This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 574 of 2023) arises from a partition suit filed in 2000 seeking division of plaint schedule properties. The appellant, Gokuldas, challenged the final decree dated 28.11.2008 passed in I.A.8524/2003 in O.S.2100/2000, and the subsequent appellate decree in A.S. No.30/2016 dated 14.02.2023 of the Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur. The suit sought partition and separate shares; Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) plan guided the final decree; the appellant challenged the distribution of shares and the valuation of properties. The Munsiff's court had allowed plot C to the 1st respondent; the appellate court affirmed. The appellant moved I.A.10698/2007 to set aside Ext.C1 report and plan, which was dismissed on merits after examining the Commissioner and Surveyor; no challenge was raised. The appellant's counsel argued for admission of the second appeal with liberty to refer the matter for mediation, contending that there is a reservation in the final decree. The court, however, analyzed Section 100 CPC and Order XLII Rule 2, emphasising that a second appeal must be entertained only if a substantial question of law is formulated and exists. Citing Nazir Mohamed, Kondiba Kadam, Santosh Hazari, Biswanath Ghosh, and Government of Kerala v. Joseph, it held that no substantial question of law is raised and cannot be diverted to mediation. Consequently, the regular second appeal was dismissed without admission.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition filed under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Prana Educational and Charitable Trust and its managing trustee Sheeba Kochoth, challenging concurrent convictions and sentences for offences under Section 138 NI Act. The matter originated from a cheque allegedly issued by the Trust’s managing trustee to discharge liabilities incurred by the Trust, which bounced for insufficient funds, leading to prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the 1st accused (the Trust) under a separate provision and the 2nd accused (the Trustee) under Section 138 NI Act, with the fine and compensation directed to be paid to the complainant. The Sessions Court affirmed these verdicts. The petition raises a core issue: can a charitable Trust, treated as a juristic person, be prosecuted under Section 138 read with Section 141 NI Act, given the Trust is not a company? The Kerala High Court surveys various precedents, distinguishing KP Shibu and relying on a Madras High Court decision which held that trusts can be juristic persons and liable for such offences. The court also discusses the interpretation of “association of individuals” under Section 141, and addresses the standard of proof and presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act. After thorough analysis, the court dismisses the revision petition, upholding the lower courts’ verdicts, and directs payment of fines/compensation with immediate effect or as prescribed.
WP(C).No. 25960 of 2015 (T) P.K. Basheer, stated to be a tenant in premises belonging to the 4th respondent and mortgaged to the Union of India (2nd respondent bank) for a loan, challenges steps taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) for recovery of defaulted loan amounts, including dispossession proceedings initiated in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Basheer contends that he is in possession as a tenant based on unregistered lease agreements produced with the writ petition (Exhibits P4–P6) and seeks protection from dispossession, arguing that tenancy rights should be governed by due process under the Rent Control Act and not be circumvented by SARFAESI. The petition sought impleadment in the Section 14 proceedings, which was rejected, and the court had earlier stayed dispossession. The High Court recognizes conflicting precedents: Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2014) 6 SCC 1 suggested tenants may not be protected; however, Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India (2016) (1) KHC 330 clarified that once tenancy is validly created, eviction must follow due process under Rent Control Act and cannot rely on SARFAESI in an arbitrary manner. The Court directs the Chief Judicial Magistrate to determine, based on Ext.P10 and evidence, whether tenancy existed pre-mortgage and to decide within four months, with interim stay continuing. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.
WP(C).No. 19510 of 2010 (K) This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the 1st proviso to clause b of sub-para (i) of para 39 of the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Employees' Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (Pension Scheme 1994). Retired employees of the Ernad Cooperative Bank challenge the proviso which provides that pension shall be payable only from the month following remittance of the entire portion of the employer's contribution to the pension fund, effectively denying arrears for pre-remand periods. The petitioners allege violation of their established pension rights and reliance on precedents such as D.S. Nakara and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gandhi. The respondents explain the self-financing nature of the scheme, the transfer of accumulated contributions from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to the pension fund, and the necessity of remittance before pension payments, especially in light of Circulars and amendments like Ext. P20 (dated 08.11.2010) and related provisions (para 39, 1A, 1B, 39(ii)(b), etc.). The court analyzes the scheme under Section 80A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, distinguishing government pension schemes from the co-operative, self-financing structure, and concludes that the proviso is valid in its operation while allowing proportionate pension for contributions remitted up to 2011. The petition is disposed of with directions to grant proportionate pension for the period and to consider arrears only to the extent supported by remitted fund.
The Vijaya Bank, which has merged with Bank of Baroda, challenged revenue recovery proceedings that sought to recover dues from late Mohammed Kunhi, who had mortgaged 0.55 acres in Re. Sy. No. 205/1-C/1 Bare Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District, to the mortgage bank. After default, the bank obtained an order in Original Application No. 72/2000 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal directing recovery from the estate. While steps were underway to realize the mortgage, it was found that the property had been attached in revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for dues of the corporation. The properties, including the mortgaged parcel, were sold on 25 January 2003. The bank sought a share of the sale proceeds, claiming priority over the corporation’s claim since the mortgage preceded attachment. The Revenue authorities rejected the bank's claim, and the High Court of Kerala was approached. The Government and revenue authorities contended that Section 3 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act creates a priority for land revenue, and that the 4th respondent, being a notified institution under Section 71, could have a first-charge or priority. The bank argued that the mortgage predates the contract in 1999 and cannot be overridden. The court concluded that the mortgage predates the revenue attachment, and that the 4th respondent’s status does not confer a superior claim over the mortgage. It held that the bank is entitled to relief and that proportionate refund of sale proceeds, related to the mortgaged 0.55 acres, should be paid to the bank.
This Kerala High Court appeal arises from a contract dispute relating to the construction of a bridge at Neyyar-0/4 and Chakeriyar at Poovar Sankurutti Road. The plaintiff, K.K. Damodaran Pillai, was the successful tenderer under a contract dated 14 November 1983, with completion expected in 24 months. The trial court granted a decree on Claim No. I (refund of tender percentage) and partly on Claim No. III, while dismissing several other heads for damages. The appellant challenged the quantum awarded on several heads, arguing that delays and changes in scope caused extra costs in areas such as earth excavation, earth filling, pile driving and final bill. A central theme of the appeal is the alleged withholding of vital documents, including the contract agreement, tender conditions, MAS register, USR, M.Book and the final bill, which the plaintiff asserts prevented proof of the claims and warranted adverse inference against the respondents under I.A. 8968/1995, which the trial court had directed to be produced in 1995. The respondents, led by the Senior Government Pleader, maintain that there was no hard or medium rock, that sea sand could not be procured, and that the final bill claim was not established due to lack of supporting evidence. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, awarding Rs.1,29,029 with interest on one of the disputed heads, while leaving other claims intact.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA 1592/2016) heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The appellants are the wife, three dependents (one of whom is a minor) and other family members of Thulaseedharan, who died in a road traffic collision on 16 July 2011. The original O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the wife, son and mother, seeking compensation for the death. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 8,02,500. The appellants challenge the quantum, urging re-determination of the deceased’s income and calculation of loss of dependency, taking guidance from Supreme Court judgments. They rely on Ramachandrappa for notional income of a coolie (Rs. 8,000 in 2011), Pranay Sethi for 25% future prospects, Sarla Verma for the multiplier 14 and 1/3 deduction for living expenses, and New India Assurance v Somwati for capping love/affection damages where loss of consortium is awarded. The court re-calculates, increasing the total to Rs. 13,54,500 and partly allows the appeal, directing deposit within two months with interest and costs, and clarifying heads of compensation.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4737 OF 2025; connected with 4690/2025, 4696/2025, 4771/2025 and 4782/2025 This is a common order disposing of multiple connected bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), by an accused, Thomas John, in five crimes registered at Kattoor, Cherpu, Pothanikadu, Pulpally and Gandhinagar police stations. The petitioner faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 316(2) and 318(4)) and Indian Penal Code Section 420, arising from allegations of cheating defacto complainants by promising visas and jobs in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia, with money allegedly not returned. He has been in custody since 03.02.2025. The court frames the dominant bail principle—“bail is the rule and jail is the exception”—and cites Supreme Court and Kerala decisions (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement; Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement) to emphasize fair trial and the limited role of detaining the accused pending trial. After hearing both sides, the court grants bail with stringent conditions: bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; appearance before IO; restriction on leaving India; prohibition against committing similar offences; and potential cancellation of bail for violations. The order is a common disposal for all connected petitions in the same matter.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5029 OF 2025 This bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 5029 OF 2025) is filed by the petitioner, Sreekath T P, accused in Crime No.122 of 2025 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad, under sections 11(iv), 12, 8 and 7 of the POCSO Act and 78(1)(ii) and 137(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. The prosecution alleges that on 17 February 2025 around 4:00 p.m., the accused abducted a survivor from the Edappalam School premises on a bike and abandoned her near her house; it is also alleged that on 21 September 2024 he grabbed the survivor’s breast and kissed her private parts over her skirt. The petitioner contends that he and the victim were in a love relationship and claims custody since 18 February 2025; he is ready to abide by stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting that a Final Report has been filed and that the offences carry a maximum punishment up to seven years, with the victim aged 16. The court underscores the established principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, and Manish Sisodia, and relies on the Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala principle. Ultimately, it grants bail with conditions, placing emphasis on fair trial and safeguards rather than punishment, and indicates continued cooperation with investigators.
Crl.M.C. Nos.468 & 473 of 2013 Govindankutty, an accused in two connected criminal motions (Crl.M.C. Nos. 468/2013 and 473/2013) challenging Annexure-A5 protest complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitions arise from two connected cases (C.C. Nos. 219/2011 and 220/2011) involving alleged offences by the petitioner as a litigation clerk of a chit fund company, including breach of trust and misappropriation around ₹17,00,000, with forged documents. The complainant is a limited company engaged in chit fund business; the accused purportedly manned liaison duties with lawyers, managed funds from court recoveries, and misappropriated funds. The core legal issue concerns the propriety of the Magistrate’s orders directing inquiries under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on protest complaints after final police reports had stated the dispute was civil in nature. The court surveys established Cr.P.C. principles: (i) Section 156(3) orders are pre-cognizance; (ii) after cognizance, the magistrate may proceed under Sections 200/202 or order police inquiry under 156(3) depending on the stage; (iii) the original complaint does not automatically vanish with a negative police report; (iv) subsequent rulings (India Carat, Ravi, Parameswaran Nair) are relied upon to justify or critique the prosecutorial path. The High Court ultimately held that the petitions lack merit and dismissed them, with all pending interlocutory applications also dismissed.
Raneesh, the first accused, challenges the order in Bail Application No. 4969 of 2025 arising from Crime No.1068/2024 of Poochakkal Police Station. The prosecution alleges offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) including sections 332(b), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 351, 3(5) and 103(1), in connection with an incident on 25 December 2024 where an altercation between the deceased (Riyas) and his wife Reneesha led to violence at a friend Nebu’s house. It is claimed that the 1st accused beat the deceased with a cricket stump and later with a stick; the 2nd accused kicked the victim, displayed a chopper, and allegedly instigated the act; the result was the victim’s death. The petitioner, arrested on 26 December 2024, contends that the co-accused (2nd) is already released on bail and that the main overt act lies with the 1st accused; he has already spent substantial time in custody, so continued detention is unnecessary. The court emphasizes the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing leading Supreme Court authority (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement) and Kerala decisions (Jalaluddin Khan; Manish Sisodia; Anzar Azeez) to justify granting bail with stringent conditions. Ultimately, the court allows the bail petition, directing bond and sureties, cooperation with investigations, travel restrictions, and additional conditions, with a safeguard that bail can be canceled if conditions are violated, invoking the Anzar Azeez principle as applicable.
CRL.M.C. Nos.7682/2023 and 7685/2023 This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 7682/2023 and 7685/2023) decided by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan on 10 October 2023. The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings pending against them arising from two Kovalam Police Station cases (Crime Nos. 1147/2017 leading to CC 2812/2017; and 1897/2017 leading to CC 925/2018) under sections that involve minor offences. The court acknowledges that the offences are of a minor nature and that the parties have entered into a settlement, supported by affidavits from victims. While the Public Prosecutor opposed quashing solely on the basis of settlement, he also acknowledged that the matter is settled. The judgment cites the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and relies on the general principle that quashing under Section 482 CrPC can be appropriate for non-compoundable offences of a private nature where the entire dispute has been resolved, provided serious public-order offences and high-severity crimes are not involved. Having examined the facts, the court concludes the dispute is private and the settlement is genuine, and therefore allows the petitions, quashing all further proceedings in both CC 2812/2017 and CC 925/2018 and their related FIRs, in the interest of ends of justice.
The petitioner, accused No.6 in Crime No.258/2021 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta, approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings, on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution. The offences cited are under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447 and 427, relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, trespass and mischief. The victim is agreeable to a settlement, supported by an affidavit, and the petitioner’s counsel relies on Sajeev v. State of Kerala (2022) 2 KLT 861. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations but concedes that settlement exists. The Court examines the matter in light of Supreme Court guidance from Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688, which discusses when the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences may be exercised, particularly where disputes are private and settled, while noting exceptions for heinous crimes and offences under special statutes. The Court also references Gian Singh and Narinder Singh as part of the legal backdrop. After evaluating the records, the judge finds the dispute private and the settlement acceptable, and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing further proceedings only against the petitioner in Crime No.258/2021. The order culminates in quashing the case against Sarath S. while leaving other aspects untouched.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P3, the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam in Appeal No.117 of 2019, which reduced damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from 100% to 50%. The petitioner, Central Board of Trustees, EPF, contends that damages under Section 14-B are statutory and automatic where contributions are collected but not remitted; the defaulting establishment purportedly withheld contributions from employees and did not remit them to the EPF Department, warranting full damages. The respondent bakery submits that there was a dispute regarding the establishment’s coverage under the EPF Act and that the proprietor’s circumstances (husband’s death in 2004 and illness) and poor prosecution of proceedings warranted relief; it relies on Supreme Court precedents that mens rea is not a prerequisite for penalties. The High Court acknowledges that mens rea is not essential for imposing damages, citing HMT, McLeod Russel, Horticulture Experiment Station, and other cases to justify reductions in quantum. Ultimately, the court holds that the Tribunal did not err in reducing damages to 50%, and dismisses the writ petition, upholding Ext.P3 without interference.
This High Court of Kerala, in a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal, revisits an award under O.P. (MV) No.216/2008 arising from a 27.12.2007 scooter-stage carriage collision resulting in Dayanandan’s death. The appellants (wife and son of the deceased) challenge an award of Rs.4,65,000 with 7.5% interest, arguing quantum was too low and the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.7,500, supported by Ext. A9 and a statutory licence Ext. A10 indicating he was a ration retailer. The respondents contested liability and quantum in the written statement. The Tribunal had held the insurer liable and directed payment with interest. The High Court accepts the evidence supporting a higher monthly income, adopting Rs.7,500, and applies the Supreme Court principle from Pranay Sethi to add 10% future prospects for the 50–60 age group. It also relies on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify a higher, evidence-based monthly income and recalculates compensation on that basis. The court further adjusts heads of compensation, including a reduction in loss of love and affection and loss of consortium in line with Magma and Satinder Kaur decisions, and deducts Rs.35,000 (Rs.25,000 for funeral excess and Rs.10,000 adjustments). The appeal is allowed, with enhanced compensation of Rs.2,51,000, deposit ordered within three months, and interest exclusion for condoned delay.
