Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 To June 19 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 274 - 287]Arjun Reghu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 274K.K Ibrahim v. Cochin Kaagaz, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 275Rajan J. Pallan & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 276Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 277Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. V. Babu & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 278Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 279Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 280K. Sumangala Devi v. Binu P.N & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 281Rilgin V. George & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 282Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 283Malli v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 284Raveendran A v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 285Shibily Sahib & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 286C.C Joy v. C.D Mini & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 287Judgments/Orders This Week:1. Should Not Adopt Hypertechnical Approach When Accused Produces Evidence To Support Plea Of Juvenility: Kerala High Court Case Title: Arjun Reghu v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 274The Court has held that courts shall not employ a hypertechnical approach when the accused produces sufficient evidence in support of his argument that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the crime. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the claimant discharging the burden mentioned in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act or its Rules is sufficient to prima facie satisfy the Court to decide the question of juvenility.2. Party Can't Claim Refund Of Court Fee If Dispute Not Settled After Being Referred To Arbitration: Kerala High CourtCase Title: K.K Ibrahim v. Cochin KaagazCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 275The Court has recently held that mere reference of a party for settlement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not entitle refund of court fee as provided under Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, unless it has been settled between the parties. Justice A. Badharudeen held that although settlement of disputes dealt under Section 89 of CPC includes `arbitration' as well, a party is not entitled to get a refund of the court fee merely because they were referred to arbitration under Section 69 of the Act.3. Kerala Municipality Rules | Pending Cases Not A Ground For Chairperson To Reject Request To Convene Municipality Meetings: High CourtCase Title: Rajan J. Pallan & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 276The Court has held that a request for convening a meeting as per Rule 7 of Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules can be rejected only if the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Rule 7(1) are not complied with or if the request is not made by one-third of the members in the Council existing at that time. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also added that pendency of some cases before the Court is not a ground to reject a request for convening a meeting as per Rule 7(1).4. NIA Court Can Entertain Application For Tender Of Pardon Preferred At Investigation Stage U/S 306 CrPC: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Suresh Raj v. National Investigation AgencyCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 277The Court held that a Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act can invoke the powers under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to grant pardon to an accused at the post cognizance stage. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also opined that it is always advisable for a Special Court to consider an application for grant of pardon by itself if cognizance is taken directly, though it can be referred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.5. Motor Accident Death | Kerala High Court Lays Down 'Twin Conditions' To Claim Compensation In Plea Alleging Driver's NegligenceCase Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. V. Babu & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 278The Court has held that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners must prove not only the negligence on the part of the driver or rider but also prove that the person alleged to have sustained injuries in a motor accident died in consequence of the accidental injuries. Justice A. Badharudeen added that it is the burden of the petitioners to adduce evidence to satisfy the allegations raised by them since grant of compensation therein is based on the principle of `fault' liability.6. Bailable Offence: Kerala High Court Closes Vijay Babu's Anticipatory Bail Plea In Case For Revealing Identity Of Actress Who Accused Him Of RapeCase Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 279The High Court has closed the proceedings in an anticipatory bail plea moved by actor-producer Vijay Babu in the case for allegedly revealing on social media, the identity of the actress who has...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 To June 19 2022

Hannah M Varghese

Tags