Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 13 To March 19, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 131-143]Anil MP v Capital Finserv Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 131Haseeb O.P. v. Muhammas Sufiyan & Ors. and other connected matters. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 132George Kurian @ Pappan v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 133Haris and Others v State of Kerala and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 134The Village International School & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 135Harris T.K. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 136Nithin V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 137Vinu Madhavan V State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 138Dayal v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 139New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopinathan K.K. & Ors. and Gopinathan & Ors. v. Lijo V.J. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 140I.B. Satheesh M.L.A. v. The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 141Indira v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 142Nithin Ramakrishnan V Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 143Judgments/Order This WeekCommercial Court Shall Not Allow Written Statement To Be Taken On Record After Lapse Of 120 Days From Service: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Anil MP V Capital Finserv Ltd Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 131The Kerala High Court recently held that the Commercial Court shall not allow a written statement filed in a suit to be take on record if 120 days has passed since the date of service of summons. A single bench of Justice C S Dias observed that under Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 will stand amended while being applied to commercial disputes as set out in the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act. As a result, Orders V and VIII of the CPC have been amended by the Schedule. As per the amended provision, a defendant has to file the written statement within 120 days of the service of summons. If the defendant fails to do so, the right to file a written statement in the suit stands forfeited and the court will refuse to accept the written statement on record at a later stage.Kerala High Court Issues Additional Directions For Efficient Implementation Of Reservation For Differently Abled In Aided School AppointmentsCase Title: Haseeb O.P. v. Muhammas Sufiyan & Ors. and other connected matters. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 132The Kerala High Court on Monday modified the order of a single bench that directed the State to give effect to its 2018 decision regarding reservation for employment in favour of persons with disabilities in aided educational institutions and also to take immediate steps to address the backlog in the appointments in the arising vacancies. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Sophy Thomas said:1. The State's Educational Officers must provisionally approve appointments made for vacancies set aside for individuals with disabilities that arose between18.11.2018 and 08.11.2023, as long as the appointments are in order. These vacancies should be treated as temporary, and the approval will only be valid until the incumbents who are regularly appointed take charge. The officers should also ensure that the pay and allowances due to these individuals are disbursed. 2. If, despite following the detailed procedure prescribed by the government, regular appointments cannot be made for the vacancies mentioned in direction (1), the vacancies can be treated as substantive, and the approvals already granted can be made permanent. 3. Even if regular appointments are made for the vacancies mentioned in direction (1), the concerned teacher should be absorbed into the next immediate vacancy in the same school or any school under the same management, provided they are qualified for such appointment. The teachers should be treated as claimants under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. 4. The Managers of all aided schools can hire individuals on a daily wage basis to fill vacancies that arose after November 8th, 2021, until they fully comply with the directions contained in the judgment of the single bench and the judgment in appeal.Three Grounds For Grant Of Bail In Susantha Ghosh Case By Apex Court Not Exhaustive; Kerala High Court Enumerates Other FactorsCase Title: George Kurian @ Pappan v. State of Kerala & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 133The Kerala High Court recently held that the three factors laid down in Susanta Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2012) by the Apex Court while considering grant of bail to an accused, namely, chances of tampering with the evidence; chances of interfering with the investigation; and chances of absconding, are not exhaustive. The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen ascertained that there are several other factors which also govern the grant of bail, and enumerated the same. Kerala High Court Refuses To Defer Trial In Ranjith Sreenivasan Murder Case, Says Supplementary Chargesheet Against Conspirators Can Be Filed LaterCase Title: Haris and Others V State of...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 13 To March 19, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags