Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 - October 9, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508 - 515]Midland Rubber Produce Company ltd. V. Uthayasuriyan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508C.P. Pappachan v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 509Sheeba George v. State Election Commission & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 510Nishad Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 511The General Manager South Railway v. R. Haridrakumar 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 512Manager, Sunniyya Arabic College v. State of Kerala & Ors and Aboobacker E.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 513Sreekanth Sasidharan v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 514Capt. Rajeev Thotten v. Air India Express Ltd & Ors. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 515Judgments/Order This Week [Industrial Disputes Act] Enquiry Under Section 33(2)(b) Meant To Lift The Veil On Any Hidden Motive To Punish The Workman: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Midland Rubber Produce Company ltd. V. Uthayasuriyan & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that the limited enquiry contemplated under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is only to find out whether a proper domestic enquiry has been held to prove the misconduct attributed to the workman and whether he has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Justice Mohammed Nias C P observed that proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) is for the protection of the workman and to shield the workman against victimization or unfair practice by the employer during the pendency of an industrial dispute when the relationship between them is strained.Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice | Mistake By Court Staff Not Sufficient Ground To Non-Suit Party: High Court Case Title: C.P. Pappachan v. State of Kerala & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 509The Kerala High Court on Friday contemplated the question as to whether non-compliance of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice by the court staff would be sufficient ground to non-suit the complainant or any party, and answered the same in the negative. Justice A. Badharudeen, while holding so, observed, "It is the settled law that fault committed by the court shall not stand in the way of non-suiting the aggrieved party before the court. The maxim 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' embodies the said principle. That is to say, the act of Court shall prejudice no one. In such a situation, Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong".However, on noting that many complaints and petitions were forwarded to the High Court without seal as mandated under Rule 28, and taking note of the seriousness in non-payment of court fees in petitions before the criminal court, the Court in this case issued direction to subordinate courts that the aforementioned Rules 28 and 29 of the Criminal Rules of Practice ought to be strictly complied with.Independent Candidate Who Joins A Political Party After Elections Will Attract Disqualification : Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sheeba George v. State Election Commission & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 510The Kerala High Court recently held that when a candidate, who contested elections as an independent contender, subsequently makes a declaration about being a candidate of a party or coalition, the same would attract disqualification on the ground of defection under Section 3(1)(c) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. Upholding the decision of the State Election Commission to disqualify an elected member of Keerampara Grama Panchayat, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said the law relating to defection in regard to the members of the local body has been made with the intention of upholding the constitutional principles, the democratic setup and the rule of law prevailing in the country. "This we say because, in order to sustain the faith of the citizens in the democratic set up of conducting elections, and for retaining and sustaining the confidence of the citizens on the candidates elected by the electorate, a strict view is to be adopted in the matter of defection. It is with the said basic intention that the Act, 1999 and Rules, 2000 were brought into force," said the court.Where Accused Conceded Jurisdiction & Trial Completed, Question Of Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Raised: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Nishad Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 511The Kerala High Court recently held that where the accused has himself conceded the jurisdiction, and the trial has been completed, the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at the fag end of the trial and transfer of the case on this ground cannot be sought for. The Court in this light, taking note of precedents, observed that as per Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it would be clear that when there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, lack of territorial jurisdiction or ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 - October 9, 2022

Navya Benny

Tags