Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 To June 25

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 273-289]XXX V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 273Thankam v. Remani & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 274Shiji v. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 275Sumayya Sherin v. Director General of Police & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 276XXX v. XXX, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 277Navaneeth Mohanan K.P. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 278Ashraf Ali v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 279Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals), 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 280M/S Jatan Constructions Pvt Ltd V. Station House Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 281K Cheriya Koya V. U T Administration of Lakshadweep, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 282The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL & Ors. v. C.R. Valsalakumari & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 283Priya Varghese V Dr. Joseph Skariah, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 284Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly V. State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 285State of Kerala & Ors. v. Seena M., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 286Mohanan V.V State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 287XXX. V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 288Judgments/Orders This WeekPre-Arrest Bail Plea Though Barred For Offence U/S 376(3) IPC May Be Considered If Material Does Not Prima Facie Attract Offence: Kerala High CourtCase Title: XXX V State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 273The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by a father accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter.A single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman observed that as per Section 438 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is a specific bar against entertaining an application for anticipatory bail where offences Section 376(3) or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code are alleged. However, the Court may entertain an application for anticipatory bail if the materials placed before the Court does not attract the specific offences under Section 376 IPC:“As per Sub Section 4 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the prohibition in entertaining an application in this regard would come into play when there is an accusation against the accused for having been involved in the offences referred to therein. Therefore, what is relevant is the accusation made against the petitioner. In this case, the allegations constituting the offence under Section 376(3) of IPC can be found in the form of various statements made by the victim before the learned Magistrate. The aforesaid accusations would make out a prima facie case. Thus bar contemplated under Sub Section 4 of Section 438 would come into play.”Objection Filed After Sale Of Attached Property Barred Under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, Family Courts Should Be Careful: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Thankam v. Remani & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 274The Kerala High Court recently held that an objection cannot be filed after the sale of attached property has been confirmed, as per the bar under proviso (a) to Order 21 Rule 58(1). It thereby cautioned Family Court judges to be more careful, vigilant, and sensitive, while dealing with cases before them.The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas passed the Order while finding the Family Court had erroneously entertained and passed its decision on a claim petition that was hit by proviso (a) to Order 21 Rule 58(1).Order 21 Rule 58(1) stipulates that "Where any claims preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained". Proviso (a) goes on to state in this regard that, "no such claim or objection shall be entertained where before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold".Solatium & Interest As Per Land Acquisition Act Payable For Acquisitions Made Under National Highways Act: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Shiji v. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 275The Kerala High Court recently rebuked the National Highway Authority of India for 'unnecessarily burdening the courts' with litigations even in the face of settled principles of law.The Court made the above observation while reiterating that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 relating to solatium and interest contained in Sections 23(1-A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act 1956.The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha, observed that in spite of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr v. Tarsem Singh & Ors. (2019) which declared as unconstitutional Section 3J of the National Highways Act to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act to...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 To June 25

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags