Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 27 To March 5, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 102-118]Yasin Sunu V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 102Lalithambika & Ors. v. Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 103Jamshid P.V. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 104Sam Joseph V State of Kerala and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 105K C Antony V State of Kerala and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 106Pradeep and Others V State of Kerala and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 107R. Helan Thilakom v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 108A. Saudamini v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 109Vimal K. Mohanan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 110Sabu @ Eetty Sabu v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 111Vishnu and Others V State of Kerala and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 112Dr. Shiby M. Thomas v. The Hon'ble Chancellor, University of Calicut & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 113Rajeev A R V State of Kerala and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 114Hotel Hillway Park V State of Kerala & Others and connected cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 115Geethakumary J. v. The District Educational Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 116Renjith v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 117The Regional Cancer Centre Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd V Pushpa and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 118Judgments/Order This WeekTrial Court Not Bound To Conduct Enquiry U/S 329 CrPC Merely On Counsel's Submission That Accused Is Of Unsound Mind: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Yasin Sunu V State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 102The Kerala High Court recently held that a trial court is not bound to conduct a detailed enquiry into whether an accused is of unsound mind simply based on a submission made by the counsel for the accused. A single bench of Justice K Babu observed, “If there is something in the demeanour of the accused or in the facts of the case, which raise doubt in the mind of the Court that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, it is obligatory on the Court to try the said fact before proceeding with the trial into the charge.”Joint Locker Hirer Not Liable To Secure Letter Of Administration To Operate Locker Upon Death Of One Of Hirers: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Lalithambika & Ors. v. Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 103The Kerala High Court recently held that a joint owner of a locker is entitled, as of right, to operate the locker, independent of the other owner, and thus, would not have to secure any letters of administration or probate under Section 29 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963, pursuant to the death of the other owner. Perusing Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, that stipulates as 'to whom administration may be granted, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Budhist, Sikh, Jain or exempted person’, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed:"In my considered opinion, Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stipulates the manner in which administration of estate is to be granted by a court of law, in cases where a person has died intestate. This is a case where the first petitioner, who is the joint owner of a locker hired from the Bank, was prevented by the Bank from operating the locker. To put it otherwise, in my considered view, Section 218 of the Act, 1925 has no application, since the petitioner is the joint owner, who is entitled, as of right, to operate the same, even according to the Bank, independent of the other joint hirer of the locker. There is also no requirement to secure any letters of administration under Section 29 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963. There is also no case for the respondent Bank that there is any litigation instituted by anyone in the matter of assets left by the deceased Sasidharan Pillai".Granting Anticipatory Bail In Cases Of Attacks Against Doctors Would Lead To 'Dangerous Situation': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Jamshid P.V. v. State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 104The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person who had attacked a doctor who examined his wife, alleging that the Doctor had misbehaved towards her. The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen was of the view that granting anticipatory bail in such a case would lead to a 'dangerous situation', whereby doctors, who are duty bound to treat patients as part of their oath, would not get protection and the the proper maintenance of health of the public at large would also be in peril."Doctors, who had turmoiled their energy and time to learn the method of treating patients, when examining patients clinically, they cannot do the said exercise without touching the patients. If a patient, who wants treatment, is aggrieved in the matter of touch on the body of the petitioner as part of examination, it is difficult for a doctor to do his medical profession by resorting to clinical examination. The same would include placing of Stethoscope on the left chest portion of the patient to observe and ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 27 To March 5, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags