Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21-27, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 418-432]Rajesh V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 418Sreelatha P. T. V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 419National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Sudeep Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 420B.W. Jyothikumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 421 Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Nirmala Padmanabhan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 422K.O. Antony V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 423Asif Azad V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 424Kshetra Upadeshaka Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 425State of Kerala V Varghese MA 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 426Chandhini T.K. V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 427Naveen v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 428X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 429Rajayyan v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 430S Sukumaran Chettiyar V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 431Angels Nair V The Principal Secretary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 432Judgments/Orders This Week Antiquities Act Doesn't Restrict Right Of A Person To Own Or Possess An Art, Artifact Or Antiquity: Kerala High CourtCase title: Rajesh V State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 418The Kerala High Court held that Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (Antiquities Act) does not restrict a person’s right to hold any antiquity such as an idol, irrespective of its age. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held thus:“….it is evident that the Antiquities Act does not restrict the right of a person to own or possess an art, artifact or an antiquity. If an antiquity is owned or possessed by a person, law restricts that antiquity from being taken out of the country. If there is any antiquity in the possession of a person which has an age of more than 75 years, it is required to be registered with the Director of Archaeological Survey. However, if in case such registration is not done, no consequence is envisaged under the Antiquities Act. Further, if in case the Central Government wants to possess and own an antiquity, they will have to acquire it by paying compensation. In view of the above analysis of the statutory provisions of the Antiquities Act, it is evident that a person is entitled to possess any idol, irrespective of its age.”Kerala Education Rules | Employees Facing Disciplinary Action For Unauthorised Absence Cannot Rejoin Duty: High CourtCase title: Sreelatha P. T. V State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 419The Kerala High Court recently held that an employee who has been in unauthorized absence from service and against whom disciplinary proceedings have already been formally initiated cannot be allowed to rejoin the duty. Justice Viju Abraham added that disciplinary proceedings are considered initiated only upon the issuance of the memo of charges and in such cases, it might impact the eligibility of the employee for immediate reinstatement.“Therefore, I am of the view that the request of the petitioner to permit her to rejoin duty, pending disciplinary proceedings cannot be accepted.”Employee Leaving Service On Retirement Or Resignation Has No Right To Claim Leave Encashment Unless Enabled By Statute: Kerala High CourtCase Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Sudeep Kumar Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 420The Kerala High Court recently held that an employee who leaves his service either on retirement, voluntary or otherwise, or on resignation, would have no vested or inherent right to claim leave encashment, unless it is otherwise enabled by the statute, rules, or norms regulating the conditions of service. The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran, made the above observation while considering an appeal preferred by the National Insurance Company seeking to set aside the Single Judge's order directing the Company to disburse leave encashment to the employee on the ground that the same is part of the salary.Three Agencies Including CBI 'Blotched-Up' Investigation: Kerala High Court Acquits Jyothikumar Sentenced To Life For PatricideCase Title: B.W. Jyothikumar v. Central Bureau of InvestigationCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 421The Kerala High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of B.W. Jyothikumar who had been accused of patricide back in 2007. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha lamented the 'blotched-up' manner in which the investigation was conducted as a result of which the culprit would 'scot-free'."Inspite of three agencies conducting the investigation they have been unable to give an answer to the question, ‘whodunit’. Even the CBI seems to have been groping in the dark with no definite leads or clue leading them to the culprit. The CBI has established some points to suspect the accused. Suspicion, however grave, is not sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. The links in the chain of circumstances leading to the hypothesis that it is the accused and no one else who has committed the crime, has not been...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21-27, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags