- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 12 To June 18
Navya Benny
18 Jun 2023 1:30 PM GMT
Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 264-272]Ashok Kumar V. Sankarankutty Pillai 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 264 Ejo P.J. v. Regional Passport Office & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 265X v. NIL 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 266 Dheera N.G. & Anr. v. Simesh S. and Simesh S. v. Dheeran N.G. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 267K.R Santhosh Versus Revenue Divisional Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 268Mohammed...
Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 264-272]
Ashok Kumar V. Sankarankutty Pillai 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
Ejo P.J. v. Regional Passport Office & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
X v. NIL 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
Dheera N.G. & Anr. v. Simesh S. and Simesh S. v. Dheeran N.G. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
K.R Santhosh Versus Revenue Divisional Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
Mohammed Kabeer Versus Secretary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
Shiny George Ambat V. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
Rajesh @ Malakka Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Aneera C. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Ashok Kumar V. Sankarankutty Pillai
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
The Kerala High Court recently held that a cheque issued as security would mature for presentation on default when payment is due. In the event of non-payment of the amount, the recipient of the cheque would be compelled to present the cheque for payment, the Court observed.
A single bench of Justice Sathish Ninan observed
“The very fact that the cheque was issued as security by itself imply that, in the event of non-payment, the security is liable to be enforced. A cheque issued as security would mature for presentation on default when payment is due.”
We Are In AI Era, Documents Issued By Govt Must Conform To Global Standards: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ejo P.J. v. Regional Passport Office & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
We are in the AI era and government instrumentalities ought to be abreast with emerging global demands in order to have the vision of 'digital India' to materialize, the Kerala High Court observed when faced with the instance of a Police Clearance Certificate issued by an Indian authority being rejected by the authorities in Kuwait.
Single bench of Justice C.S. Dias asked the competent authority under the Ministry of External Affairs to take immediate steps to upgrade the central database and issue the Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) with the barcode, scanned photograph and details of criminal cases of the person concerned.
"We are in the AI era and the 5G revolution. Our Nation is a front-runner in technology. We are striving to make India Digital with initiatives like Indiastack.global, to have a repository of open standards and interoperability principles of key projects implemented under the Digital India Mission like Aadhaar, UPI, Digilocker etc. The certificates issued by the government and statutory authorities have to be internationally accepted, especially when India is a signatory to international conventions and treaties".
Case Title: X v. NIL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
The Kerala High Court recently held that the law does not recognise a live in relationship as marriage and hence such a relationship cannot be recognised for the purpose of divorce either.
The law only allows parties to divorce if they are married under a recognised form of marriage as per personal law or secular law, the Court observed. So far, marriages entered into between parties through a contract does not have any recognition under law for the purpose of divorce, the Court noted.
A division bench comprising of Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed:
“Marriage as a social institution, as affirmed and recognised in legislation, reflects the social and moral ideals followed in the larger society. The Law is yet to recognise the live-in relationship as marriage. The Law accords recognition only if the marriage is solemnised in accordance with the personal law or in accordance with secular law like the Special Marriage Act.”
Case Title: Dheera N.G. & Anr. v. Simesh S. and Simesh S. v. Dheeran N.G. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Kerala High Court recently enhanced the monthly maintenance allowance of the paralyzed estranged wife and son of a headload worker, on taking note of the latter's neglect and refusal to maintain his wife and child.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed that in such cases, Court ought to be aware of the dominant purpose behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. that stipulates for maintenance, which is that of ensuring that the neglected wife, child and parents are not left in a 'helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation'.
"The court should also be convinced about the existence of the following factors; i) that the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain the claimant. (ii) the claimant do not have the means to maintain herself/himself. (iii) the respondent has sufficient means for maintaining the claimant," it added.
Case Title: K.R Santhosh Versus Revenue Divisional Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Kerala High Court has held that as the nature of the land of the petitioner has been permitted to be changed pursuant to the passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of basic tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register after verifying the veracity and genuineness of the permission obtained.
The bench of Justice N. Nagaresh, while relying on the decision in Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others, observed that once an enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, permitting conversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the BTR showing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant, and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.
Kerala High Court Quashes Property Tax Demand Raised Without The Assessment Of The Property
Case Title: Mohammed Kabeer Versus Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The Kerala High Court has quashed the property tax demand raised without an assessment of the property.
The bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman has observed that the property tax was demanded at the maximum rate possible without considering any relevant aspect, including the age of the building.
Case Title: Shiny George Ambat V. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Kerala High Court held that IIM, Kozhikode being an autonomous body as per the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017 and there being no statutory rules with regard to the service conditions of the employees of the institute, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked for grant of relief.
A single bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that IIM Kozhikode is an autonomous institution and would not come under the ambit of ‘State’ under Article 12:
“….the contention that the IIM, Kozhikode would answer the definition of State or “Instrumentality of State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted. Though the constitution of the governing body appears to be by way of nomination, the institute is specifically intended to be an autonomous institution. It is true that the institute is performing the duty of imparting education in management and carrying out research in the field. However, there is no monopoly intended to be created either by the Statute or by any other means in favour of such institutes in the matter of imparting of management education. The Institute is not a creature of the Statute, since it was a society whose functions were brought under the purview of 2017 Act.”
Case Title: Rajesh @ Malakka Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Kerala High Court reiterated the position that while granting statutory bail, the Magistrate cannot impose any other condition for deposit of cash security.
The Single Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. relied upon the Apex Court decision in Saravanan v. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police wherein it was held that while granting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the condition of deposit of amount cannot be imposed.
The bench noted that the Apex Court had clarified in the said decision that the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail.
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. Aneera C. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
The Kerala High Court recently refused to interfere with the interim order issued by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal permitting a trans-woman applicant to submit her application for the post of House Keeper (Female) that had been notified by the Kerala Public Services Commission (Kerala PSC).
The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran was of the view that the impugned order was only an ad interim interlocutory order, that was intended to 'preserve the subject matter of the lis'.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Kerala High Court Constitutes Grievance Redressal Committee For Advocates
The Kerala High Court has constituted a Grievance Redressal Committee headed by Chief Justice S V Bhatti for addressing the grievances of Advocates.
The Committee also consists of Justice Muhamed Mustaque, Justice Somarajan P, the Advocate General of Kerala, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala and the President of the High Court Bar Association.
The Committee has been constituted to redress grievances of members of the bar in an attempt to avoid instances of strikes, boycotts by members of the bar.
Fake Experience Certificate Case: Accused Vidya Moves Kerala High Court For Anticipatory Bail
Case Title: Vidya K. Maniyanodi v. State of Kerala
An anticipatory bail plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by Vidya K., who has been accused of having submitted a forged experience certificate in the interview held to the post of Guest Lecturer (Malayalam) at the Attappadi Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Arts College, Palakkad.
The accused is alleged to have produced forged experience certificate in the name of Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam. As per media reports, the accused, who has been alleged to have committed offences under Sections 465 (Punishment for Forgery), 468 (Forgery for the purposes of cheating), and 471 (Punishment for using forged document as genuine) IPC, is currently in hiding.
The plea avers that both the offences under Sections 465 as well as 471 are bailable. "The other section of offence namely 468 IPC is not attracted in the instant case for the reason that in order to attract the said provision cheating must ensue pursuant to the forgery committed which is absent in the instant case," the petitioner adds.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to take immediate measures to improve the heath conditions of the cows and bulls in the 'goshala' of Vaikom Sree Mahadeva temple.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar issued the directive while considering the suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of a news report highlighting the lack of proper care for cows in the Goshala of the temple.
Case Title: Prithviraj Sukumaran V. Marunadan Malayali & Others
The Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam on Monday passed an injunction against the Malayalam news portal ‘Marunadan Malayali’ preventing the channel from publishing any defamatory content against popular Malayalam Film industry actor Prithviraj Sukumaran.
The interim injunction was passed in a civil defamation suit filed by the actor claiming damages of Rs. 10 Crore. The suit was filed subsequent to certain articles and videos published by Marunadan Malayali in the month of May alleging that the actor had paid a fine of Rs. 25 Crores due to proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department. The news channel also claimed that the actor is making propaganda films funded by a ‘Qatar based mafia’ pumping in black money into the Malayalam film industry. Managing Chief Editor of the Channel, Shajan Skariah is also a party to the suit.
Case Title: Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the PIL seeking a direction to be issued to the state government to consider and take a decision regarding enactment and implementation of 'The Kerala Prevention of Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill, 2019'.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the petition for default as no counsel for the petitioner, Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham, had appeared before the Court.
"No representation for petitioner...in the forenoon and afternoon. Hence we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition for default," the Court ordered.
Case Title: Dr. S. Ganapathy v. Lakeshore Hospital & Ors.
A Kerala Court recently issued summons to Lakeshore Hospital and some of its doctors, who were alleged to have transplanted the liver of an 18-year-old accident victim to a Malaysian national, in violation of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), 1994. The victim's kidneys and liver were harvested in violation of the law, according to a private complaint before the court.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate VIII Eldos Mathew said there is a prima facie case and sufficient grounds for proceeding in respect of offences under Sections 18 (Punishment for removal of human organ without authority), 20 (Punishment for contravention of any other provision of the Act), and 21 (Offences by companies) of THOA.
Case Title: Dr. Aravindan V. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
The Kerala High Court recently restored an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on the condition that the petitioner will plant ten trees in the coming monsoon as costs towards restoration.
A single bench of Justice Amit Rawal passed the order while considering a plea filed by the proprietor of Aravind Medical Centre, a private hospital in Kollam, challenging the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for default.
Case Title: Visakh A. v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed the arrest of a Student Federation of India (SFI) leader Visakh A in the case related to the elections conducted at Christian College, Kattakkada, until June 20.
The case pertains to the alleged impersonation, falsification of documents and misrepresentation during the college elections held in May 2023.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while considering the anticipatory bail application by the accused petitioner, said the allegations in the case are serious and directed the Prosecutor to produce the case diary.
Case Title: K. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.
An anticipatory bail plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by the Member of Parliament and President of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, K. Sudhakaran, in respect of his alleged involvement in the cheating case involving the controversial antique dealer Monson Mavunkal.
The cheating case against Mavunkal was registered on September 23, 2021, on the complaint of certain persons alleging cheating of Rs. 10 Crores on the false promise to return the amount. It was also alleged that the accused had deceived the complainants by showing them false statements on his account.
Case Title: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement V. Santhosh Eappen
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Kerala High Court for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court to Santhosh Eapen, Managing Director of Unitac Builders and an accused in the LIFE mission corruption case.
The Special Court for PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering) Cases had granted bail to Eapen in March in a crime registered by the ED. The allegation against Eapen is that as head of M/s Unitac builders and M/s Sane Ventures, a huge amount of money collected for construction of residential apartments for flood affected people in Wadakkanchery was illegally siphoned off by him as upfront commission for execution of the LIFE (Livelihood Inclusion Financial Empowerment) Mission project.
Case Title: Vinod Mohan v. Belraj
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday took the prima facie view that a police officer had committed contempt of court in arresting a person in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. [AIR 2014 SC 2756].
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas thereby directed the respondent police officer to appear before it on the next date of posting.
Case Title: Unni Mukundan V State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed the trial proceedings against Malayalam film actor Unni Mukundan in a case where he is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 354 (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 354-B (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
The case relates to an ongoing trial against the actor, initiated based on a complaint filed by a woman in 2017, accusing the actor of sexual harassment. The complainant alleged that the actor forcefully kissed her and attempted to rape her when she visited him at his residence in Kochi to discuss a movie project.
A Single Bench of Justice K Babu passed the order in light of the submission that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties and it was futile to proceed with the case further.
Case Title: K. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the Crime Branch to not take any coercive steps against MP and KPCC President, K. Sudhakaran, in respect of his alleged involvement in the cheating case involving the controversial antique dealer Monson Mavunkal, until the next posting date, 21st June.
A single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman passed the order while considering an anticipatory bail plea moved by Sudhakaran. The Court noted the submission of the DGP that the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer is 23rd June. The DGP also sought time to get instructions.
“In the light of the submission made by the Learned DGP, this Court expects that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner till the next posting date” the Court stated.
Case Title: Mapranam Nilampathinjamugal Residents Association V State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Additional Chief Secretary and the Ernakulam District Collector to carry out a socio-economic study in the Brahmapuram area and to submit a report on the impact of the unauthorised handling of solid waste at Brahmapuram on the health of the inhabitants in the area.
