Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 23 - October 29, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589-608] Naseema Beevi v Ameer Shahul @ Ameer P.S. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589Kuthiralamuttam Saji v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 590Kurien E. Kalathil v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 591 Viju P Varghese v The Cochin Port Trust 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 592Shamsudheen v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 593M/S Sama Rubbers & Ors. v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 594Ex-Sub Inspector/Exe. Biju K.A. v Additional Director General CISF 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 595Philip Mathew v P Jayarajan & Connected Case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 596Johnson Stephen v. Chinchumol & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 597Mukesh v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 598Justin O.S v The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 599K. Babu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 600D. Ieda Bhai & Ors. v. K. Ashokan & Ors. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 601 M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd v Vijayan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 602Ramachandran & Ors. v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 603K.B. Ganesh Kumar v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 604K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 605X & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 606Vijay Kirgandur v State of Kerala & connected cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 607M/S. South Coast Spices Exports Pvt. Ltd Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 608Judgments/Orders'Wrong Done' U/S 19 CPC Includes Both Act & Its Effects: Kerala HC Says Local Court Authorised To Grant Relief To Mother Of Maid Who Died In DelhiCase title: Naseema Beevi v Ameer Shahul @ Ameer P.S.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 589The Kerala High Court recently held that a Sub Court in Kerala has the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit for compensating for a wrong committed in Delhi, since as per the broader interpretation of "wrong done" under Section 19 of CPC, the effects of the wrong justified establishing jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff resided. Justice Basant Balaji observed that though the death of the woman took place within the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi, the effect of that death was felt by the appellant-mother in Kerala who lost her daughter and only earning member of their family.“In a suit for compensation for wrong done, mere injury or wrong done without anything more would not suffice to sustain claim of compensation. The wrong done cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense but has to be understood in the broader amplitude. It takes in both the act and effect to put it differently, the death of the plaintiff's daughter might have happened in Delhi, but its effect is felt by the plaintiff within the local jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Nedumangad.” [S.323 CrPC] Magistrate Should Record Reasons For Committing Case To Sessions Court: Kerala High CourtCase title: Kuthiralamuttam Saji v State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 590The Kerala High Court has held that power under Section 323 CrPC to commit a case to the Sessions Court after commencement of inquiry/ trial may be invoked by the Magistrate only after recording its reasons by way of a speaking order. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed,“Since the words “it appears to him at any stage ..............” is used in Section 323 CrPC, it is clear that when a Magistrate invokes the powers under Section 323 CrPC, the reason for the same should be recorded. In other words, the Magistrate is required to give reason for thinking that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, while invoking Section 323 CrPC. Therefore, according to me, a speaking order is necessary before invoking the powers under Section 323 CrPC.RBI To Determine Bank's Knowledge Of Borrower's Account Balances, Application Of 'Right Of Recompense': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Kurien E. Kalathil v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 591The Kerala High Court recently held that the determination of whether the bank had knowledge of the amount remaining in the borrower's account at the time of granting the One Time Settlement, and whether the bank could therefore exercise the 'Right of Recompense,' is a matter to be decided by the bank itself. ‘Right of Recompense’ is a tool used by banks and financial institutions to recover the sacrifice they make on the debts for stressed assets. Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that any decision to be arrived at by the respondent Federal Bank would have to be edificed on proven factual circumstances, including, whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), was aware of the amount in question remaining in credit in the account of the petitioner at the time when One Time Settlement, and if not, whether it was kept away from their information by the latter through covert means. "This is crucial because, the Right of Recompense can be exercised only in certain specific circumstances, as is well established in law; and until the 3rd respondent assesses these, a decision, akin to the one recorded in Ext.P14, could not have been taken,...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 23 - October 29, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags