Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: May 2 To May 8, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201 - 212]

Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201

X. v State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202

Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203

Sobhana v. President & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204

Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208

M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

 M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Pius C. Mundadan & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212

Judgments This Week:

1. Party Claiming Compensation For Illegal Acquisition Of Property Bound To Establish Its Title: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201

The High Court has recently ruled that a party claiming compensation for illegal acquisition of some property allegedly possessed by him has to establish his title and possession over the same before the court. While allowing an appeal, Justice Mary Joseph observed that in the said case, the plaintiff who sought compensation had failed to produce the document to evidence his ownership over the land.

2. No Legal Embargo Against Superior Courts Intervening With Bail Orders: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X. v State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202

The High Court has recently observed that although an order granting bail would not generally be interfered with by the superior Courts, there is no legal embargo against such intervention. Justice Kauser Edappagath thereby observed that a High Court may invoke its inherent powers under S.482 of CrPC in the aid of an order required to secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of any court.

3. Entire Court Fee Should Be Refunded When A Pending Civil Case Is Settled Through Lok Adalat: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203

The High Court has laid down that when a dispute in a pending civil case is referred to the Lok Adalat and settled thereafter, the entire court fee already paid by the party is liable to be refunded. Justice V.G Arun found that the 7% reduction of the court fee already paid was not sustainable since such cases were governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act and the Court Fees Act, and not the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Board of Revenue) Rules.

4. Kerala Civil Courts Act| District Judge Can't Pass Judicial Orders Directing Subordinate Courts To Dispose Matters Expeditiously U/S.17: High Court

Case Title: Sobhana v. President & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204

The Court has recently established that the general supervisory power available under Section 17 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act does not empower the District Judge to pass judicial orders directing the civil courts in the district to dispose of matters pending before the subordinate courts in a time-bound manner. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the general control over all the civil courts given to the District Judge within the District is confined to matters of administration and not strictly on the judicial side to pass orders of such nature.

5. Court Fee In A Suit Seeking Cancellation Of Document To Be Computed Based On Value Shown In The Document: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

The High Court has ruled that when cancellation or declaration of a document as null and void is sought for, the court fee shall be paid valuing the same on the basis of the value shown in the document as long as the subject matter is capable of valuation. However, Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that in a suit for partition seeking a declaration that a settlement deed is invalid or not valid, a separate court fee is not necessary for the said declaration.

6. Shawarma Food Poisoning Case: Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu PIL On Food Safety Concerns In State

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

The High Court took suo motu cognisance of the food poisoning incident in Kasargod after a 16-year-old girl died and over 50 people were hospitalised which, as per news reports, is a possible aftermath of consuming shawarma. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar took up the case after media reports threw light on the appalling conditions of some shawarma-making joints in the state. The court later sent notices to the State Food Safety Commissioner, Health Director and other officials.

7. District Collector Can Be Notified As 'Appropriate Government' Under Right To Fair Compensation Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

The High Court has held that a District Collector can be notified as the 'appropriate government' mentioned in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Justice Devan Ramachandran found that as per Section 3E of the Act, the State Government can notify a District Collector to be the "appropriate Government" and he shall then be deemed to be such Authority therefrom.

8. RSS Worker's Murder: Kerala High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea For CBI Investigation

Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208

The Court dismissed the plea filed by the wife of deceased Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith, who was hacked to death in November last year, seeking the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal pronounced the judgment after weeks of elaborate hearing, permitting the State Police to continue with their probe. 

9. Kerala High Court Directs GST Dept. To Facilitate Revision Of Form GST TRAN-1 By Making Necessary Arrangements On The Portal

Case Title: M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has directed the GST department to facilitate the revising of Form GST TRAN-1 and filing of Form GST TRAN-2 by making necessary arrangements on the web portal. The petitioner/assessee was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel products and other accessories and allied items.

10. Condonation Of Delay | Courts Should Consider Relevant Aspects Like Conduct, Bonafide & Prejudice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. & Ors. v. Pius C. Mundadan & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

The High Court has established that while taking a decision on an application for condonation of delay, the court should not merely consider the reasons stated in the application alone, but should also consider other attendant and relevant aspects. Justice V.G. Arun observed that having contested the case in a lackadaisical manner and having failed to offer an acceptable explanation for the delay, the petitioners cannot bank upon the elasticity of the term 'sufficient cause' to plead equity or seek permission to contest the suit on merits.

11. Kerala High Court Sets Aside Interim Order In Favour Of KSRTC In Bulk Diesel Price Case

Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211

The Court allowed the appeals moved by state-owned oil marketing companies (OMC) challenging the interim order issued in favour of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) wherein the OMCs have been directed to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps temporarily. A vacation bench of Justice C.S Dias and Justice Basant Balaji thereby set aside the impugned interim order passed in a petition moved by KSRTC through Advocate Deepu Thankan citing that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.

Also Read: 'Nothing But The Old Case With A New Docket': Kerala High Court While Refusing To Provide Diesel To KSRTC At Retail Price

12. Shawarma Food Poisoning: Kerala High Court Calls For Constant Monitoring & Enforcement Of Food Safety Standards

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212

The Court urged the respective authorities to routinely inspect and monitor food safety standards across the State all year round while hearing a suo motu PIL launched after the food poisoning incident in Kasargod. A 16-year-old girl Devananda died and over 57 people were hospitalised which, as per news reports, is a possible aftermath of consuming shawarma from a particular restaurant.

Other Developments: 

13. 'Don't Go By WhatsApp University': Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Forced Vaccination Of Children

Case Title: Thampi VS v State of Kerala

The Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to prevent alleged forced vaccination of children across the State finding that the petitioner had moved the Court based on information received through social media. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the plea with interesting comments after the petitioner failed to place on record any specific instance of forced vaccination of minors.

14. Kerala High Court Seeks Clarification On Appointing New Supervisor For SIT Probing Actor Assault Case Before Expiry Of Tenure

Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala

The Court asked the State Police Chief (SPC) to clarify whether any order had been issued appointing the new Crime Branch chief as the supervising authority of the special investigation team (SIT) which is currently probing the 2017 actor sexual assault case. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas passed the order in a petition filed by film director Baiju Kottarakara challenging the transfer of ADGP S. Sreejith from the post of Crime Branch chief and the supervising officer of the sexual assault case.

15. 'These Buses Are Your Assets': Kerala High Court Pulls Up KSRTC For Ditching Buses In Depots To Rust

Case Title: N. Raveendran v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Court directed the State and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to file an affidavit detailing the measures taken for protecting the 'assets' of the Corporation. The Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Sophy Thomas issued the directive on a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleged that valuable assets of the KSRTC were being wasted away on account of negligence and insouciance of the corporation.