Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 19 - September 25, 2022

Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 488-500]Jeenamol Varghese v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 488Kasim P.H. v. Union of India & Ors., and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 489 S. Yadava v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 490Marakkar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr and connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 491Bhanumathi & Anr. v. K. Abdurahiman Haji & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 492 Aisha v. Xavier & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 493M/S SVS Marketing Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bathtouch Metals Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 494Boban P.V. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 495Fasalu Rahman v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 496 Sanil James v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 497XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 498Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 499Abbas R.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 500Judgments/Orders This Week S.135 Trade Marks Act | Scope Of Granting Interim Injunction Is Limited, Vigil & Caution Must While Granting Ex-Parte Relief: Kerala High Court Case Title: G. M. Sheik & Ors. v. M/s Raja Biri Private Ltd & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 483Observing that scope of granting ad interim injunction is limited, the Kerala High Court has held that Courts must be vigil and cautious while granting the relief ex parte without notice to the counter petitioner or defendant.Justice P. Somarajan further added that the scope of relief to grant interim injunction should be pertaining to the matters incorporated under Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, adding that the provision cannot have any exhaustive application.Applications For Correction In Birth Certificate Can't Be Rejected Summarily, Registrar Must Consider Evidence Placed Before It: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Jeenamol Varghese v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 488The Kerala High Court recently directed all the Registrars under the Municipality and Grama Panchayat to conduct an enquiry adhering to provisions under the Registrations of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, while considering applications seeking correction of Birth Certificates, and not to reject such applications summarily.Justice Amit Rawal made the direction upon noting instances where the Registrars, without adhering to the provisions of Section 15 and Rule 11 and other rules, are rejecting applications for the correction of birth records.Kerala High Court Dismisses Pleas Against Unilateral Change In Distributorship Of LPG Cylinders By Oil Marketing CorporationsCase Title: Kasim P.H. v. Union of India & Ors., and other connected mattersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 489The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that the transfer of consumers from one LPG distributor to another by Oil Marketing Corporations was in pursuance of the policy adopted in this regard, and the consumers had no right to challenge the same and contend that they are entitled to continue with the existing distributors.The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while holding so, observed, "...the guidelines and the agreement executed by and between the Oil Marketing Corporations and the distributors would show that the consumers are under the direct supervision and control of the Oil Marketing Corporations and the consumer cannot turn around and say that they are entitled to continue with the existing distributors".It added that, "...such a course of action adopted by the Government and the Oil Marketing Corporations would only enure to the benefit of the consumers, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be visualised and presumed that the shifting of consumer from one distributor to another, would, in any manner, prejudice the consumer".Kerala Co-operative Societies Act | Employer Entitled To Continue Disciplinary Proceedings Even After Retirement Of Employee: High CourtCase Title: S. Yadava v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 490The Kerala High Court on Friday held that under Rule 198 (7) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the employer is entitled to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement of employee, as well as withhold the retiral benefits until the culmination of such proceedings.The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., while holding so, reasoned that, 'If the argument that the proceedings cannot continue after the retirement is accepted, any delinquent employee can commit any fraud, misappropriation, grave dereliction of duty etc., on the eve of his retirement and can plead that he is beyond the reach of the employer, which would result in such delinquent employee escaping without punishment. Law cannot allow such a course and in all those cases larger public interest must be the guiding factor to decide the case".Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Upholds Special Court Order Cancelling Bail To 11 AccusedCase Title: Marakkar & Anr. v. ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 19 - September 25, 2022

Athira Prasad

Tags