This Kerala High Court revision petition concerns maintainability of a fair rent fixation application under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, filed by co-owners who also hold tenancy rights in a property in Kozhikode. The rent-payer/building originally belonged to Narayana Pillai; after his death a partition suit was filed (O.S. 66 of 1968) with a final decree pending. In 1972, the petitioner and his mother leased the building, and upon the Will, respondents 5 and 7 acquired fractional interests in the property and became co-owners, while some original co-owners remained in possession as tenants. The applicant filed eviction proceedings and a separate application for fixation of fair rent; while the Rent Control Court found the fair rent application not maintainable against co-owners, the Appellate Authority remanded for merits. This court examines whether a co-owner can file a fair rent application against another co-owner who holds the property as a tenant, given that partition is pending, and whether the landlord-tenant relationship persists when fractional interests exist. Relying on Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and other authorities, the court holds that tenancy is not extinguished by partial acquisition of reversion, and the maintainability of the fair rent application is preserved. The revision petition is ultimately dismissed, upholding the Appellate Authority’s decision. The court emphasizes ongoing tenancy rights and the admissibility of fair rent actions by co-owners until final partition.
OP (CAT).No.251 OF 2017(Z) This Kerala High Court decision relates to OP(CAT) No.251 of 2017 filed by Union of India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench order dated 25 August 2016 in OA No.180/00102/2015. The Tribunal had directed that the respondent, Muraleedharan P.V., be considered for promotion and promoted in a manner consistent with Recruitment Rules, relying on a junior’s successful promotion (Sri S.K. Shukla) and the settled rule that seniors should be considered for promotion when a junior is promoted. The Tribunal also directed promotion to Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner (NFSG) with arrears of pay and allowances computed up to three years prior to the OA filing, in line with Tarsem Singh’s Supreme Court guidance. The petitioners argued that promotions and arrears must follow Recruitment Rules and the established precedents; the respondent contended that the junior’s promotion obligates senior consideration and that the CAT order aligns with rules and prior orders. After hearing the ASGI, the High Court held there is no ground to interfere with the CAT order, granted three months to comply, and dismissed the petition with costs to be borne by each party.
C. K. Sulaiman, owner of a plywood unit at a 30.72-are extent in Survey No.189/8-2, seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenges Ext.P10, a Kerala State Pollution Control Board order dated 23.01.2019 that rejected his application for renewal of consent to operate the plywood unit, and he seeks mandamus to renew the consent, as well as certiorari to quash Ext.P10 and a mandamus to compel reconsideration on merits (including Ext.P11 judgments). The petition contends that Ext.P10 is illegal, arbitrary, and nonest, while Ext.P11 (a related judgment) requires consideration. The respondents argue that Ext.P10 is appealable under the Water Act, 1974 (Section 28) and the Air Act, 1981 (Section 31), and that the court should refrain from interference where efficacious statutory remedies exist, citing a long line of jurisprudence on the non-entertainment principle of writs when statutory forums are available. The court relies on established jurisprudence: Chaibil Das Agarwal (2014), Mathew K.C. (2018), Thansingh Nathmal (1964), Titaghur (1983), Wolverhampton (1859), Neville (1919), Gordon Grant (1935), and Mask (1940) to underscore that the writ under Article 226 is discretionary and not a substitute for statutory remedies. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, but with liberty to challenge Ext.P10 via the statutory appeal before the appropriate authority, preserving other rights for future arguments.
The Kerala High Court heard CRL.A. No. 602 of 2014, an appeal by the convict Sivanandan (Sivan) against a trial court conviction for offences under IPC sections 201, 397 and 302, arising from Crime No.1251/2010 at Paravoor Police Station. The Sessions Court, Kollam, V_TH, convicted the appellant for causing the victim Sukumari Amma’s death by strangulation using a plastic rope (MO1), while also holding that a robbery of gold ornaments and a Nokia mobile phone occurred during the incident. The prosecution’s case rests on multiple circumstantial links: the rope recovered from the mango tree at the victim’s house, the appellant’s presence inside the house, the recovery of the rope and other items on the basis of the appellant’s confession (Ext. P2/P2(a) and Ext. P17), call detail records linking mobiles to the deceased and the accused (and the use of the same SIMs in MO7 and MO14), and the recovery of gold articles pledged in the name of Rajeev, later identified as connected to the appellant. Post‑mortem by PW20 indicated death due to constriction of the neck; Ext. P24 inquest report supported asphyxia due to neck constriction. The defence urged suicide could not be ruled out, noting that the doctor initially suggested a possibility of suicide. The High Court, after a thorough review of the circumstantial chain, held that the circumstances pointing to guilt were proven beyond reasonable doubt and thus affirmed the conviction. It distinguished several authorities on time‑of‑death and forensic nuances, upholding the trial court’s conclusions and dismissing the appeal.
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2433/2015, 6985/2014 & 6986/2014 This judgment, delivered by Justice Alexander Thomas on 31 March 2017, consolidates three Criminal Miscellaneous Cases challenging the quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners, accused nos. 3 and 4, are the wife and mother of the managing partner of the partnership firm Prestige Polymer Product, alleged to have issued cheques dishonoured for outstanding liabilities. The core issue is whether the complaints properly allege corporate vicarious liability under Section 141, which requires that the person in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of the business at the time of the offence be named and the role be described with specificity. The petitioners argued that the complaints merely state that they are active partners, without detailing their roles or involvement, violating the well-settled precedents (e.g., S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals, N.K. Wahi) that insist on precise averments to rope in co-accused for Sec.141 liability. The respondents relied on partnership deeds and general averments in annexures to contend sufficiency. The court, after analyzing numerous precedents (R.P. Kapoor; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals; Central Bank of India; N.K. Wahi; Pepsi Foods; and others), held that the necessary in-charge-and-responsible averments were absent against accused 3 and 4. Consequently, the complaints against them were quashed, while the proceedings against the first two accused continued. The order emphasizes the need for clear, fact-specific averments in Sec.141 cases to avoid abuse of the process of law and fishing expeditions.
This original petition challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order in OA 1361/2018 (dated 19.09.2018), which quashed the exclusion of the applicant from temporary promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police under Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR and directed the State to promote him expeditiously. The petitioner, C. Rajappan, an Inspector of Police, contends that he was superseded in the matter of temporary promotion due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, and that such a reason cannot justify denial of temporary promotion when the promotion is a stopgap measure to meet urgent public interest. The Tribunal’s decision is attacked as it excluded him from Annexures A7, A8 and A13, while some juniors were granted temporary promotions. The StateDefence contends that a valid regular promotion select list existed (Ext. P4, published 18.01.2019) for the years 2015-2018, rendering further temporary promotions unnecessary. The High Court cites Ananthakrishnan v. State of Kerala to emphasize that temporary promotions are emergency-based and temporary in nature. Given the fresh regular select list, the court holds that temporary promotion should not be compelled where a regular mechanism exists. The petition is disposed of, directing that further temporary promotions are not to be effected while the select list remains in place; if a future contingency arises, the matter may be considered, but only on a fresh basis.
WP(C).No. 18663 of 2017 & 5383 of 2019 The petitioners in two connected writ petitions challenge land pattas granted under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularization of Occupation of Forest Lands prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993. The core dispute is whether the patta conditions prohibiting alienation (Condition No. 3) can be dispensed with in light of retrospective amendments to Rule 15 of the 1993 Rules, which now permit lands assigned under those Rules to be hereditary and alienable, subject to certain restrictions. The Court traces the evolution of Rule 15 from the original provision (not alienable except under specific circumstances) to its retrospective amendment via gazette notification dated 16.11.2011, with effect from 19.3.1993. It notes prior court decisions that authorized substitution of the patta condition to reflect the amended Rule 15. The petitioners seek endorsement in pattas, mutation of records, and acceptance of land tax, arguing that alienation rights are now permissible. The respondents argue adherence to the existing patta restrictions and caution that changes should align with statutory amendments and central forest land policies. The Court ultimately endorses the petitioners’ interpretation, directing the Tahsildar to strike off the alienation restriction, endorse alienation in pattas, effect mutation in the village records, arrange tax receipts, and complete steps within weeks, disposing of the petitions with costs.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 212 of 2009) was heard by Justice K. Harilal of the Kerala High Court on 9 October 2018. The plaintiff, Thankam, filed Original Suit No. 359/2000 for recovery of possession of the ‘B’ schedule land, which she claimed formed part of the larger ‘A’ schedule property and had been encroached upon by the defendant Mercy Joseph. Both the Munsiff’s Court at Alathur and the District Court Palakkad decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Mercy Joseph challenged these judgments in a Regular Second Appeal, arguing, among other things, that the absence of a prayer for declaration of title is fatal, that the plaint description is not identifiable, and that non-examination of the plaintiff is fatal. She relied on decisions including Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy and others, Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao, and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. The respondent-plaintiff countered that where both parties claim over different lands, declaration of title is not necessary, and highlighted that the husband of the plaintiff was examined under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court held that there is no cloud on title since the properties lie in different survey numbers, and that absence of a declaration prayer is not fatal. Ultimately, the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent decrees. The court emphasized survey-based identity over mere pleadings in disputed land cases.
