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) 201X. v State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203Sobhana v. President & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 208M/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) 210Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 211Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 212Judgments This Week:1. Party Claiming Compensation For Illegal Acquisition Of Property Bound To Establish Its Title: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shajeedha Beevi v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 201The 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 CourtCase Title: X. v State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 202The 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 CourtCase Title: Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub Court of Judicature & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 203The 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 CourtCase Title: Sobhana v. President & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 204The 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 CourtCase Title: Bhagavathiappan R. & Ors v. Bharathamani & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 205The 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 StateCase Title: Suo Motu v. State of KeralaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 206The 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 CourtCase Title:...

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

Hannah M Varghese

Tags