Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup: January 17 To January 23, 2022

1. Mere Chance For Occupation Of Premises Via Licence Not Sufficient To Make One Necessary/ Proper Party In Appeal Between Licensor & Licensee: Kerala HCCase Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a proper party in an appeal pending between the licensor and the licensee. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the application filed by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.2. Defence Can Be Struck Off For Non-Payment Of Pendente Lite Maintenance Only As Last Resort & If Default Is Deliberate: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28The Court while allowing an appeal ruled that a party's defence can be struck off for non-compliance of an order for payment of pendente lite maintenance only as a last resort and if it is found that the default is deliberate and willful. A Division Bench of Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked so while adjudicating upon an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court's order striking off his defence for failing to pay maintenance pendente lite.3. Consent Of Accused Not Necessary To Obtain Voice Sample; No Violation Of Article 20(3) Of Constitution: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of KeralaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29The Court has ruled that the consent of an accused is not necessary to acquire their voice sample for the purpose of comparison since it has already been established that obtaining voice samples of the accused do not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a petition alleging that the accused was not given an opportunity of being heard before being directed to produce his voice sample, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused has no right of option in the matter.4. Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till February 21 Amid COVID-19 SurgeCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the surge in Covid-19 cases and the Test Positivity Rate in the State. As such, the Bench revived an earlier order it had passed on 19, May 2021 in which it had issued directions for the extension of interim orders.5. 'Refusal To Consider' Different From 'Rejection For Reasons': Kerala HC Directs State Tax Officer To Reconsider Plea Seeking Copies Of Witness StatementsCase Title: Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31The Court has held that there is a clear distinction between refusing to consider an application and rejecting one with reasons while finding that an officer should specify reasons while denying copies of statements made to the parties in an investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that since it is settled law that reasons should be reflected in the order, the Proper Officer should have given reasons for refusing to grant copies of the witness statements.6. Chairperson & Members Of State Minorities Commission Can Be From Same Minority Community : Kerala High CourtCase Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32The Court ruled that merely because the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 permits appointing Chairperson and members from the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled power infringing rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act and National Commission for Minorities Act observed that such an amendment did not violate any rights under Part III of the Constitution.7. Unauthorised Flagposts, Boards & Banners To Be Removed Within 30 Days : Kerala High Court Issues Further DirectionsCase Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of PoliceCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33The Court issued a set of further directions to ensure that no new unauthorised flag posts, banners or boards are installed in the State and to remove the already existing ones within a period of 30 days. Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative to notify such guidelines after observing that people had fallen back to their lackadaisical attitude regarding the erection of illegal boards, banners and flag posts in the State within a few months after the Court issued strict orders against the same.8. Maoist Threat In Locality Valid Reason To Deny NOC For Explosive Licence : Kerala High CourtCase...

Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup: January 17 To January 23, 2022

Hannah M Varghese

Tags