Usha T.S., a Senior Clerk of the Chirannellur Service Co-operative Bank, was placed under suspension on 4 December 2021 following a memo of charges for serious dereliction of duty and alleged financial irregularities. The bank issued Ext.P1 on 23 November 2021, Ext.P2 was her reply on 29 November 2021, and Ext.P3 dated 4 December 2021 suspended her pending enquiry. The appellant challenged Ext.P3, arguing that suspension must be effected by the appointing authority under Rule 198(6) of the Co-operative Societies Act and that the Managing Committee’s ratification was lacking; she relied on Judgments in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese and Satheesan M.P. v Kannur District Co-operative Bank as support. The 2nd respondent bank countered that an effective remedy exists under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court, and that minutes of the Managing Committee trace a process beginning with a complaint on 23.10.2021, leading to a show-cause on 23.11.2021, explanation on 19.11.2021, and a suspension from 06.12.2021. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 9 February 2022. In the writ appeal, the High Court held that the appellant must pursue the statutory remedy under Section 69, disposed the appeal, and directed that stay of Ext.P3 will be available if an arbitration petition with stay is filed within two weeks; otherwise the stay lapses. The appeal also set aside the Single Judge’s order and directed proceedings in the Arbitration Court with interim safeguards.
This is a first appeal from an order in a suit for specific performance of Ext.A1 contract dated 08.02.2012 for 14 cents of property, with a total consideration of Rs.70,000 and an advance of Rs.50,000. The agreement was executed for a property in Talipparamba, Kannur. The plaintiff, Komath Satheeshan, alleged due execution of Ext.A1 and examined PW1 along with PW2 and PW3 (daughter and son-in-law of the defendant) to prove consummation of the agreement, while the defendant disputed its due execution. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter for impleading a pendente lite transferee, ostensibly under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the ground that the transferee was not in the party array, thereby raising lis pendens concerns. The appellant contends that no such obligation lies on the plaintiff and that the decree should be determined on merits without forcing impleadment. The Kerala High Court, however, scrutinizes the remand, noting that Section 52 is about lis pendens and that impleadment of pendente lite transferees is not mandatory for the decree’s validity, as the decree would bind parties in litigation and those not in the party array should not be unduly constrained. The court relies on Gopalakrishnan v. Ponnappan and Bhairab Chandra Nandan Dutta to hold that the remand order cannot stand. The appeal is allowed and the remand order set aside, directing the parties to proceed in accordance with law.
This is a divisional-bench appeal arising from a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) No.843/2020) directing CBSE to correct the name and other particulars in the CBSE certificate of Laveena Majeed T.P and to reconcile the date of birth with the birth certificate produced by the family. The appellants (CBSE and its CBSE officers) challenge the direction, contending that corrections under CBSE examination bye-laws are limited to typographical errors and must align with school records; significant changes in name or date of birth require a different regulatory mechanism and are not automatically enabled by court directions. The respondents include Laveena Majeed, her father, Union of India, and Meridian Public School. The High Court’s reasoning relied on regulatory provisions and judicial decisions emphasizing that (i) corrections are permissible primarily for typographical errors and contingent on genuine grounds; (ii) delays or laches can bar relief; (iii) the Births and Deaths Registers carry presumptions of correctness; and (iv) a mandamus can be issued only to protect a pre-existing legal right. The Kerala High Court ultimately directed CBSE to correct mark-sheet entries if a birth certificate is genuine, while allowing CBSE to verify genuineness through local authorities and to recover costs. The division bench, however, dismissed the appeal, leaving a framework for future genuine corrections with safeguards and costs.
OT Rev Nos.69/2021, 70/2021, 72/2021 This is a set of revision petitions filed by Lloyd Insulations India Ltd. against a common order of the Kerala KVAT Appellate Tribunal (T.A.(VAT) Nos. 224, 225, 226 of 2016) concerning the assessment for 2011-12. The dealer contends that the turnover attributable to works contracts was miscalculated and that interstate purchases and stock transfers, largely conducted by awarders of contracts in favor of the dealer, were not properly considered for taxation under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioners argue that the Tribunal erred by accepting as correct certain allegations of suppression without first determining the primary turnover attributable to the dealer and by anchoring findings on limited documents. They also contend that the inter-state purchases were made by awarders and not by the dealer, thus should not be included in the dealer’s KVAT turnover. The respondent Revenue opposes, emphasizing that tax is payable under Section 8(a)(ii) of the Act for interstate purchases and stock transfers, and that the Tribunal’s examination of documents is appropriate. The High Court, in a division bench, remands the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration with guidance on how to properly quantify the dealer’s turnover and assess liability, citing natural justice and relevant precedents (including Hyderabad Engineering Industries).
BA 2109/2021 & 4823/2021 (Meppadi Forest Range, OR Nos. 1/2021 and 41/2021) These are consolidated bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed in the Meppadi Forest Range cases (OR No.1/2021 and OR No.41/2021) relating to alleged rosewood trafficking. The first petitioner (BA 2109/2021) is Roji Augustin; the second application involves Anto Augustin, Josekutty Augustin and Roji Augustin as co‑accused. The Court examines whether anticipatory bail should be granted given police investigations and allegations of offences under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, including sections 27(1)(d), 39, 40, 52, 61A and 69, and under the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975, along with possible offences under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The petitioners claim they acted bonafide as timber traders, had village officer certificates and Form IV white permits for transit, and that Government orders and circulars (11.03.2020; 24.10.2020) relax roadblocks post‑SRO 621/2017, thus negating the necessity of prior sanction in certain circumstances. The opposite view, advanced by the Forest Range Officer and the Director General of Prosecution, contends that 54 logwoods (rosewood) were transported without proper transit permits, and that cutting and removal occurred without requisite approvals, with extensive document discrepancies, suspicious stock, and possible corruption. The Court ultimately dismisses the bail applications, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief, given the gravity of the allegations, misrepresentation, and ongoing investigation, and vacates any interim orders.
WA 811/2020 (and connected WA Nos.) These writ appeals arise from common judgments of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 3846/2019 and connected matters, concerning the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and its amendments allowing higher pension on remittance of contributions on actual salary. The petitions challenge the Constitution of a contributory pension scheme, contending that eligible retirees should be entitled to pension based on actual salary, even if contributions were remitted only up to a maximum pensionable salary. The Division Bench’s reference order noted that Sasikumar P. v. Union of India (ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614) and RC Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018) 14 SCC 809 required reconsideration of the line of cases permitting such higher pensions, while recognizing the contributory nature of the scheme and actuarial concerns. The three-judge Supreme Court–in the Sunil Kumar line of decisions (AIR 2022 SC 5634)–was cited for legal underpinnings, and the Kerala High Court Full Bench ultimately disposed of the appeals in line with those principles, directing EPFO to reconsider entitlement to higher pension in light of the Sunil Kumar ruling and associated directions. The court emphasizes actuarial valuation and central government action, and remands/redirects the EPFO to re-evaluate higher pension entitlements consistent with the 2014 amendment and recent Supreme Court guidance.
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possession of 2.47 kg of ganja found in the kitchen of a tea shop on the night of 18.03.2003. The II Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, convicted the appellants and acquitted a third co-accused, sentencing them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 with a default sentence. The appellants challenged the judgment under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court scrutinised the prosecution’s case, focusing on the detection by PW6 and PW7, seizure and sample preparation (Ext. P1), and the testimonies of PW1–PW2. The defence highlighted several procedural and evidentiary defects: alleged delay in registering the crime, noncompliance with the NDPS Act provisions, non-affixation of sample seals, absence of the forwarding note, and non-examination of the Property Clerk; and weight discrepancies between samples described (50 g each) and the laboratory reports (57.47 g, 37.02 g, 32.57 g). The court relied on multiple Supreme Court principles regarding the credibility of police witnesses, the need for corroboration, and the requirement to relate seized samples to laboratory-tested material. Finding these defects fatal to the prosecution’s chain of evidence, the court held that the conviction was unsustainable, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellants.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) before the Kerala High Court arising from a MACT award in OP (MV) No.1000/2011 dated 20-11-2013, connected to a motor vehicle accident on 19-03-2011 in which the claimant, Varghese P.C., standing on the roadside, was knocked down by a car owned/driven by Shaju K.M. The tribunal found the driver negligent and the insurer liable, awarding ₹3,53,660 under multiple heads with 8% interest. The claimant argued for higher compensation, relying on Ext A13 (income evidence) and Ext C1 (12% permanent disability) while disputing the tribunal’s reduction of income (notionally from ₹6,000 to ₹4,000) and the disability percentage. The tribunal had computed losses, medical expenses, attendant expenses, and disability-based damages with a partial reduction of disability to 6%. The High Court re-fixes monthly income at ₹6,000 (notionally) and holds that the 12% disability should be taken as certified, leading to recalculated compensation across heads: loss of earnings, attendant expenses, extra nourishment, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. The court ultimately awards an additional ₹60,120 and directs the insurer to deposit the amount within two months, with interest at 8% per annum till realisation. No costs are awarded.
Mat.Appeal.No.256 OF 2018 This Kerala High Court Matrimonial Appeal arises from an original petition filed by Manu Philip under sections 10(1)(x), 18 and 19 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for declaring his marriage with Anu Mary Yohannan null and void or, alternatively, for a decree of divorce. The parties married on 11 May 2015 at St. Mary’s Forane Church, Chunkam, Thodupuzha; the couple is issueless. The appellant allegedly exhibited indifference, immaturity, and volatile behavior from the start, including public humiliation, frequent argumentative outbursts, and neglect of her in-laws, as well as leaving the matrimonial home and sending numerous communications. The respondent and his ailing family alleged cruelty and harassment by the appellant, while the appellant countered with allegations of harassment by the respondent and his family, including pressure to keep ornaments at home and violent responses to calls from her mother. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, declared the marriage null and void, and granted a decree of nullity; the appellant challenged this order. The High Court, after reappreciating the pleadings and evidence, held that the Family Court erred in concluding that the non-disclosure of mental illness of her father/brother amounted to fraud vitiating consent, and that the evidence on cruelty was not cogent. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court decree, and remitted OP 223/2016 for fresh consideration, directing both sides to lead additional evidence and be heard.
The judgment concerns Unit Run Canteens (URCs) run by the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) under the Army, where petitioners are ex-servicemen or dependants working as contractual staff at URCs. They challenge amendments and SOPs, arguing that URCs are State instruments and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court examines whether URCs fall within the ambit of Article 12 (the State) or merely as “other authorities.” Relying on the classic Ajay Hasia tests (creation, finance, control) and subsequent constitutional jurisprudence, including Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Sukhdev Singh, Rudani, Andi Mukta, Zee Telefilms, Layak Ram, Chotelal and others, the court concludes URCs are not State or “other authority” within Article 12. The URCs are created not by statute but by Army orders AO/19/2003/QMG; their finances come from regimental non-public funds or loans from CSD, not Consolidated Fund; control is limited and staff are engaged under SOPs agreed with the unit, not government employees. Therefore, writ petitions are dismissed for lack of maintainability, though petitioners are left with options under the Industrial Disputes Act.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 2300 of 2007) arising from the conviction of two accused under the Abkari Act (Sections 55(a) and 8(1) & (2)) for illicit arrack. The trial court, in SC No.243/2006, convicted the appellants and sentenced them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 1,00,000 fine each, with default imprisonment. The prosecution’s case rested on seizure near the house of the second accused on 09.09.2003, with PW1–PW4 and Exhibits P1–P10 and MO1–MO3. The Amicus Curiae argued five principal points: (i) there was a two‑day unexplained delay in producing the contraband; (ii) PW3 was an Assistant Sub‑Inspector and not an authorised officer under the Abkari Act; (iii) the final report was filed long after the seizure without explanation (09.09.2003 seizure and 29.01.2005 final report); (iv) independent witnesses turned hostile and their signatures on the seizure mahazar were disputed; (v) these factors render the trial vitiated. The Public Prosecutor contended the evidence sufficed and that the delay was not fatal. The High Court noted the delay and referred to several precedents (Sukumaran; Ravi; Vikraman; Ramankutty; Kumaran; Cheruvayi Mukundan; Krishnan H.; Parathi Sasidharan; Mari Dhorai) to state that unexplained delay can be fatal. Ultimately the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence and releasing the appellants, with bail bonds cancelled.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Ext.P11, an order of the District Labour Officer denying registration to petitioners 1–3 as headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules for a grocery establishment, Perinthalmanna Traders, run by petitioner 4. Petitioners 1–3 contended that they and other attached workers have performed loading/unloading work from the inception of the shop and sought registration, which would ensure their welfare benefits and avoid deprivation of work opportunities for pool workers. The earlier order (Ext.P2) rejecting registration on the ground that the establishment had not started functioning was studied in light of Brijesh John and Ors. v. Asst. Labour Officer (2022) (1) KLT 473), which recognized the propriety of registering attached workers. Following directions, petitioners filed fresh applications (Exts.P6–P8) under Rule 27A; Ext.P9 and Ext.P11 again refused registration, alleging adverse impact on pool workers. The court found the reasons in Ext.P11 flawed and held that Rule 26A contemplates registration regardless of immediate operation. It quashed Ext.P11 and directed the DLO to reconsider the matter in light of Vishal MP and Brijesh John as clarified by Nishad M.B., considering wage and muster-roll records (Exts.P12–P16). The DLO must decide within a month. The petition is disposed of accordingly, clarifying that registration for attached workers is permissible and does not automatically deprive pool workers of livelihood.
Crl.M.C.No.6064 of 2017 (G) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks to quash criminal proceedings arising from ST 352/2017 before the Grama Nyayalaya, Parassala, linked to Crime No.1050/2016 of Poovar Police Station. The petitioners – two members of a political party allied to the local Gram Panchayat – are accused of offences including criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC), mischief (Section 427 IPC), and insulting language (Section 294(b) r/w Section 34 IPC) arising from an early-morning intrusion into the complainant’s house and damage to property (window, CFL light, motorbike indicator). The case traces to a defacto complaint alleging political vengeance after a prior electoral grievance; the police investigation produced a refer report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. claiming the complaint was false, after which the court issued notice and the defacto complainant filed a protest complaint, with examinations of witnesses and summons issued to the petitioners. The petition contends that Magistrate’s examination of witnesses on a protest is unsustainable and constitutes abuse of process, arguing that the refer report should have led to dropping the proceedings. The Kerala High Court evaluates Bhagwant Singh and Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran to determine the proper handling of refer reports, protest complaints, and cognizance. It ultimately quashes the summons order and remands for fresh consideration, stressing that the Magistrate must apply mind, hear the informant, and decide based on all materials in light of established precedents.
W.P.(C) No.6575 of 2021 (V) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P6, a 1st respondent order dated 03.12.2020, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in a mutation dispute arising from a complaint by Daisy Chacko and Chacko Devassia. Ext.P7 is a revision petition under Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The petitioners contend that the revision petition should be disposed of expeditiously by the District Collector. On admission, the court noticed that the affected parties who obtained Ext.P6 were not impleaded in the writ petition, prompting an interlocutory application to implead them as additional respondents (3–8). The court relied on Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules, which requires all directly affected persons to be joined, with notice to them as directed by the court. The petition also cites Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh to emphasize that pleadings must be complete, and facts and evidence must be pleaded to substantiate points, so that relief is not granted on grounds outside pleadings. Based on these authorities, the petitioners were directed to amend the statement of facts. Ultimately, the petition was withdrawn by the petitioners, without prejudice to their right to file a fresh petition with appropriate pleadings and parties. The court disposed of the matter accordingly.
Rajeswari, the third defendant in O.S. No.513/2021, challenges Ext.P8, the order of the Principal Munsiff Nedumangad dismissing her petition under Order XVIII Rule 16 CPC to receive evidence in proof of two wills said to have been executed by the deceased Bhaskarapillai. The partition suit involves a Will-based defense; two wills purportedly favor the petitioner and her son. One attesting witness has died; the surviving witness is aged about 78 and reportedly ailing, triggering the petition to take the witness's evidence before the issues are framed. The Munsiff relied on a Supreme Court decision in Laxmibai v Bhagwantbuva, and concluded that no evidence had been adduced as to the health of the witness. The petitioner contends that the decision has a different factual premise and context and should not bar lenient application of Order XVIII Rule 16 where proof of a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires examination of at least one attesting witness. The court, after hearing, finds merit in the applicant's submissions: a strict application of the cited authority would frustrate the remedy to prove the Will, given the age and health of the surviving witness. Ext.P8 is set aside; Ext.P3 is allowed; the Munsiff is directed to record the evidence at once and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The petition is disposed in these terms. The court notes that the ideal course is to examine at least one witness, consistent with statutory mandates, to secure substantive justice.
This writ petition concerns the counting of kanikka (offerings) in the Bhandaram of Sabarimala Devaswom and the alleged privacy and security lapses during festival counting. The petitioner, a Devaswom employee posted as a Watcher on special duty during Mandala-Makaravilakku season (ME 1193), sought mandamus to implement the Kerala State Human Rights Commission’s order directing scientific methods for body examination of employees involved in counting and to ensure integrity of the counting process. Ext.P3 of the State Human Rights Commission records human rights concerns; Ext.P2 is the Board’s report. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) defends its security regime, noting that, during peak times, hundreds of employees and officers are deployed for counting and that there have been theft incidents; it cites practical difficulties with alternatives like body scanning and emphasizes security and dignity. The Court canvasses the Board’s statutory duties under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, highlighting the Board’s fiduciary role over temple properties and rites. It references precedents on trustee duties and parens patriae and notes infrastructural issues in the Bhandaram. Ultimately, the Court disposes of the petition by directing a technical committee under the High Power Committee for Sabarimala Master Plan to study construction and counting methods and to submit reports, paving the way for installing currency/coin counting machines before the next Mandala-Makaravilakku season."
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for injunction and title over the plaint schedule property in Kattappana, challenging a Munsiff's dismissal of O.S. No. 440/2015 on the ground of res judicata due to a compromise in an earlier suit between the same parties, O.S. No. 172/2014. Benny, the plaintiff in O.S. 440/2015, contends that the compromise decree in O.S. 172/2014—under terms that included payment of Rs. 3 lakh and an undertaking to vacate the plaint schedule building by 19/06/2014—affects his rights, and that a challenge to the compromise decree is permissible and should not bar relief in the later suit. The respondent Chandrakantan, who was the plaintiff in the earlier suit and is the defendant in the present one, sought to uphold the compromise and the resulting decree. The trial court held the suit barred by res judicata; the Sub Court dismissed the appeal on grounds that challenges to a compromise decree are not permitted under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, and that the appellant is estopped from disputing the compromise. The High Court, citing Nazir Mohamed, Kondiba Dagadu Kadam, Government of Kerala v. Joseph, and Santosh Hazari, held that the form and scope of second appeals require formulation of a substantial question of law, found no such question arising, and dismissed the appeal as meritless, with interlocutory orders vacated and directions issued to expedite possession and delivery of the property.
RP 45/2023 in RCR 147/2021 This Kerala High Court review petition concerns a landlord’s challenge to eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord (REVISION PETITIONER) sought relief by challenging an eviction order that the Rent Controller had issued on grounds connected to bona fide need, which the appellate authority partly allowed or reversed on identity but held that eviction was not bona fide. In revision, the High Court found the appellate court’s finding on bona fide need to be perverse and illegal. However, it also protected the tenant on the ground that her livelihood depended on the leased building and that there were no suitable alternatives in the locality to shift the business; the Court upheld the tenant’s protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) and, on that basis, dismissed the revision. The court then addressed maintainability of the review petition, noting the long-standing debate on whether a revisional court may review its own order under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act. It concluded that the revisional power is limited to legality, regularity or propriety, and cannot re-appreciate findings of fact except where such findings are perverse. Ultimately, the court held that it could not exercise review power to re-evaluate evidence and affirmed the lower findings, dismissing the review petition.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 1802 of 2018) arises from a protest complaint filed by the 2nd respondent challenging the cognizance taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, on a protest complaint in CC No. 41/2017. The petitioners contend that cognizance was improvidently taken without considering the refer (final) report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which should inform the Magistrate’s decision. The High Court, after hearing submissions, relies on Parameshwaran Nair v. Surendran (2009 (1) KLT 794) and Kader v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 55) to underscore that a protest complaint can be treated as a second complaint only under specific conditions, and that the final police report must be examined by the Magistrate. The decision emphasizes that the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to determine the prima facie truth of the allegations for issuing process, while ensuring the absent accused is protected. In light of these principles, the court holds that the order taking cognizance (Annexure-R2(a)) must be set aside and directs the Magistrate to reconsider the matter in light of Annexure-III and the cited precedents. The case concludes with quashing the cognizance and a remand for reevaluation.
CRL.A. Nos.174 and 224 of 2007 Two criminal appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 174 and 224 of 2007) arise from the conviction of accused Pudussseri Saidalavi (Accused No.1) and Karimabana Kabeer (Accused No.2) under Section 489C read with Section 34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Manjeri, in Sessions Case No.569 of 2003. The incident occurred on 27 January 2001 on a public road near Kallumpuram Kondotty Road, where the appellants were found in possession of counterfeit currency: 14 notes by the 1st accused and 40 notes by the 2nd accused, both Rs.100 denomination, allegedly obtained through accused 3 who sourced them from accused 4 (absconding). The 3rd accused was acquitted; the 4th accused remained at large. PW1 and PW2, police officers, testified to arrest and seizure via mahazar Ext.P2; two independent witnesses supported the arrest, but later turned hostile. The prosecution relied on police testimony to sustain conviction, while the defense challenged the credibility of such evidence, citing inconsistencies like missing signatures on arrest memos, uncertain lighting, and delayed production of notes. The High Court relied on established principles that police testimony can form the basis of conviction if credible, and, distinguishing Mammutti, held that the circumstances indicated possession with knowledge to use the notes as genuine. The conviction was upheld but the sentence modified to one year imprisonment and a Rs.20,000 fine for each accused; in default, two more months’ imprisonment.
