Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 09 - December 15, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 782-801]Manoj George v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 782Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783 DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784 M Shammy Kumar v State of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 785Nishad Padinjare Peediyekkal V Hyderiyya Masjid Mahall Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 786 State Bank of India v Sham PS & Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 787Abraham Mathai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 788 Maya M. T. and Others v Nadukkandy P. C. Ashraf, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 789Riyas A @ Riyas Aboobakkar @ Abu Dujana v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 790M Shibu v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 791Joy v C K Manoj, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 792XXX and Another v XXX and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 793M K Nasar v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 794Mahesh C. and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 795xxx v xxx, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 796Sumith v Sebastian and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 797State of Kerala v Haridasan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 798Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational & Cultural Trust v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 799xxx v State and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 800Balachandra Menon v State of Kerala, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 801Judgments/Orders This WeekMere Giving Of Hand Loans On One Or Two Occasions Is Not 'Money Lending Business': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Manoj George v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 782The Kerala High Court has ruled that the mere giving of hand loans on one or two occasions cannot be considered as engaging in money lending business, since that would discourage people from offering emergency hand loans due to fear of penal consequences under the Kerala Money-Lenders Act and Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.In the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused of running money lending business and threatening the complainants for repayment.Justice A. Badharudeen noted that there is no evidence to even prima facie suggest that petitioners run a money-lending business. It stated that unless prosecution proves that petitioners have given loans to large numbers of persons on exorbitant interest, no offences can be made out."Maintainability" Of Writ Petition Different From "Entertaining" Writ Petition: Kerala High Court ExplainsCase Title: Manohari R v The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 783The Kerala stated that there is distinction between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court explained that the jurisdiction of a writ court is not generally invoked when there is an alternative remedy available, and in such cases, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. The Court stated that having an alternative remedy cannot be used as a ground to hold that the writ petition was not maintainable.Here, writ appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of a writ petition as not maintainable. The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu observed thus: “Even if alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner, that cannot be a ground to hold the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an administrative authority as “not maintainable”. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised even if there exists an alternate remedy, however, it is in restricted circumstances, within well defined parameters. As a matter of settled judicial practice, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available and in such circumstances, the writ court may decline to “entertain” the writ petition. There is, therefore, a difference between maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition.”'Zero FIR' Has Been Introduced U/S 173 BNSS To Ensure Victims Can File Complaints Regardless Of Jurisdiction: Kerala HCCase Title: DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784Elaborating on Zero FIR, the Kerala High Court said that the provision has been introduced in the BNSS to primarily ensure that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.The court also said that under Section 173 BNSS police cannot refuse to register an FIR merely because a part of the offence has happened outside the limit of the local jurisdictional police station.Justice Kauser Edappagath in his order said:“The implementation of Section 173 of BNSS marks a significant shift in how the police handles information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Now, Zero FIR has been given statutory recognition by incorporating it in Section 173 of BNSS, which deals with registration of FIR in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that the victims can file...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 09 - December 15, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags