Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 11 - March 17, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165 – 182]Isahack v. Mini and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165 Sreejith M B V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 166 Gokul Raj v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 167 Sebastian Jacob v The Transport Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 168 Shamnad N and ors. v. The Corporation of Thrissur Through Secretary and anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 169 Dr. M. Ganeshkumar v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 170 Mary Mohan Chacko v. Inspector General 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 171Satheeshkumar @ Kari Satheesh v CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 172P V Nandakumar v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 173 NATAK v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 174 Stephen v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 175 Ajmal K V v Union Bank of India & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 176 Rahiya v. Jasna and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 177 Suhaib @ Kullappi Kakka v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 178 Dr.Ruwise E.A V The Principal Govt. Medical College 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 179 Navas PK v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 180 XXX v. XXX 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 181 Santhosh @ Chandu v State 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 182Judgements/OrdersNot Feasible To Expect Documentary Evidence In Family Matters, Court Must Be Prudent: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165Case Title: Isahack v. Mini and ors.The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is not feasible to have documentary evidence in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, in a plea challenging the maintainability of a petition before the family court.A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that “in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, especially when it occurred during the period in which they were in cordial terms and most probably at the time of marriage or immediately before the marriage, usually there will be no documents to prove the same”. The petitioner had challenged an original petition filed by his daughter (1st respondent) on the ground that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The respondent had filed a plea before the family court to assign the scheduled property in her favor in lieu of the money and gold belonging to her that was entrusted to the petitioner.Amusement Parks Must Be Established & Operated In Strict Compliance With Law & Safety Requirements: Kerala High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 166Case title: Sreejith M B V State of KeralaThe Kerala High Court directed the Aluva Municipality to provide an undertaking before the Court that the temporary amusement park at Aluva Shivaratri Manappuram shall be established and operated only in strict compliance with the law.“There can be little doubt that any Amusement Park - be that temporary or permanent - will have to adhere to every requirement in law, particularly safety criteria, because if any mishap is to happen, it would have a cataclysmic effect, especially when it is common knowledge that large number of devotees and others would throng the festival.” stated Justice Devan Ramachandran The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking Aluva Municipality to prohibit the operation of a temporary Amusement Park at Aluva Shivaratri Manappuram without required clearances, permissions, and approvals from competent officials."Biggest Menace": Kerala High Court Says Time-Bound Case Dispoal Not Taking Place Due To Unnecessary Adjournments Sought By LawyersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 167Case title: Gokul Raj v State of KeralaThe Kerala High Court has considered the extent to which an advocate has the right to seek an adjournment of trial at his or her convenience. Justice A. Badharudeen stated that due to unnecessary adjournment of cases, justice had been denied to real aggrieved persons. It further stated that time-bound disposal of cases was not taking place due to unnecessary adjournments. “Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the Court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts”, stated the Court.The Court added that judges were unable to distinguish between genuine requests made by lawyers who were really suffering from illnesses since some lawyers use illness as a ground to seek unnecessary adjournments even after the case was posted for final hearing.[Motor Vehicles Act] Must Undergo Mandatory Driving Test If Application To Renew License Is Made More Than One Year After Expiry: Kerala High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 168Case title: Sebastian Jacob v The Transport CommissionerThe Kerala High Court stated that a person who wants to renew his driving licence after one year of its expiry has to undergo a mandatory test of competence to drive under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act.The Court...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 11 - March 17, 2024

Rubayya Tasneem

Tags