Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 28- November 03, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 679-689]Wahabuddin V State Of Kerala & Other Cases, 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 679Celinamol Mathew v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 680Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 681Elsy Joy v. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 682Noushad Flourish v Akhila, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 683Kottila Veetil Krishnakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 684M/s Sance Laboratories Private Limited v Union of India and Others & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 685Muhammed Ashraf K. A. v The Sub Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 686Babu K Korah v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 687X v State of Kerala and Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688Dr K Jayaprasad v Dr Jitha S R, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 689Judgments/Orders This WeekScope of Judicial Review In Technical Matters Related To Infrastructure Projects, Land Acquisition Is Limited: Kerala HC ReiteratesCase Title: Wahabuddin V State Of Kerala & Other CasesCitation: 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 679Dismissing an appeal against an order rejecting the challenge to a land acquisition for construction of a Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Edava in Thiruvananthapuram District, the Kerala High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in such technical matters like infrastructure projects and land acquisition is limited.In doing so the court underscored that a balance has to be maintained between public interest and private interest in such cases.Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court and high court on the subject a division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu said: “Scope of judicial review in the case of technical matters related to infrastructure projects like alignment is extremely limited. Same is the case with acquisition of land also. We are conscious of the fact that delay in acquisition of land as well as implementation of projects involving huge expenditure would lead to multiplication of the of the financial burden, apart from delaying the enjoyment of benefits envisioned to be made available to the public with the implementation. It needs no mention that the cost of construction escalates with passage of time. A project contemplated at one point of time, when implemented several years later, would cause huge loss to the public exchequer".Kerala High Court Calls For Protection Of Nurses From Malicious Medical Negligence Cases, Says They Deserve Moral SupportCase Title: Celinamol Mathew v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 680The Kerala High Court ruled that private complaints against nurses alleging medical negligence should not be entertained unless the complainant gives prima facie evidence in the form of expert opinion to support their case of negligence.The Court observed that nurses must be able to work without fear of malicious and frivolous prosecution alleging medical negligence. It emphasized that nurses must receive care, protection and also moral support from society while doing their duty.The Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Another (2005) had laid down guidelines governing the prosecution of doctors for the offence of criminal negligence, punishable under Section 304A of IPC.Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus urged the state government to issue a circular within three months to protect nurses from malicious prosecutions in tune with the Apex Court judgment in Jacob Mathew (supra).Condonation Of Delay Application Should Focus On Sufficient Reason, Not Merits Of Claim U/S 119(2)(B) Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 681The Kerala High Court stated that an application for condonation of delay should focus on whether there was sufficient reason to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(B) of the Income Tax Act, rather than on the merits of the assessee's claim.Section 119(2)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers CBDT to direct income tax authorities to allow any claim for exemption, deduction, refund and any other relief under the income tax act even after the expiry of the time limit to make such claim.The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “………the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had considered the merits of the claims raised by the assessee instead of assessing whether there was sufficient reason to condone the delay or extend time as per the provisions in Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961………..”Assessment Order Passed Before Expiry Of Time To File Reply Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Elsy Joy v. The Deputy Commissioner Of State TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 682The Kerala High Court stated that any assessment order issued before the time allowed for filing a reply has no legal validity and can be overturned.The Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “…….the assessee had filed an appeal against the order is no ground to refuse relief to...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 28- November 03, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags