Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 30 To February 5, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 48-62]Dr. Drisya D.T. & Ors. v. Dr. Kiran & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 48Bijy Paul v. The Marriage Officer and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 49Akshay Raj v. Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50The Secretary, Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 51Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid v. Girivasan E.K. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 52P.K. Sajeev & Ors. v. Eldho P. Mathew & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 53Prakashan and Ors. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 54The President, Vennoor Services Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 55Suresh Kumar V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 56S. Sivadas v. State of Kerala and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 57Sithara Indane Gas V Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 58K. Abdul Hameed v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 59xxx v. yyy 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 60Dr. Balachandran v. State of Kerala and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 61Dr. Anupama K.P. v. University of Calicut & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 62Judgments/Orders This Week Compromise Decree Cannot Be Passed Where Parties Enter Into Agreement Without Specifying How The Suit Is To Be Decided: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Dr. Drisya D.T. & Ors. v. Dr. Kiran & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 48The Kerala High Court recently held that where the parties agreed to settle a suit on the basis of an agreement entered into between themselves, without saying how the suit is to be decided or what the terms of the compromise are, no decree can be passed by the Court in such suit. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar passed the above order while dismissing the judgment rendered by the Family Court which held that all the pending cases between the parties were settled in terms of the compromise. It was noted by the Division Bench that the compromise agreement in Clause 5 merely pertained to the settlement of the case relating to setting aside of a gift deed."On the basis of an agreement by which the parties agreed to settle a suit, without saying how is the suit to be decided and what are the terms of compromise, no decree can be passed. If the suit is to be withdrawn also, there shall be a stipulation to that effect. Clause (5) or any other clause in Annexure A1 does not enable this Court or the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of any of the cases mentioned above except, O.P.No.780 of 2021. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant that Annexures A1 and A2 would be interpreted to mean that all the aforesaid pending cases have been settled is genuine. In view of that Annexure A2 judgment is wrong", it was observed.[Special Marriage Act] Youngsters Largely Employed Abroad, 30 Days Mandatory Residence & Subsequent Waiting Period May Need Relook: Kerala HCCase Title: Bijy Paul v. The Marriage Officer and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 49A Petition has been recently moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the provision of the Special Marriage Act, to the extent that it mandates a waiting period of 30 days after submission of the notice of intended marriage. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a declaration that the mandatory waiting period is unconstitutional or a declaration that the 30 days period after submission of a notice of intended marriage mentioned in Section 6 and all consequential provisions under the Act are only directory and cannot be insisted upon.Justice V G Arun noting that the matter requires detailed consideration, observed that, "A lot of changes and liberalisation has taken place even in our customs and practices. Yet another aspect is that a large number of youngsters are employed abroad. Such people come back to their native place only on short vacations and instances are many where the marriage is conducted during the short holidays. The Special Marriage Act requires one of the intending spouses to have resided within the territorial limits of the jurisdictional Marriage Officer for at least 30 days before submitting the notice of intended marriage. Thereafter, the intending spouses have to wait for another 30 days to solemnise the marriage. Whether this waiting period is essential in view of the revolutionary changes in the information technology sector and changes in the social set up itself are matters that should engage the attention of the law makers".Motor Vehicles Act | Claim Petitions Filed Beyond 6 Months Cannot Be Dismissed By MACTs In Limine: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Akshay Raj v. Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors. and other connected matters Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 50The Kerala High Court recently held that the claim petitions filed under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (MACT) in limine, if the same have been filed beyond the period of six months. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Rawal,...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 30 To February 5, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags