Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 221]M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213Thampi VS v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 214State of Kerala v. Raseena K.K, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215Naziya & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 216Kiran David v. Assistant General Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 217Mujeeb Rahiman v. Thasleena & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 218Arshika S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 219Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 220Mathew v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 221Judgments This Week1. 'Grass Is Not Greener On The Other Side Of Fence': Kerala High Court To Radicalists In Terror Recruitment CaseCase Title: M.H. Faisal v. State of Kerala & connected matters. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 213The Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and nine others in the Kashmir terror recruitment case in a judgment that runs to 205 pages. The Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran however, acquitted the 2nd, 14th and 22nd accused in the case since their role in the conspiracy were not established. The Court also recorded its appreciation for the tremendous work put in both by the Kerala Police and the NIA while remarking, "For those who have such radical thoughts, we can only say that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence, if you just look at history."Also Read: Kashmir Terror Recruitment Case: Kerala High Court Confirms Conviction Of 10 Accused, Acquits 32. 'Don't Go By WhatsApp University': Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Forced Vaccination Of ChildrenCase Title: Thampi VS v State of KeralaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 214The 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.3. KVAT Registration Once Cancelled Has To Be Published In Two Leading Daily Newspapers: Kerala High CourtCase Title: State of Kerala v. Raseena K.K.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215The Court ruled that once a Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) registration is cancelled, it must be published in at least two major daily newspapers, and the dealer must be notified in accordance with Form No.5 B.Then only will the cancellation of registration be effective. Justice S.V. Bhatt and Justice Basant Balaji observed that as per Rule 19 of KVAT Rules, the application was filed on 20.2.2014. The registering authority, after cancelling the registration, ought to have issued the dealer a notice in Form No.5 B and published the details in at least two dailies in the State and also on the website of the Commercial Tax Department. 4. Artificial Breaks In Service Between Successive Contracts Not A Device To Deny Maternity Benefits: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Naziya & Ors. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 216The Court held that short artificial breaks in service between successive contracts cannot be used as a device to deny maternity rights to the employees. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that as per the Government Order dated January 2021, the employee should have "actually" worked for a period of not less than 80 days immediately preceding her expected date of delivery or date of miscarriage to be eligible for maternity benefits and that artificial breaks are not a valid ground to deny the same.5. Low CIBIL Score Of Co-Borrowers Not A Ground To Deny Education Loans: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Kiran David v. Assistant General ManagerCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 217The Court reiterated that the CIBIL scores of co-borrowers do not play a role in deciding applications for education loans since the eligibility conditions for sanctioning such priority sector loans should have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by these loans. Justice N. Nagaresh also observed that imposing such conditions would defeat the very purpose of granting such loans, thereby discouraging banks from doing so.6. Wife's Right To Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Not Extinguished By Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Mujeeb Rahiman v. Thasleena & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 218In a significant judgment, the Court has reiterated that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC until she obtains relief under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act while adding that an order passed under Section 125 shall continue to remain in force until the amount payable under Section 3 of the Act is paid. It was also held that the wife cannot be allowed to circumvent the provisions of...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Hannah M Varghese

Tags