Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 22-38]Union Bank of India v. The Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 22Justice K.K. Denesan (Retd. Judge) v. Senior Accounts Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 23Razak Mether v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 24Ajeesh Nath P.S. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 25 Ambili S. Pilla v. Vinod Kumar Pilla and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 26Vasu Coco Resorts Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 27Rasheeda v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 28Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 29Advocate Cherunniyoor V. Jayaprakash v. Sree Narayana Trust & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 30Emmanvel Peter v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 31 S. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 32 Mr. Unnikrishnan V.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 33Star Health Insurance And Allied Insurance Company Ltd v. Avinash T and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 34 Meharban M.H. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 35 Kerala Judicial Officers' Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 36Aaron S John v. TKM College of Engineering, Kollam and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 37P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 38Orders/Judgments This WeekClaim Of Electricity Board Not Barred By Limitation Where Unauthorised Usage Is Continuous: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Union Bank of India v. The Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 22The Kerala High Court observed that Electricity Board's claim for additional amount on the basis of alleged unauthorised usage of electricity is not barred by law of limitation when the violation is a continuous and recurring one.The Court observed that this is in addition to the factors provided under Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003.Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that, "the limitation under the Limitation Act does not hit the claim of the Board as contented by the petitioner, because the instant violation is a continuous and recurring one, renewing the dues every day, till the unauthorized load is dismantled."Pension Of High Court Judge Who Has Been Re-appointed After Retirement As Ombudsman Cannot Be Deducted From Salary: Kerala HCCase Title: Justice K.K. Denesan (Retd. Judge) v. Senior Accounts Officer & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 23The Kerala High Court considered the question as to whether the pension of a High Court judge, who has been reappointed as an Ombudsman after retirement, could be deducted from his salary, and answered the same in the negative.Justice Anu Sivaraman, observed in this regard,"the provisions of the Act (Panchayat Raj Act) and the Rules (Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (Inquiry of Complaints and Service Conditions) Rules, 1999) are quite clear in as much as the provision specifically provides that a person appointed as Ombudsman would be entitled to salary and allowances equivalent to that of a High Court Judge. The Act or the Rules, admittedly, do not provide for any deduction of pension".Complainant U/S 138 NI Act Must Specifically Assert That Power Of Attorney Holder Has Knowledge Of Impugned Transaction: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Razak Mether v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 24The Kerala High Court observed that a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal and competent. However, the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of a complaint, only when he has witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/ holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.Justice A. Badharudeen further observed that the complainant has to make specific assertions as to the knowledge of the power of attorney in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint."It is true that as per the ratio in A.C Narayanan first case (A.C.Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra &anr), the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal and competent. But the power of attorney holder could depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint, only when the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions and also it is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder, who has no knowledge regarding the transactions. If the above stipulations are not satisfied, the power of attorney could not depose and verify on oath before the court."High Court...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023

Athira Prasad

Tags