Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 - December 24, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738- 759] Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740X v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 741Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v. Umaimath 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 742Rahul Subhash v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 743Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 744S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 745Indira v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 746Mathew P J v M/S. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 747XXX v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 748Sundar v. Director General of Police 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 749XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 750V.Unnikrishnan v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Connected Case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 751N. Basurangan v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 752XXX v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 753Zamra Endeavours Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 754P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 755Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 756Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 757Archana Pius v. Shine 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 758Abedur Shekh v State Of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 759Judgments/Orders GST Evasion Prosecution Does Not Depend Upon Completion Of Assessment: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738 The Kerala High Court has held that prosecution for offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act does not depend upon the completion of the assessment. The bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to grant bail on the grounds that there is an alleged evasion of more than Rs. 6.5 crore against the petitioner. A serious allegation is made, which warrants a thorough investigation. When the investigation is going on, no bail can be granted to the petitioner.Enables Grievance Redressal Without Instuting Suit: Kerala HC Explains 'Partial Restraint' U/S 55 Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions ActCase Title: Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739 The Kerala High Court recently elaborated the ambit and scope of 'partial restraint' against the institution of suits within the period of advance notice in writing, envisaged under Section 55 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('Act, 1950').Section 55 (1) of the Act, 1950 stipulates that "no suit shall be instituted against the board or the executive officer of the Sri Padmanabhaswarny Temple until the expiration of two months after a notice in writting has been delivered or left at the office of the Board, or of the Executive Officer, as the case may be, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left".Clause (2) of Section 55 states that, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, suits or other proceedings by or against the Executive Office of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple or the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be instituted in the District Court having local jurisdiction."Justice P. Somarajan observed that the normal principle is that there cannot be any restraint against the institution of litigation before a civil court.Indian Courts Have Jurisdiction To Protect Best Interest Of Child/Incapable Adult Where No Legal Remedy Available In Foreign Court: Kerala HCCase Title: XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740 The Kerala High Court recently laid down that Indian Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to protect the best interest or welfare of a child or an incapable adult, if so warranted, in circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that the party who approached it has no legal remedy before the Court beyond Indian territory. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the Court, on invoking its writ jurisdiction, would have the power to adjudicate and that the parens patriae and nationality rules would also apply to protect the best interest of the child, or the welfare of the incapable adult.It however cautioned that the Court ought to be circumspect to exercise its jurisdiction when it finds that the law of the foreign country can be invoked to protect the welfare or best interest of the child or incapable adult. "There may be different circumstances related to the cases. If parties are ordinarily residing in a foreign country and can avail legal remedy in that foreign country, the courts in India shall not invoke such jurisdiction to regulate the affairs of its citizens living beyond territorial jurisdiction of the country. The...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 - December 24, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags