Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: April 11 To April 17, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171 - 180]Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh Jayaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176Minor v. Ministry of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 177 Lloyed Insulations (India) Ltd versus Foremexx Space Frames, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 178Suryansh Broadcasting Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 179Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 180Judgments This Week 1. Cannot Waive The Statutory Mandate of Pre-Deposit Merely On The Plea Of Financial Hardships: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171The High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the high court cannot waive the statutory mandate of pre-deposit merely on the plea of financial hardships. The court observed that the amendment to section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, clearly manifests the intention of the legislature that the waiver of pre-deposit, which was being resorted to quite often by the courts of law, needed to be amended to make the pre-deposit mandatory. Thus, after the Amendment Act came into force, no discretion is available to the courts of law to waive the mandatory requirement of a pre-deposit of 7.5% even if it is assumed to be onerous.2. Promise To Marry Made To Married Woman Not Legally Enforceable, Offence Of Rape Not Attracted: Kerala High CourtCase Title: X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172The Court has established that the promise alleged to have been made by the accused to a married woman that he would marry her before engaging in sexual relations with her is not enforceable in law and thus it cannot be a ground for the prosecution to argue that the woman had consented due to a misconception of fact. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath quashed all proceedings against the accused observing that according to the sequence of events and the survivor's statement, it appeared to be a consensual act.3. Forensic Science Labs Need Resuscitation: Kerala High Court Asks State To Upgrade System, FSL Reports To Be Submitted Within 3 WeeksCase Title: Aneeshkutty v. State of KeralaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173The Court while releasing a man on bail observed that the forensic science laboratories (FSL) in the State were collapsing and required an upgrade upon noticing that the FSL report in the case was not submitted to the Sessions Court despite the passage of two years. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, therefore, suggested that the State government take immediate note of the same and make sure that the system is equipped to submit FSL reports within three weeks of the samples being furnished.4. Right Of State To Provide Reservations Unaffected By UGC Regulations: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174The Court has established that the regulations notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) that determine qualifications for selection to various posts in universities in a State do not impact the right of the State government to provide reservations for backward classes. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P stated that it did not see how the UGC Regulations can affect the reservation policy of a State.5. Kerala High Court Grants Interim Relief To KSRTC, Directs Oil Companies To Supply High Speed Diesel At Retail PricesCase Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175A vacation bench of the Court granted interim relief in the plea moved by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the respondents to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps while clarifying that this relief was subject to the outcome of the petition.6. Party May Not Press Relief But Can't Prevent Family Court From Finding The Truth: Kerala High CourtCase Title: T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh JayaramCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176The Court recently held that the master of the proceedings before the Family Court is the presiding officer of the Family Court and not the parties while reiterating that the Family Court is competent to undertake any enquiry to find the truth. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that a party may be able to not press the relief sought, but they ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: April 11 To April 17, 2022

Hannah M Varghese

Tags