Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126 ]Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122YYY v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126Kerala High Court Judgments This Week1. 'Unwholesome': Kerala High Court Deletes Bail Condition Imposed On Migrant Labourers To Produce Sureties From StateCase Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of KeralaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.2. Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A SuhuraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.3. No Compensation U/S 73, 74 Contract Act For Mere Breach Of Contract Without Actual Loss/ Damage : Kerala High Court Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.4. 'Allegations Criminal In Nature, Prior Sanction U/S 17A PC Act Prima Facie Not Necessary': Kerala HC Nods To Vigilance Probe Against Ex-VACB OfficerCase Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.5. S.173 CrPC | Investigating Agency Can Hold Further Probe On Receiving New Information: Kerala High CourtCase Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case6. Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119The Court ruled that the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Hannah M Varghese

Tags