This is a Kerala High Court challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to an order of the Additional District Court-V, Ernakulam, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The essential dispute concerns which court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award. The Arbitrator, appointed to resolve a lease/licence dispute at Wadakkancherry Railway Station, determined the place of arbitration as Ernakulam, and the award was rendered there on 18 June 2018. The respondent-licensee challenged the award in the District Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner contends that territorial jurisdiction should be determined by the seat/place of arbitration and the court having supervisory control over the arbitral proceedings, with reference to Sections 2(1)(e) and 20 of the Arbitration Act, as well as the broader CPC framework. The High Court surveys key precedents, including Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., which describes the seat/venue concept and supervisory control; Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited, and Sasidharan K. and Another v. Manager, Sundaram Finance Ltd., reinforcing seat-based jurisdiction. It also cites Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd. and D Net Malayalam Digitals Pvt. Ltd. v. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. to contextualize competing views. Holding that the arbtial seat is Ernakulam, the District Court has jurisdiction; the petition is dismissed with a three-month disposal directive, and appreciation is extended to Amicus Curiae G. Sreekumar.
The petitioner, the fifth accused in Crime No.5/2021 of Kattakkada Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a NDPS case now pending as S.C.677/2022 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The case involves 187 kilograms of ganja seized from the residence of the first accused; the contraband is alleged to have been procured in Andhra Pradesh and transported to Kerala by parcel service, with accused 3–6 unloading and accused 1,5,8 arranging transport. The petitioner was arrested on 08-02-2021 and has remained in judicial custody for more than two years. A previous bail petition (5718/2023) was dismissed, while some co-accused were granted bail in other applications. The prosecution argues the large quantity and the petitioner’s role in procuring and transporting, and notes the trial is not yet concluded, implicating NDPS Section 37. The defense claims innocence and false implication, and emphasizes lack of criminal antecedents and parity with others granted bail. The court, citing Fasil v. State of Kerala (2023 (3) KHC 212) to stress that prolonged incarceration can dilute NDPS Section 37, and considering the lengthy detention, grants bail with standard conditions including bond and sureties, reporting, no witness contact, no travel abroad, and surrender of passport, subject to Court supervision for compliance.
WP(C) Nos. 33480 of 2018 & 16097 of 2021 This consolidated writ petition concerns contract works executed for the Kerala State Housing Board (KSHB)—first for 198 flats at Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram (Ext.P1, 1994) and later for a Revenue Tower at Nedumanagad (Ext.P2, 1995). The petitioners (CK Thomas & Co., represented by Manuel Thomas) claim entitlement to the final payment for works under Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, and contend that any amounts due should be adjusted against sales tax arrears under the Amnesty Scheme. A key issue is the execution of an irrevocable Power of Attorney (Ext.R9(a)) in favour of the 9th respondent (N. Sujan), who allegedly continued and completed the balance work at his own expense and submitted final bills. The 9th respondent and the KSHB contend that the Power of Attorney is valid and irrevocable, enabling him to receive all amounts due from the Board from the date of execution, with the 4th respondent (and others) maintaining tax liabilities remain payable by the petitioners. The court examines Ext.P1 (irrevocable POA) and relevant judgments and ultimately holds that the irrevocable POA is valid and that the 9th respondent’s right to receive amounts from the Board is established; however, the petitioner in 33480/2018 is not granted relief. Disbursement to the 9th respondent under 16097/2021 is ordered subject to a No Objection Certificate from the Sales Tax Department, to be paid within two months of the judgment."
BAIL APPL. NO. 171 OF 2024; Crime No. 1063/2023 Nilamani Sahu and Sunilkanta Sahoo, petitioners in Bail Application No. 171 of 2024, are accused in Crime No. 1063 of 2023 of Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, 1985. They sought bail under Sec. 439 CrPC after their arrest on 09.12.2023 for possession of 16.2 kilograms of ganja near Eranjikkal Paarakkadavath within the Elathur limits. The prosecution asserts a serious narcotics offence and highlights the petitioners’ Odisha origin, suggesting a flight risk. The petitioners claim innocence, no prior criminal record, and contend that detention since arrest is excessive since the investigation is nearly complete and the recovery has been effected; they also submit that they would be entitled to default bail by 08.02.2024. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing the danger of absconding and possible reoffending. After analysis, the court notes the 56-day detention, nearly complete investigation, absence of antecedents, and the intermediate quantity of contraband; detention is deemed unnecessary. The court grants bail with stringent conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties; appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday for two months or until final report; no inducement, threat or tampering with evidence; no commission of offences while on bail; surrender of passport; restriction on leaving the Kozhikode jurisdiction without court permission; address/mobile number disclosure; and power to cancel or modify bail on violation, following guidance from Sushila Aggarwal. The order balances public interest with individual liberty in a narcotics case.
Omana and Kumari, wives of late Raghavan, appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No. 305/2004, which granted Rs. 23,000 as compensation for injuries suffered by Raghavan in a road accident on 07.03.2003, culminating in his death on 05.06.2003. The appellants contend that the death was a direct consequence of the accident, and that the Tribunal erred in denying compensation for death and in under-compensating other heads. They rely on Ext. A5, a Chief Medical Officer certificate, and the testimony of PW2 to prove continuing medical problems and the causal connection to death. Respondent 3, National Insurance Co., and the other respondents deny a direct causal link, arguing the absence of post‑mortem and that only the Tribunal’s awards for injuries, loss of earning, and treatment expenses are sustainable. The High Court notes the evidence indicates grievous injuries and inpatient treatment; however, it finds no post-mortem and no established causal link between the accident on 07.03.2003 and death three months later, so death compensation cannot be granted. Yet the court re-evaluates the notional income and enhances compensation under several heads: treatment, damage to cloth, loss of amenities, suffering, and transport, awarding a total of Rs. 94,000. The award is otherwise confirmed, with 7% interest from the third respondent and a direction to recover amounts from respondents 1 and 2.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Muhammed Agnan R.N. alias Tarzen, accused in Crime No.372/2023 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam, for murder (Section 302 IPC) of Santhosh at Ambedkar Stadium near the KSRTC bus stand, on 3 February 2023. The petitioner has been in custody since 19 February 2023, approximately 76 days at the time of hearing. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the gravity of the offence and that the investigation is at a preliminary stage; the petitioner reportedly has involvement in two other cases (Crime Nos. 173/18 under Section 151 Cr.P.C. at Chalakudy PS and 49/2020 under Section 379 IPC at Kuthiyathode PS). The petitioner’s counsel contended that mere involvement in other cases cannot, by itself, justify denial of bail and that the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions, including surrendering to investigation, not leaving the country, and not reoffending. The court, while acknowledging seriousness, reaffirmed the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. & Others (2012) and Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870). It ultimately allowed the bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance as required, restrictions on leaving India without court permission, non-entry into the Ernakulam Central Police Station for two months, and providing residential/address details to the IO, with liability to cancel on breach. The order emphasizes balancing fair trial with effective investigation.
This batch of writ petitions challenges the demand of interest on turnover tax (ToT) for parcel sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) during the COVID-19 lockdown periods (2020-21 and 2021-22). The petitioners are Bar-attached hotels/licensees who were permitted, during specific pandemic windows, to effect parcel (takeaway) sales of IMFL under government orders, but there was no fixed rate of ToT for parcel sales in that limited period. The State Government later issued SRO 297/2022 fixing the ToT on parcel sales at 5% for the relevant period, while earlier, Ext. P1 (Go MS 41/2020) had permitted parcel sales without specifying a ToT rate. The Assessing Authority computed ToT liability and demanded interest, while petitioners argued there was no rate fixed before 26.03.2022, portal functionality prevented 10% levies, and the amnesty/cabinet decisions extended deadlines but were not statutory. The Kerala High Court held the essential components of any tax levy must be clear and that the period-specific rate of 5% fixed by Ext. P2 applies to the parcel sales. It declared that if returns were filed by 31.03.2022 and ToT paid by 30.04.2022, interest was not payable; otherwise, interest from 01.05.2022 is due. The petitions were allowed, impugned orders quashed, and the matters remitted to the Assessing Authority for fresh orders consistent with these directions. The decision emphasizes purposive interpretation and equity in exceptional COVID-era circumstances.
BA Nos. 7913, 7981, 8006, 8059, 8203, 8239, 8606, 8754 & 8763 of 2022 These bail applications before the Kerala High Court involve Sri Lankan refugees/foreign nationals accused in crimes registered at Pallithottam Police Station and East Kollam Police Station, Kollam district. The petitions, numbered BA Nos. 7913, 7981, 8006, 8059, 8203, 8239, 8606, 8754 and 8763 of 2022, arise from offences punishable under IPC sections 511 and 370 read with 34, along with provisions under the Foreigners Act (Sections 14A, 14C and 14A(b)), the Emigration Act (Section 10) and the Passport Act (Section 12(1)(a)). The Court had previously passed interim bail orders directing the petitioners to stay either in a transit home under GO MS 10/2022/SJD or in Open Prison/Correctional Home, pending decision on detention arrangements, refugee status and possible repatriation. The court noted the petitioners are Sri Lankan nationals/refugees and that decisions on detention facilities and travel arrangements required timely government input, especially in view of the health needs of children and ongoing investigations. On 22 November 2022, after hearing both sides, the Court disposed of the connected bail applications with directions: grant of interim bail on conditions; transfer to a transit home at Mayyanad, Kollam; in some cases allowance to stay at Gandhi Bhavan International Trust Home, Pathanapuram; ensure medical facilities and education for children; coordinate with FRRO and KeLSA; final reports to be filed promptly; case to be posted for further directions. These are interim arrangements until policy or detention centers are established.
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of Surjith K. Soman, who stood convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, in C.C. No.120 of 2016. The prosecution alleged that as Health Inspector Grade-II at the Kasaragod Municipal Office, the accused demanded and accepted bribes to effect corrections in the Birth Certificate of the complainant’s daughter. PW1, the de facto complainant, stated that he approached the accused for correction of initials and that the accused demanded money, with Ext.P3 (FIR) and the trap leading to the recovery of Rs.800 from PW1. The trap was laid by VACB Kasaragod, and PW2, PW3, and PW8 testified to the seizure and the events. The defense argued there was no legal evidence of a demand or acceptance, PW1 was not wholly reliable, and the delay in processing Ext.P2 could not prove bribery; the absence of a positive independent witness weakened the case. The trial court relied on Ext.P3 and trap evidence, while the High Court assessed the foundational facts required to prove demand. Citing Neeraj Dutta and related jurisprudence, the court discusses the necessity of proving demand and the use of circumstantial evidence when a complainant is hostile. Ultimately, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the demand beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty, and the CRL.A is disposed of accordingly.
Bijusundar, a 53-year-old person with locomotor disability rated at 40% and a member of the Scheduled Caste, approaches the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of Ext.P1 (the 2023 notification inviting direct recruitment from the Bar to the post of District and Sessions Judge in Kerala State Higher Judicial Service) on grounds that PwD reservations were not properly identified, age relaxation under Section 34(3) of Act 49 of 2016 was not incorporated, and PwD benefits such as grace marks and interlocking reservations were ignored. He relies on Acts governing disability rights (RPwD Act 2016 and the 1995 Act) and Government orders that offer ten years of age relaxation and 10% grace marks for PwDs. He also cites earlier petitions (2019, 2021) challenging the government’s handling of reservations. The respondents counter that no vacancy split for PwDs was specified in Ext.P1, but backlogs would be identified as per Section 34(2) of Act 49/2016; PwD reservation is fixed at 4% per administrative decisions, with careful certification by a Medical Board. The judge canvasses statutory provisions, constitutional guarantees of equality and social justice, and judgments from the Supreme Court on PwD rights, including reasonable accommodation. Ultimately, the court dismisses the challenge to Ext.P1 as infructuous, but directs action to identify backlog vacancies, set age-relaxation criteria, grant grace marks to PwDs, and conduct a recruitment drive in three months, ensuring PwD reservations (3% since 1996 and 4% since 2017) with interlocking considerations where applicable.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears CRL.RP No.4024 of 2009 as a criminal revision by P. Sundar, the first accused in S.C. No.564 of 2005 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kattappana, challenging a conviction for offences under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) read with 55(h) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The evidence shows the Sub Inspector of Police intercepted the accused on 29.10.2001 while allegedly selling arrack on a footpath near a grocery shop; the police recovered a bottle of liquid and a tumbler, with MO1–MO5 and Exts. P1–P10 marking the material. The trial court convicted the accused, while the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. The revision petition contends serious procedural defects: absence of arrest memo and forwarding note, and lack of evidence regarding forwarding of the sample for chemical analysis. The petitioner highlights that Ext. P1 (property list) and contraband were produced only on 01.11.2001, with unexplained delay, and questions the linkage between seizure and laboratory analysis. The court recalls stringent Abkari Act formalities and cites Baburaj v. State of Kerala and D.K. Basu to stress mandatory arrest memo; Sathi v. State of Kerala on the Evidence Act presumption, and Sasidharan, Vijayan, Ravi, Ramachandran, Vikraman and other authorities on chain-of-custody and delays. The court ultimately allows the revision, acquitting the petitioner, canceling bail, and ordering refunds of any deposited amount. The decision is delivered by Justice Viju Abraham on 16.10.2023.
Cont.Case (C) No.1361 of 2019 This is a contempt petition filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by petitioners numbering 1–8, 10, 12–24, 27, 33–36, 40–42, 47, 51, 55–57, 61–64, 68, 72, 73, 75, 78, 81–85 in WP(C) No. 29475 of 2016, alleging willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure A1 dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No. 29475/2016 and connected matters. The matter traces back to a Supreme Court proceeding arising from SLPs by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) against the 2018 Kerala High Court judgment; the Apex Court delivered a detailed judgment on 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143–8144 of 2022 and connected matters, holding the G.S.R. 609(E) notification (2014) legal and valid and directing read-down of the pension scheme. Paragraph 44 of that judgment set out several directions including extension of options under the pension scheme, computation of pension, and related aspects. In view of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO. The learned counsel for petitioners and respondents debated these directions, and the High Court ultimately closed the contempt case, while reserving EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ higher pension entitlement under the 2022 Apex Court ruling. The bench comprises two judges, Anil K. Narendran and Sophy Thomas. The matter is disposed of with no admission of contempt but with directions for reconsideration under law.
WP(C) Nos. 36325/2022; 35649/2022; 37503/2022 The three connected writ petitions, heard together in the High Court of Kerala, question whether Abkari workers employed by the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, when they already receive gratuity and provident fund benefits through the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund (KAWWF) Act, 1989 and the associated Scheme of 1990. The leading case, WP(C) 36325 of 2022, concerns retired Abkari workers whose service rules (Chapter V) provide gratuity and provident fund, while the KAWWF Act provides for gratuity, pension and family pension from a common fund contributed by employers and employees. The government did not exempt the corporation from the Gratuity Act, and Section 7(2) of the Act imposes a duty on the employer to pay gratuity on superannuation. A key contention is whether Abkari workers, as a separate class under KAWWF, can claim gratuity under the Gratuity Act in addition to the KAWWF payment, or whether such gratuity would amount to double payment. The court distinguishes Abkari workers from regular employees, relying on KAWWF provisions, a 2002 settlement, and a Division Bench ruling on retirement age. It ultimately holds that gratuity payable to Abkari workers is governed by KAWWF Act and Scheme, and not under the Gratuity Act, dismissing the petitions for gratuity under the Gratuity Act as they would result in unlawful enrichment.
WP(C) No. 443 of 2023; WP(C) No. 1096 of 2023; WP(C) No. 638 of 2023; WP(C) No. 375 of 2023; WP(C) No. 555 of 2023; WP(C) No. 22488 of 2023 These writ petitions, heard together, challenge the non-equal pay treatment of daily wage abkari workers employed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (Bevco) vis-a-vis other abkari workers in the same category who are drawing the higher scales. The petitioners joined service under government rehabilitation schemes for perished abkari workers and have been enrolled in the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. They argue that although three categories of abkari workers — regular employees along with dependants of deceased workers and those absorbed under different appointment methods — have been provided with a uniform pay scale, the petitioners, who perform identical duties, have been denied parity, receiving only Rs 675 per day. Ext. P4 (2011) and related orders allegedly grant parity to those absorbed under the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd methods; however the petitioners claim they are discriminated. The government countered that daily wage appointments represent a one-time measure and deny broader pay parity on account of temporary status. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the apex court's articulation in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, which held that equal pay for equal work applies when duties and responsibilities are substantially similar. The court, after examining facts and the relevant government orders, held that there can be no distinction in pay among members of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board, as they form a homogeneous group and perform similar work. The petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners receive pay at par with other categories from the date of enrolment.
This writ petition concerns a cooperative society of life insurance agents (Life Insurance Agents Co-operative Society Ltd. No.R.1021) and allegations of misappropriation by a former manager, Geethakumary, involving about Rs. 3.69 crore. Based on a police complaint, FIR No. 1846 of 2015 was registered. Meanwhile, two members (Nelson and Jumi Nelson) filed complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, alleging deficiency in service for deposits of Rs. 2.5 lakh made on 21.01.2015 and non-payment of the balance. The Forum, on 30.04.2018, allowed their complaints in CC Nos. 690/2016 and 685/2016 (Exts.P4 and P5). The petitioners challenge Exts.P4 and P5 on the ground that a cooperative society falls within the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not apply to them; they argue Article 226 jurisdiction to intervene. The respondents counter that the depositors are consumers under CP Act and that the remedy under CP Act supplements the cooperative legislation. The High Court analyzes whether Kerala’s cooperative framework ousts CP Act jurisdiction, ultimately holding that CP Act jurisdiction is not ousted, and that the remedy under CP Act remains available alongside cooperative mechanisms. The court ultimately dismisses the writ but grants rights to statutory appeals and stays, with condonation of delay considerations.
This regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenges the partition decree in OS 107/2011 (Sub Court, Alappuzha) and the subsequent final decree in AS No. 9/2014 (District Court, Alappuzha). The suit, filed by Mohanan V. and others, claimed that Vasudevan’s landed properties (sy. Nos. 596/4C, 596/4D, 596/5C) could be partitioned among the plaintiff and defendants 1–3, while defendants 4–6 had already been allotted shares under earlier settlement deeds. The Trial Court partitioned plaint A–D schedule properties into four equal shares for the plaintiff and defendants 1–3, excluding 4–6. The District Court’s appellate verdict affirmed the four-shares arrangement but modified the partition after the deaths of defendants 1 and 3, directing the plaint A–D schedule properties to be divided into 120 equal shares, with the plaintiff and defendant 2 each getting 42 shares and defendants 4–6 receiving 12 shares each; the suit remains alive for final decree. The 5th defendant appeals, challenging Exts. A4–A6 and Ext. A5’s recital that the property was given “by adjusting the due share” of Vasudevan, contending estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act and reliance on Damodaran Kavirajan, Sarojini Amma, Nabeeza C.H., Pathuma Kunju, and Elumalai v. Kamala. The High Court distinguishes Elumalai but holds that estoppel applies only to rights transferred by Ext. A5, denying unlimited rights to defendants 4–6. Consequently, the appeal is meritless and dismissed; all interlocutory orders vacated.
OP(KAT) Nos. 6, 12 & 308 of 2023 These three O.P.(KAT) matters were filed by senior faculty challenging the Directorate of Collegiate Education/A Govt College recruitment processes for the post of Principal under the UGC Regulations. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) examined petitions by four applicants (Dr. Pragash R.; Dr. Sheela K.L.; Dr. S.H.S. Dharamaja; Dr. Vinoy George) contesting notifications inviting applications for Principal posts under UGC Regulation 2018 and the selection committee process. The Tribunal dismissed all petitions, holding that UGC Regulations 2018 do not contemplate appointment to the Principal post by promotion, and that vacancies arising prior to amendment cannot be retroactively directed to be filled under the 2010 Regulations. It noted that the employer is free to apply rules applicable to vacancies existing before or after amendment, but the applicable law is the law prevailing at the time of selection. It rejected the petitioners’ contention that Clause 6.3 of UGC Regulation 2018 permits consideration under the older Regulations, emphasized that UGC 2018 focuses on standards of education and not the individual entitlements, and held that none of the petitioners possessed qualifications under UGC 2018. The High Court ultimately upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal and dismissed the original petitions. The bench comprised Hon’ble Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Hon’ble Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen.
BAIL APPL. NO. 555 OF 2024 This is a second bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC by the first accused, BINOY @ ANIKUTTAN, in Crime No.802/2023 of Marayamuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleges that on 29.9.2023, in furtherance of common intention, the accused restrained the informant, kicked him from his bike, and inflicted grievous injuries with a knife, causing the loss of the informant’s middle finger and multiple other injuries, with hospitalization from 29.9.2023 to 6.10.2023. The offences cited are Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 r/w Section 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 1.11.2023 and has now been in judicial custody for about 112 days. The respondent contends the crime is heinous; the petitioner is a history-sheeter with nine other cases; there is a threat to life due to the injured being an accused in another case; the informant’s injuries are supported by medical documents. The petitioner’s counsel submits false implication, with a counter-case (S.C.No.1521/2018) against the informant; it is argued that detention is unnecessary given completed investigation and final report. The court places emphasis on presumption of innocence, bail as a rule, and that detention should be exceptional, citing Supreme Court precedents. After balancing the facts, the court allows bail with stringent conditions, noting the threat but permitting release to ensure justice.
This is a writ petition filed by the Managing Director of the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited (KTDC) and the Manager of Hotel Malabar Mansion challenging an Appellate Authority order under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. The Appellate Authority directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 15,000 with simple interest to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement, holding KTDC to be an establishment under the Act and that the workman had worked for more than six months, with denial of employment. The petitioners contended that KTDC is a government-owned company and should be exempt under Section 3(1) of the Act, arguing pervasive state control and MOA/AOA showing state participation; they also challenged the reliance on a pre-existing decision (Director, Tourism Department v. Industrial Tribunal) equating such entities to industry rather than sovereign bodies. The respondent-workman opposed the petition arguing entitlement to reinstatement or back wages under the Act. The court reviewed the history, noting remand and renumbering of cases, and addressed whether KTDC falls within the Act’s purview. It found KTDC to be a commercial establishment under the 1960 Act and refused to interfere with the Appellate Authority’s findings, including the amount awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, keeping the Appellate Authority’s order intact.
The petitioner, Praveen Kumar S, was the successful bidder in an auction conducted by Axis Bank Ltd under SARFAESI proceedings regarding a mortgaged property of 1.27 acres in Sy. No.3596/4-2-1, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram. The mortgage, created on 24 May 2016 for Rs 38,64,000, was secured by a deposit of title deeds evidenced by Ext. P1. After default, the bank initiated SARFAESI action and Ext. P3 confirms the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. While seeking change of ownership, Ext. P4 encumbrance certificate reveals an attachment by the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 09 August 2019, which is subsequent to the mortgage. The petitioner contends that such post-mortgage attachment cannot affect the bank’s right to sell under SARFAESI and requests the Sub Registrar to efface the attachment from the encumbrance register. The petitioner relies on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar (and subsequent Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar, and Ali Asharaf M.M. v. Sub Registrar) establishing that attachments after mortgage do not prejudice the sale and that a sale under Ext. P5 is free of encumbrances. The court agrees, declaring the attachment liable to be effaced and disposing of the writ petition, with directions to erase encumbrances within two months and update records accordingly.
