Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29- February 4, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72-87]Venugopal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72 Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73 Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74 XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75 Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76 Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77 Jollyamma v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79Litty Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80Shine Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81Nikson v. Samkutty, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85Sarojam L v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86Jose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87Judgments/Orders This Week No Prohibition On Furnishing Same Surety In Different Bail Cases If Court Is Confident That Presence Of Accused Would Be Secured For Trial: Kerala HCCase title: Venugopal v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72The Kerala High Court stated that the law does not insist that separate sureties have to be produced for different cases to obtain bail.The petitioner who is an accused in as many as 1726 crimes before different police stations in different districts of Kerala has approached the Court since he was unable to produce different sureties for bail. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases would make the concept of bail illusionary.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the law does prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases if such surety was solvent and inspires the confidence of the Court since the purpose of sureties was only to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.[S. 69A Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act] High Court Allows Refund Of Legal Benefit Fee, Says Its Character Was Similar To Already Refunded Court-FeesCase Title: Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73The Kerala High Court has allowed the refund of additional fees paid towards the Legal Aid Benefit fund under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1949. It said: Section 69A covers the additional court fee levied under Section 76(1) of the Act. If such refund is to be refused for the purpose of constitution of the fund, then, every other court fee levied also has a purpose, wherefore refund becomes impossible in respect of the same as well, which logic defies the mandate of Section 69A and renders it otiose. The nature and character of the additional fee levied, though for constituting the legal benefit fund, is nothing, but that of a court-fee.A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran heard the matter.'No Private Shareholding': High Court Holds Kerala Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation Is 'State' Under Article 12Case Title: Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74The Kerala High Court has held that KITCO (Kerala Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation) qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that large majority of shares of the company are held by instrumentalities of the Central Government. Even the State government has a "decisive representation" in the Board, it noted."It is clear from a reading of the Articles of Association and the documents produced in the writ petition and in this writ appeal that the State and Central Governments themselves specifically consider the 1st respondent [KITCO] as a Central Government company. It is also discernible that the accounts of the 1st respondent are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India treating it as a deemed Government company. It is recognised as an accredited Government agency for the purpose of public works in the State," the bench added.'Doubtful That Petitioner Sexually Assaulted Six Girls On The Same Day': Kerala High Court While Granting Bail To Drawing TeacherCase Title: XXX v. State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75The Kerala High Court allowed a bail petition filed by a drawing teacher accused of assaulting six of his students, stating it is doubtful that the incident took place on the same day.In allowing the petition, Justice Sophy Thomas stated that “it is true that there is a delay of six days in making the complaint by the victim girls....

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 29- February 4, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags