 St. Antony's Forane Church v District Police Chief (Rural), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 226 N. Swaminathan and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 227Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 228The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gracy Babu, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 229Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 230Judgments/Orders This WeekKerala HC Directs CBSE, State To Form Committee For Designing Age-Appropriate Prevention-Oriented Curriculum To Raise Awareness, Reduce Instances Of Sexual OffencesCase Title: Anoop v. State of KeralaCase Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 211The Kerala High Court has directed the State to form a committee of experts to design a curriculum to impart age-appropriate prevention-oriented programmes on sexual abuse. “At times the sexual acts are committed with the belief that the consent of both partners is sufficient to absolve them from the crime. By the time they realize their assumptions to be mistaken notions, it is too late in the day, and the situation becomes destructive, leading to very inconvenient results and beyond any remedial measures,” stated Justice Bechu Kurian ThomasCan't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction To Question Sufficiency Or Adequacy Of Evidence In Support Of Particular Conclusion In Disciplinary Proceedings: Kerala HCCase title: K M Habeeb Muhammed v The Managing DirectorCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 212The Kerala High Court stated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to re-appreciate the evidence in a domestic enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authorities. The Court was considering a writ petition filed by a workman of the State Bank of Travancore who was removed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry for fraud committed on the bank. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied upon the Apex Court judgement in Union of India v. H C Goel (1964) to state that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to consider sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to arrive at a particular conclusion in an enquiry by the disciplinary authorities.Changing Name Of School Would Create Confusion For Students & Parents: Kerala High Court Quashes KESCPCR OrderCase title: Sister Annamma Mathai v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 213The manager of an unaided school functioning under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules thereunder with the name 'Little Flower Girls Higher Secondary School' approached the Kerala High Court against orders issued by authorities to remove the term 'Girls' from its name.The order was issued by the Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights.Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the school was not heard before decisions were taken regarding changing its name. It stated that the school need not change its name based on the orders issued by the Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights since it would create confusion.Land Used For Cardamom Plantation Can't Be Changed Without Collector's Permission, NOC Mandatory For Any Construction: Kerala High CourtCase title: Aynikkal Plantations Pvt. Ltd v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 214The Kerala High Court has held that land utilized for the cultivation of cardamom should be retained for cardamom cultivation itself and any violation would result in resumption of land with the Government. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated that land utilized for cardamom cultivation under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLUO) 1967 shall not be used for cultivation of any food crop or any other purpose except under the written permission given by the Collector.S.107 Transfer Of Property Act | Lease Deed For Under 12 Months Cannot Be Rejected Due To Non-Registration: Kerala High CourtCase ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 01 – April 07, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags