Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 632-643]Dr V. V. Haridas MD v. State of Kerala and ors. and Kinder Women's Hospital and fertility centre v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 632A. Salim v. M/S Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 633Najeeb Kanthapuram v. K.P. Mohammed Musthafa @ K.P.M. Musthafa & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 634Suneesh v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 635M. S. Anil and Anr. v. M/S Hil (India) Ltd and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 636Anvar Sadath Ibrahimkutty and Anr. v. The Chief Registrar General of Marriage and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 637Haneefa and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 638Mathew v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 639Anup Disalva & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 640Biju P. Cheruman @ Aadi Margi Maha Chandala Baba v. Election Commission of India and Ors. and Vayalar Rajeevan v. Saji Cherian MLA and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 641Dr. Dileep Kumar S.R. v. Veena S. Nair & Ors. and Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 642Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. The State Information Commission & Anr. and other connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 643Orders/Judgments This WeekState Govt Well Equipped To Decide Legality Of Panchayat Decisions, S.191 Kerala Panchayat Raj Act Is An Efficacious Alternate Remedy: High CourtCase Title: Dr V. V. Haridas MD v. State of Kerala and ors. and Kinder Women's Hospital and fertility centre v. State of Kerala and ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 632The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dismissing two Writ Petitions, observed that Section 191 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is an efficacious, alternate statutory remedy against any resolutions or decisions taken by the panchayat. Section 191 of the KPR Act deals with the power of cancellation and suspension of resolutions etc. and the Court observed that as per the provision, the Government is well-equipped to decide the legality of any resolution passed or decision taken by the Panchayat.Justice Murali Purushothaman rejected the contention that approaching the government under the provision is futile because the decision impugned is taken by government functionaries and observed, "The power conferred on the Government under Section 191 of the K P R Act is quasi-judicial and any administrative decision of the functionaries of the Government cannot preclude the Government from exercising its quasi-judicial functions".Arbitration Barred In Respect Of Matters Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of TDSAT Under TRAI Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: A. Salim v. M/S Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 633The Kerala High Court recently held that arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is barred in respect of matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act). Justice N. Nagaresh observed that TRAI Act is a special law and would prevail over the Arbitration Act, which is a general law."The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 being a later statute and having been specially enacted for the Telecom Sector, will certainly prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was enacted in the year 1997 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was enacted in the year 1996. When the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was enacted, the Parliament was aware of the remedy of arbitration available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even then, the Parliament chose not to exclude the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the ambit of the Act, 1997", it observed.Kerala High Court Rejects Objections Against Maintainability Of Election Petition Against Muslim League MLACase Title: Najeeb Kanthapuram v. K.P. Mohammed Musthafa @ K.P.M. Musthafa & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 634Rejecting Perinthalmanna MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram's objections against an election petition pending against him, the Kerala High Court recently said the case will go for trial for a decision on the rejection of 348 ballot papers in the matter. Justice A. Badharudeen in the ruling considered the question whether it is necessary to plead all essential facts in detail and if deviation or lack of pleadings would lead to summary rejection of the plaint. The counter argument before the court was that the importance of pleadings and its meticulous evaluation would apply only in such cases where the election is challenged on the ground of any corrupt practice. The court said when corrupt practice is alleged to set aside the election of a returned candidate, the very minute details of the allegation are required to be specifically pleaded as provided under Section 83(1)(b) of the R.P Act and any sort of omission is a reason to reject the Election Petition. "However, when the election of a returned candidate...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

Navya Benny

Tags