This Kerala High Court writ petition under Article 226 challenges the transfer of the petitioner, a Selection Grade Assistant in the Station Master’s Office, Ernakulam Depot, KSRTC, from Thiruvananthapuram to the Ernakulam Central Zone. The petitioner seeks quashing of Ext.P4 ( transfer order dated 29.01.2019) to the extent it relocates her duties away from her home circle, and a mandamus to consider her Ext.P3 representation for posting in her home circle. She also relies on Ext.P2 (transfer seniority list) to contend the transfer violates established seniority norms. The respondents resist on the ground that transfer is an incident of service; there is no right to insist on a particular posting; and, in line with constitutional and statutory principles, that the employer’s transfer decisions are subject to only limited judicial review for mala fides, perversity, or arbitrariness. Relying on precedents, the court reiterates that transfers are governed by guidelines rather than statutory terms, and judicial intervention is confined to lack of mala fides or fair process. The court ultimately disposes the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P6 representations and decide in accordance with law within four weeks, while keeping in mind the cited authorities on fairness and model employer duties.
This motor accident claims appeal arises from an award by the MACT Kalpetta under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where Muhammed Gadhafi sustained injuries as a passenger in jeep KL-08/N-3344 following a collision with a bus on 23 January 2010. He was hospitalized for 19 days and left with permanent disability. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income on a notional basis due to lack of proof of occupation, and awarded Rs. 1,21,700 with interest at 7.5%. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending the court should reflect his actual loss of earning capacity and future treatment needs, and that his age at the time (21) and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Ramachandrappa require a higher notional income. The High Court held that the impairment (10% as per Ext. C1) and the multiplier suitable to his age (18) justify a recalculation, fixing a monthly income of Rs. 7,500 for calculation. It re-assessed the head of disability to Rs. 1,62,000 (from Rs. 64,800) and, applying the four-month period for loss of earning and other heads, granted further amounts for loss of earning, loss of amenities, future treatment, bystander expenses and clothing, resulting in an additional Rs. 1,45,600. The total enhanced award became Rs. 2,67,300, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition, and the insurer was directed to deposit within two months. The appeal is disposed of with no costs.
This is a motor accident claims appeal under MACA No. 1454 of 2007 arising from a MACT Thalassery award dated 03-01-2007 in OP(MV) No.468/2001. The claimant, a foot passenger, suffered multiple injuries including Post-Traumatic Epilepsy following a collision with car KL-7T-6789 on 26.06.2000, resulting in permanent disability. The MACT assessed compensation of Rs.1,28,150 with 7% interest; the appellant sought enhancement. The Tribunal accepted that liability lay with insurer but did not accept entire disability percentage from Ext.X1; it fixed permanent disability at 10% and monthly income based on evidence of being a coolie earning Rs.3,500, applying age multiplier 17. The appellant argued that the Medical Board's certificate Ext.X1 shows 50% permanent disability due to Post-Traumatic Epilepsy affecting the whole body; this should be accepted; the monthly income should be assessed using the guidance in Ramachandrappa (2011 SCC 236) and a proper multiplier for age 31-35 (multiplier 16). The High Court agreed, modified disability to 50%, fixed monthly income at Rs.3,000, corrected multiplier to 16, and recomputed compensation: Rs.2,83,600, with interest at 8% from petition date onward; directed the insurer to deposit within two months; no costs. The appeal is disposed accordingly.
The High Court of Kerala heard WP(C) No. 27505 of 2015, filed by ex-councilors of Kollam Municipal Corporation challenging audit recommendations that fixed liability for 1997–1998 in connection with allotting Cantonment Maidan at a reduced rent. Based on audit objections, Ext.P1 prepared by the 1st respondent directed action, followed by Ext.P2 notices to the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 33,779 each with interest and penalties. The petition asserted the audit process violated statutory mandates and that recoveries were not properly actionable; it sought quashing Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, declaration that the liability was not proper and that the allocation was lawful. During hearing, the court found Ext.P2 to be an order issued without providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioners, and that any recovery should be preceded by due process; it also noted limitation issues would need to be considered under law. The court disposed of the petition by setting aside Ext.P2 and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter after giving a hearing to the petitioners and to respondents 3 and 4, expeditiously, consistent with statutory mandates.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the award in O.P.(MV) No.1125/2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, dated 18-06-2014. The Tribunal awarded Rs.57,870 with 9% interest and proportionate costs in favor of Chellappan, who was injured while travelling in tempo van KL-03/H-4019. The insurer admitted the vehicle’s insurance but argued the injured was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, not covered under Ext.B1 or IMT-37A, and thus the insurer should be reimbursed by the vehicle owner. The insurer contends Ext.B1’s IMT-37A excludes non-fare paying passengers from coverage; relying on Sec.147 of the MV Act, the insurer argued that the policy is contractual and limits its liability. The appellant cites several precedents to argue that comprehensive/package policies may not cover gratuitous passengers unless expressly included. The respondents rely on authorities holding that comprehensive policies can cover passengers as part of contractual liability when premiums are paid for such coverage. The High Court summarises the statutory framework, including Sec.147 and references to Bhagyalakshmi, Amrit Lal Sood, and other SC/ACJ authorities, to determine the scope of coverage for a gratuitous passenger. The court ultimately dismisses the appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s award and confirming insurer liability under the policy.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from OP(MV) No.1915/2011 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging an award of ₹8,82,562 with interest at 9% against the insurer for a fatal motor accident that occurred on 30 May 2010. The deceased Remanan @ Ambadi, aged 36, died two days after the crash in which he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle; his widow, minor child, and mother pursued compensation. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in fixed monthly income at ₹5,000, despite Ext. A8 showing ₹7,000, and sought amendment to ₹12,000 per month and recalculation of dependency loss. They contended that a four-member family could not survive on ₹5,000 and that the award failed to compensate pain and suffering for two days of life after the accident. They also invoked subsequent precedents (Rajesh, Reshma Kumari, Pranay Sethi) to press for higher sums for funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The Insurance Company and driver contested these claims, though the Tribunal had already held the driver as negligent. The High Court, adopting ₹7,000 as monthly income, allowed a larger dependency sum after standard deductions and multiplier, held that ₹10,000 can be awarded for pain and suffering, and ultimately granted an additional ₹2,50,000 with 8% interest, directing deposit within two months. The result is an enhanced recovery for the claimants while leaving the Tribunal’s other heads intact.