A division bench of Chief Justice S V N Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a plea filed by various residents’ associations around Brahmapuram area seeking directions from the Court to prevent waste from flowing into the water bodies with the start of monsoon season by June 2023.
“Socio-economic impact study of Bramhapuram is undertaken, and a report is filed on the impact on the population from the unauthorised handling of the municipal solid waste site in Bramhapuram. The report gives the impact on the health of the inhabitants, referring to the first circle – 500-metre radius, second circle – 2-kilometre radius, and third circle – 5-kilometre radius of human habitation. The study can be on random samples to be decided by the District Administration,” the Court stated in its order.
Case Title: Bar Council of Kerala V. Akshai M Sivan
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Bar Council of Kerala to collect only Rs.750/- as enrolment fee from law graduates wishing to enroll, while the Bar Council of India considers a uniform fee structure as directed by the Supreme Court.
The order was passed by a division bench of Chief Justice S V N Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji in an appeal filed by the Bar Council of Kerala against the order of single judge restricting the enrollment fee to Rs. 750/-.
Case Title: Federal Bank Officers Association, Vs The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)
The Kerala High Court on Friday suggested to the Federal Bank and the Federal Bank Officers’ Association to consider mediation to resolve the dispute between the parties keeping in mind the larger public interest.
A single bench of Justice C S Dias asked both parties to keep in mind the customers’ plight “I’m saying this in the larger public interest. What is the customer’s due? You can strike, you can have collective bargaining whatever you want, that is not the concern. What about the customers? Tomorrow banks will come to a stand still, what will the people do?” the Court asked both parties.
Justice Dias told the counsel for Federal Bank to listen to the demands of the Officers’ Association “They have certain demands, you sit across the table and decide. If you are both ready I will refer you to a retired Supreme Court judge or retired High Court judge, you sit across the table and have a mediation.”
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. SHO, Elamakkara Police Station & Anr.
A Kerala Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Shajan Skariah, editor and publisher of YouTube Channel Marunadan Malayali, in the case against him for allegedly broadcasting a derogatory news item against MLA Sreenijin.
The Special Court Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Honey M. Varghese found the allegations levelled by the petitioner, Skariah, against MLA Sreenijin, who is the de-facto complainant, to be insulting and defamatory. The Court found that the petitioner had knowledge that the de-facto complainant belongs to scheduled caste community, and that the publication of the news item containing derogatory comments through his YouTube channel was sufficient to attract the offence alleged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
"In this matter, the de facto complainant is a Member of the Legislative Assembly elected from a constituency reserved for scheduled caste and the accused has clear knowledge about him. The news item clearly mentions that the de facto complainant is a Member of Legislative Assembly. The knowledge of the accused that the de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste could be discernible from the prosecution records and other materials", the Court observed while rejecting his plea.
Kerala Court Sentences Fake Antique Dealer Monson Mavunkal To Life Imprisonment For Raping Minor
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Monson M.C. @ Monson Mavunkal
A Kerala Court on Saturday sentenced the fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal to life imprisonment for sexual abuse of a minor girl and imposed a fine of Rs 5,25,000 on him.
Additional District and Sessions Judge K. Soman said Mavunkal, who was found to have committed repeated rape on a minor girl, exploiting the financial position of her family and aborting her pregnancy at his residence, does not deserve any leniency and has to be dealt with adequate sentence.
Speaking at the launch of a mentoring initiative ‘Juris Trailblazers’, Justice Muhamed Mustaque of the Kerala High Court on Sunday said it is the "biggest tragedy" that law colleges are "dictating" syllabus for the law colleges.
“Who is dictating our syllabus? The bar council members. This is the biggest tragedy we are facing in India. The miniscule people who get elected through an election, decide about legal education. They are only litigation professionals, their domain knowledge is only concerned with litigation and they dictate the syllabus. This is the biggest challenge we face in India. They don’t have an idea of what is happening beyond litigation. No College has autonomy to decide on their curriculum. If they don’t follow the curriculum dictated by the Bar Council, necessarily they will face some penal action and their course will not be recognised.” Justice Mustaque said.