This case before the Kerala High Court arises from ITA No. 1188 of 2009, against an ITAT order, concerning whether preliminary expenditure incurred by South India Corporation Ltd. (assessee) in submitting a tender for a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) project for two berths at Visakhapatnam Port should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure. The assessee’s Chennai Transport Division showed a substantial expense of about Rs. 16.27 lakh labelled Vaizag Berth consultation, tender documents, and consultant fees for preparing and finalizing the technical and price bids. The tender was eventually cancelled by the Government of India, and no asset was created. The Assessing Officer treated this as a new line of business; the first appellate authority agreed, and the ITAT set aside, treating the expenditure as revenue in nature since it related to existing port activities. The Revenue contends that the expenditure reflects entry into a new line of business and cannot be treated as revenue; the assessee argues the payment was for a related activity within its port-related operations and should be revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court’s Alembic decision is cited to emphasize that there is no single criterion for capital vs revenue; the test is the purpose and effect of the outlay in business realities. The High Court ultimately dismisses the Revenue’s appeal, upholding the ITAT’s factual finding that the expenditure is revenue in nature and part of a related activity, with no question of law arising and no costs awarded.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 494 OF 2021 This Contempt of Court case (Civil) No. 494 of 2021 before the Kerala High Court arises from WP(C) 25578/2015 and related matters. The petitioners, N. D. Sadanandan, C. B. Sivarman and Chandrika P.K., allege willful disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) 25578/2015 and connected matters by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). The petitioners contend that the Supreme Court’s 4 November 2022 judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. (AIR 2022 SC 5634), which upheld the validity of Notification G.S.R. 609(E) (22 August 2014) and laid down directions on applying amendments to the pension scheme and extending option periods under paragraph 11(4), requires reconsideration of their entitlement for higher pension. The court notes that the apex decision directs read-down of certain provisions and directs EPFO to adjust in light of the amended scheme. The respondents submit that the required exercise should be undertaken in accordance with law. On 30 October 2023, the court closed the contempt case, but it preserves EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension in view of the 2022 Supreme Court judgment, leaving open the mechanism for compliance within legal bounds.
This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court arising from an appeal against an order in I.A.963 of 2002 in O.P.(LA) No.12 of 1995 (Thrissur) under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The 1st respondent sought revocation of letters of administration granted in favour of the 2nd respondent in relation to the Will No. 65 of 1989 (and Will Ext.A7 of 1990). The District Court Thrissur held that the I.A. was within time, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and found fraudulent suppression of material documents. It relied on Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and related authorities to extend the time. The appellate court, while upholding the revocation of the letters of administration, also considered the impact on subsequent transfers. It held that Exts.B2 and B27 sale deeds, which conveyed substantial lands to the appellants, were based on a bona fide purchase for valuable consideration and were not invalidated by the revocation. The court relied on principles from Ishwar Dass Jain, Bhagat Ram, Crystal Developers, and Jamila Begum to underscore evidentiary presumptions regarding registration and the protection of bona fide purchasers. Ultimately, the order revoking the letters of administration in favour of Jacob was confirmed, and it was declared that the revocation did not invalidate the sale deeds. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 318 OF 2023; BAIL APPL. NO. 614 OF 2023 The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, delivered a common order on 30 January 2023 in Bail Applications Nos. 318/2023 and 614/2023 arising from two Tirurangadi police station cases (Crime No. 27/2023 and 29/2023). The petitioners, accused in those cases, sought anticipatory bail. The court notes the allegations involve assault with an intent to do away with the defacto complainant and his son, with injuries sustained, arising out of a dispute pertaining to a partnership business between the parties; offences alleged include Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, and 506 read with 34 IPC. The two crimes stem from the same occurrence; the petitioners are siblings; the court emphasizes that the truth of the allegations is a matter for evidence and that incarcerating defendants at this stage would be heavy, given bilateral nature of case and counter allegations. Therefore, considering the absence of an undisputed risk of flight and the parties' mutual willingness to cooperate, the court enlarges the petitioners on bail, subject to standard conditions: surrender within ten days; production before a magistrate on arrest; bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; cooperation with investigation; no witness intimidation; no new offences. The order grants bail in both cases.
These petitions under Section 482 CrPC arise from Annexure-A1 complaints filed by the South Indian Bank Ltd. under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act) before the JMFC Ernakulam, challenging the cognizance and the alleged conduct of the petitioners (RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd, its Managing Director Rajeev Gupta, and its Director Mamta Gupta). The core issues include (i) whether a demand under Section 27(1)(c) of the PSS Act can be issued on the basis of information that originates from the M1xchange platform rather than directly from the bank; (ii) whether cognizance was rightly taken under Section 28(1) PSS Act and whether an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC was properly conducted; (iii) whether the petitioners can be held vicariously liable for the company’s acts under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and (iv) questions of jurisdiction, especially since the platform operates through Delhi-linked arrangements (M1xchange) and the Ernakulam court’s cognizance. The court examined RBI guidelines under Section 10(2) r/w Section 18, the Master Buyer Agreement (Annexure-A3), and the settlement mechanics of the TREDS platform. It held that information transmitted through the TREDS/NACH ecosystem suffices to trigger Section 27(1)(c) notices, that cognizance was proper, and that the petitions fail on the merits. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
