Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 6 - November 12, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629-648] Roli Pathak v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629Shibu J v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 630Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 631XXX & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 632Shoma G. Madan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 633Deepak K. v The Kerala State Election Commission & connected case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 634Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 635State of Kerala & Ors. v. Binoj K.B. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 636Sunil Kumar @ Rakkan v State of Kerala and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 637Vishnu v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 638Lilly Krishnan v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 639Keerthi Nagar Residents Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 640Shijo Das v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 641Sreeja @Sini v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 642Raveendranath v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 643Judgments/Orders Indian Olympic Association Should Have Resolved Internal Rift Of Volleyball Federation, Not Cancelled National Championship: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Roli Pathak v Union of India Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629The Kerala High Court has expressed empathy towards the volleyball players who could not participate in the National Games, 2023 due to internal rifts in the administration of the Volleyball Federation of India (VFI). The Adhoc Committee of VFI decided to cancel the Volleyball championship in the 37th National Games of India, 2023 due to the internecine disputes within the Federation. Prior to the formation of the VFI, the game was controlled by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). IOA is the governing body, responsible for regulating the National Games. Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the IOA should have resolved the disputes within the Federation rather than cancelling the Volleyball Championship in the National Games. “In the afore scenario, this Court can do nothing more than to hold empathy for the situation of the petitioners; but before parting, it is necessary to say that, in the interest of the game, the Indian Olympic Association ought to have resolved the disputes within the ‘Federation’, keeping in mind the schedule of National Games and without disturbing it; but alas, this has not been done, but they appear to have chosen the easier path of cancelling the competition in Volleyball itself.” [NDPS Act] Seizure Mahazar Sent To Court Becomes A Public Document, Accused Entitled To Certified Copy: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shibu J v State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 630The Kerala High Court held that seizure mahazar, once prepared and sent to the Court by police or other officers becomes a public document. It noted that a certified copy of seizure mahazar cannot be denied to the accused as he might need it to mould and understand his case at the stage of bail application itself. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed thus: “I am of the considered opinion that, once the seizure mahazar is prepared and sent to the court, it is a public document. There is no bar in issuing a certified copy of the seizure mahazar to an accused especially because the same is necessary for him to mould his case at the stage of filing the bail application also.” [Kerala Building Tax Act 1975] Remaining Area Used For Ancillary Purposes Of Factory Also Exempted From Payment Of Building Tax: High CourtCase Title: Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 631The Kerala High Court recently considered whether some ‘area’ used in relation to a factory can be given exemption from payment of the building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. Section 3 (1)(b) provides that buildings principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factory or workshop can be exempted from building tax. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the term ‘principally’ under Section 3(1)(b) means ‘predominantly’ and held if the building was predominantly used as a factory, then remaining area used for ancillary purposes of the factory would also be exempted from payment of building tax.“The authority has to assign the correct meaning to the word ‘principally’. In my view, ‘principally’ means predominantly. If the predominant purpose is running the factory, the area in which ancillary purposes related to the factory are being carried out is also liable for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.” Kerala High Court Allows Married Couple's Plea To Terminate 32-Week Pregnancy On Grounds Of Foetal Abnormality, Mother's History Of DepressionCase Title: XXX & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 632The Kerala High Court allowed the medical termination of a 32-week pregnancy of a woman. The parents-to-be had approached the Court seeking termination of pregnancy on the ground that the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 6 - November 12, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags