Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 29 To June 4

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 238-249]Santhosh Kumar v. The High Court of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 238Mohandas P.D V. The District Geologist 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 239D. Babu v. C. Shaji & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 240Jimmy Thomas V. Indian Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 241Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Rosamma Varkey 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 242P Nanikutty V. K U Kalpakadevi 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 243Joseph Thomas V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 244Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 245N M Basil V The Regional Sports Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 246Rasiya P.M. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 247BRD Securities Ltd V. Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 248Ajith Kumar V.S. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 249Judgments/Orders This WeekAllegation Of Forgery Of Document To Be Considered By Court, Complaint On Administrative Side Not Legally Sustainable: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Santhosh Kumar v. The High Court of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 238The Kerala High Court has ruled that when a statute confers specific power upon a judicial officer to tackle a particular situation on the judicial side, the administrative authority would be precluded from entertaining the complaint and taking a decision on the administrative side.The Single Judge Bench of Justice Shaji P. Chaly made the above observation in a case alleging commission of fraud and falsification of document by two advocates in a matter before the Munsiff's Court at Irinjalakuda, on the basis of which they had obtained a decree."The issue with respect to the falsification or forgery of documents when raised before a court of law which dealt with the litigation is a subject matter to be considered by the said court itself, invoking the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C.," the court observed.Forest Department Cannot Deny Soil Excavation Permission To Assignee of Land Just Because It Contains High Levels of Humus: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Mohandas P.D V. The District GeologistCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 239The Kerala High Court recently held that the Forest Department cannot deny permission to an assignee of land under the Kerala Land Assignment Special Rules, 1993, to excavate and transport ordinary earth from their land for the purpose of house construction simply because the soil contains high levels of humus.A single bench of Justice N Nagaresh observed that“..defence of the respondents is that the soil excavated at the site has the inherent biological properties of the Forest ecosystem with high levels of humus and hence soil can be removed only with the permission of the Forest Department. High levels of humus quality cannot by itself affect the right of a land owner to utilise his land according to his requirements permissible under law and under the terms of assignment. In the absence of any statutory prohibition, restriction or regulation and in the absence of any executive instruction having the force of Article 162, Officers of the Forest Department cannot prevent an assignee of the land under the Special Rules, 1993 from constructing house and for that purpose excavate and transport ordinary earth”The Court also observed that under Rule 3 of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules, 1993 assigned land can be used for personal cultivation, house sites or shop sites. As long the pattayam/conditions of assignment do not contain any specific condition that prohibits removal of ordinary earth from the site, such removal cannot be denied, it said.Local Self Govt Tribunal | Limitation Under Rule 8(3) For Filing Petitions Not Applicable To Pleas For Setting Aside Ex-Parte Order: Kerala High CourtCase Title: D. Babu v. C. Shaji & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 240The Kerala High Court recently enunciated that the time limit which has been fixed under Rule 8 of the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institution Rules, 1999, is only in respect of petitions to be filed as provided in Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, 1999 and not in respect of a petition filed in the said proceedings for setting aside of an ex parte order or for condonation of delay.Justice Viju Abraham, thereby set aside an order of the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institution (hereinafter, 'Tribunal') which had placed reliance upon Rule 8(3) for dismissing an application for setting aside the ex parte order and the application to condone the delay in filing the same.S.17 SARFAESI Act | Recovery Action May Have Disastrous Consequences For Borrower, DRT Must Pass Interim Order Upon Application Of Mind: Kerala HCCase Title: Jimmy Thomas V. Indian BankCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 241The Kerala High Court recently held that interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 29 To June 4

Navya Benny

Tags