Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 332-348]Hiran Valiiyakkil Lal & Ors v Vineeth M.V & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 332Sholly Lookose v. V.I. Joseph 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 333Vijayan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 334Sajitha & Anr v. Baldbose & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 335 Asokan v. Krishna Ezhuthassan & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 336Narayanankutty K v. Special Devaswom Commissioner & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 337Marykutty Kurian & Anr. v. Babu Joseph & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 338Shajan Scariya v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 339 M/S Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 340Balachandran v. Sub Registrar and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 341Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 342Shyju G.J. v. State of Kerala and Visakh A. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 343Manaf M v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 344Ashok Harry Pothen v. Premlal 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 345Ahammedkutty Pothiyil Thottiparambil v Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 346Diamond Crushers v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 347Santha Kumari v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348Judgments/Orders This WeekS.29A(4) Arbitration Act | Courts Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Without Parties' Consent: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Hiran Valiiyakkil Lal & Ors v Vineeth M.V & Ors Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 332The Kerala High Court recently held that the mandate of an arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the parties have not extended the period by consent. Justice Murali Purushothaman thus revived and extended the arbitrator's mandate to allow for the completion of the arbitral proceedings."Sub-section (4) of Section 29A deals with cases where the award is not made within a period of twelve months from the date of the completion of the pleadings and it provides that, if the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1), the mandate of the Arbitrator shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period. The said sub-section with the use of the conjunction 'or' also applies in cases where the award is not made within the extended period not exceeding six months specified in sub-section (3). It is not as if it applies only to cases where the period is extended under sub-section (3)."Legal Heirs Of Deceased Original Plaintiff Need Not Be Separately Impleaded In Counter Claim: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sholly Lookose v. V.I. Joseph Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 333The Kerala High Court recently held that legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff need not be separately impleaded as counter claim defendants, in order for the counter claim not to stand abated. Justice P. Somarajan explained that a counter claim ought to be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints by virtue of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6A of Order VIII C.P.C.."Necessarily, the plaintiff/plaintiffs in the suit would stand in the status of a defendant/defendants as against the counter claim, when treated as a plaint. When the original plaintiff passed away and legal heirs were brought on record by impleadment as supplementary plaintiffs, they would stand stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff and necessarily would acquire the character of defendants as against the counter claim raised. Hence, there is no need to implead them once again separately as counter claim defendants could be raised only against the plaintiff in the suit and that it would not be permissible to implead any other person in the suit for the purpose of counter claim," the Court explained.'No Deceitful Intention': Kerala High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Cancer Patient Who Failed To Clear Loan Taken Against Sister's PropertyCase Title: Vijayan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 334The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her brother and a relative (the 1st and 2nd accused, respectively), who failed to repay a loan taken against her property for the 1st accused person's cancer treatment. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that accused-petitioners failure to fulfil the terms of the contract to repay the amount and to discharge the liability would only amount to 'breach of contract' and not the offence of cheating.The Court emphasized that mere breach of contract would not constitute an offence of cheating and that 'deceitful intention' to get wrongful gain to the accused and corresponding loss to the victim ought to be established at the very inception in order to constitute the offence of cheating. "It is true that, if accused Nos.1 and 2 failed in fulfilling the terms of the contract to repay the amount and to discharge the liability, then, the said act would attract only breach of contract and the same shall not come under the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23

Navya Benny

Tags