Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 26 - March 3, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135 - 151]State of Kerala v. P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 136 Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 137State of Kerala v Kool Foam Pvt Ltd. & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 138Swapna Prabha Suresh v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 139Ramseena S v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 140Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 141Pradeep B v. The District Drug Disposal Committee and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 142Vishnunaryanan v The Secretary & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 143National Cadet Corps v Hina Haneefa @ Muhammed Ashif Ali N 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 144Fr Edwin Pigarez V State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 145Ahammedkutty Bran v Sukumaran 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 146 B. v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 147 Manuja Mythri v Advocate T K Ajan 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 148 Dr.Navaneeth K.Unni v State Represented By Public Prosecutor 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 149 State of Kerala v. Kuniyil Shanoob and ors 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 150 Manoj v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 151Judgements/Orders this month[Actor Assault Case] Kerala High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Dileep's BailCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135Case Title: State of Kerala v. P Gopalakrishnan alias DileepThe Kerala High Court has rejected a plea by the Crime Branch seeking to cancel the bail granted to actor Dileep who is an accused in the abduction and sexual assault case of an actress.A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas stated that the “trial court has made some observations and findings in their order which may tend to appear that the learned judges made up their mind as to the destruction of evidence and influencing, threatening the witnesses etc. alleged by prosecution”.“It is clarified that the findings and observations made in the trial court in their order as only for the purpose of disposal of criminal appeal and it shall not affect appreciation of evidence in SC 118/2018 (main case)” added the court.Obligation To Engross Decree On Stamp Paper Lies With Court Which Passed Final Decree: Kerala High CourtCase Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 136 Case Title: Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors.The Kerala High Court has held that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper lies with the appellate court which passed the final decree.A division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumarhas held the decision in Brenda Barbara Francis v. Adrian Miranda 'Halcyon' Pakkattuvila, Kunnukuzhi (2016) to be per incuriam, observing that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper is with the appellate court which passed the final decree. The bench also noted that the appellate court shall retain the original final decree that is engrossed on the stamp paper which shall form part of the records and only copies shall be provided to the parties. “The dictum laid down in Brenda Barbara Francis that the original of the final decree shall be given to such person on his making an application is in direct conflict with the provision of Rule 237 of the Civil Rules Practice” said the court.[PC Act] Mere Negligence In Giving Legal Advice Sans Moral Delinquency Not Professional Misconduct: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 137Case title: Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair v State of KeralaThe Kerala High Court has reiterated that mere negligence unaccompanied by moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner during the profession would not amount to professional misconduct warranting conviction. While setting aside the order of the Special Judge and allowing the discharge, Justice K Babu stated thus: “While considering the question of negligence on the part of a lawyer while giving legal opinion in a case where an offence under Section 109 read with Section 420 of IPC was charged against the lawyer in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao (supra) the Supreme Court following P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, [(1984) 2 SCC 556] held that there is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct. The Supreme Court added that at the most, the lawyer may be liable for negligence if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offences under Sections 420 and 109 IPC.”[LARR Act, 2013] Kerala High Court Declines To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal After Expiry Of Maximum Period Of 120 DaysCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 138Case title: State of Kerala v Kool Foam Pvt Ltd. & Connected CasesThe Kerala High Court has stated that the maximum time period for filing an appeal against an award as per Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 26 - March 3, 2024

Rubayya Tasneem

Tags