Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 – November 5, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609-628]J.C. Daniel Foundation & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609Leela v M.K. Sukumaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 610Popular Motor Corporation v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 611Rajan P v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 612Mohamed v. Kunhalankutty & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 613State of Kerala v P.K Radhakrishnan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 614Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. V Nirmala Padmanabhan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 615Nijesh Chandran & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 616Balamuraly G v Vinod T R, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 617Thomas Abraham & Ors. v. The Mission Director & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 618M/S. Global Plasto Wares Versus Assistant State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 619Gireeshkumar T.M. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 620Joseph George v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 621Advocate Rajesh Kumar C v Prasad M Cherian, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 622George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors. and connected matter, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 623Elon Christ Stephen v Steaphen Antony Venasious ,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 624E.K. Anil v. Tahasildar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 625 Prajila M. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 626Jose v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 627Binoy Paulose v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 628Judgment/Orders this weekKerala HC Suggests To Maintain Database Of Societies Under Travancore-Cochin Literary Societies Registration Act To Avoid Duplicity Of NamesCase Title: J.C. Daniel Foundation & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609The Kerala High Court has suggested the establishment of a database of societies registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act ('TC Act'), so that the District Registrars can avoid any dispute regarding names and other particulars between registered societies, and those seeking registration under the Act.Justice Devan Ramachandran made the above recommendation in a plea filed by the J.C. Daniel Foundation, Kowdiar, Trivandrum, which is a registered society under the TC Act, alleging that J.C. Daniel Foudation, Perumbayikode, Kottayam, and J.C. Daniel Foundation, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram were also registered under the Act with the same name.Kerala High Court Holds Employer Liable To Compensate For Driver's Death Due To Accident Caused By His Suffering Heart Attack While DrivingCase title: Leela v M.K. SukumaranCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 610The Kerala High Court by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another (2013) held that the death of a driver due to heart attack would amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as drivers were subjected to long years of stress and strain.Justice PG Ajithkumar by relying upon the Apex Court decision observed that an employer was liable to compensate the kin of deceased employee even if the deceased was not actually driving the vehicle while he was having heart attack. The Court also noted that Employees Compensation Act was a social legislation, intended to compensate employees and thus has to be interpreted for the benefit of the employees.The Court ordered that the family of the deceased employee was liable to be compensated. S.138 NI Act | Authorized Representative Prosecuting On Behalf Of Company Must Have Knowledge Of Contents Of Complaint: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Popular Motor Corporation v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 611The Kerala High Court has reiterated that in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), by a company/firm, a power of attorney holder or authorized representative can depose on behalf of the complainant, and that it would be sufficient to demonstrate before the Magistrate that the complaint has been filed in the name of the 'payee'/'complainant', and the authorization as well as the contents of the complaint, are within the knowledge of such power of attorney holder/authorized representative. Justice C.S. Dias arrived at the above finding when faced with the question as to whether the directions issued in Narayanan. A.C v. State of Maharashtra (2013) would be strictly applicable in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act by a power of attorney of a company/firm in view of the subsequent decision in M/S TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2022)Hindu Maravar Community Not Included Under OBC Category In Kerala, Cannot Claim Benefits Of Reservation: Kerala High CourtCase title: Rajan P v State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 612The Kerala High Court has held that a person belonging to the Hindu Maravar Community, whose domicile was in Tamil Nadu cannot claim the benefit of OBC reservation after migration to Kerala because Hindu Maravar Community is not recognized as an OBC category in Kerala.The...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 – November 5, 2023

Tellmy Jolly

Tags