WA Nos. 1626/18, 1684/2018, 1700/2018, 1854/2018, 1855/2018 This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns the selection process for the post of Vehicle Helper by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. The core issue across WA Nos. 1626/18, 1684/2018, 1700/2018, 1854/2018 and 1855/2018 is whether the interview panel could grant weightage to marks obtained in the written test, even though the recruitment notification did not authorize such weightage. The writ petitions had challenged the procedure for drawing the final rank list, arguing that the Sub Committee responsible for interviews acted beyond the scope of the notification and applicable rules. The Single Judge had directed redraw of the rank list strictly in accordance with the rules, using marks from the written test, interview scores, and seniority/attendance. The Division Bench, while hearing the appeals together, upheld that the Sub Committee’s unilateral weightage was impermissible and beyond authority. It held that the rules could not be altered mid-process, distinguishing Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (which allowed raising levels of excellence but not changing the rules) and distinguishing Narula on bias grounds. The court affirmed the earlier order to redraw the rank list in line with the notification and the stipulated criteria, and extended the time for compliance by two months. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, and the matter stands remitted for re-drawing the rank list per the prescribed rules.
This is an arbitration appeal before the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) arising from Arb. Appeal No. 19 of 2011. The appellants—P.V. Jojo, Kochuthressia, and Rappai P.A.—had availed a loan from M/s India Cements Capital & Finance Ltd (formerly Aruna Sugar Finance Ltd). After default, the respondent sought recovery through a suit; the Sub Court referred the dispute to arbitration under a clause in the loan agreement, appointing an arbitrator (a junior of Adv. P.D. Jose). The arbitral award, dated 19.12.2005, directed payment of Rs. 4,01,395 with 12% interest. The appellants challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, alleging bias of the arbitrator because he was closely allied to the respondent’s counsel and had assisted in the related suit; they argued the arbitrator did not decide the challenge to his impartiality as required by Section 13(3) of the Act. The respondent defended the process, arguing that the appointment by the Managing Director of the company was valid and that non-decision on the challenge by the arbitrator cannot automatically vitiate the proceedings, given the pre-amendment regime. The High Court, however, held that there was a real likelihood of bias, as disclosed by the circumstances, and set aside both the district court’s order and the arbitral award, allowing the appeal with no costs.
The petitioners, six in number, are professionals operating hospitals and diagnostic laboratories in Piravom. They initially obtained D&O licences as required under the Kerala Municipality (Issue of licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 2011, but for the year 2016-17 they conducted institutions without renewing the licences and without paying the requisite licence fee. Audit noticed the default, and the first respondent Municipality issued Exts.P1 to P6 notices dated 13.06.2018 demanding the defaulted D&O licence fee along with fines and late fees. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash these notices. The core issue is whether the writ should be entertained and whether Exts.P1–P6 can stand in light of statutory remedies. The petition acknowledges the licensing regime but disputes the legality of how the licence fee is demanded, while the respondents stress the mandatory statutory obligation to obtain and renew licences and the consequent financial penalties for non-compliance. The court notes that the petitioners did not pursue the statutory remedy under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act and emphasizes that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily a substitute for statutory redress. Citing several Supreme Court principles, the court concludes that the petition should be dismissed for lack of exhausted remedy and delay, resulting in no interference with the notices.”
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1540 of 2002 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition arising from an NI Act default case under Sec.138. The petitioner, Elcy George, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattappana, for issuing a cheque dishonoured for want of funds (Ext. P-1) for Rs.12,200, under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court sentenced her to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.15,000 with a default sentence, and directed Rs.12,200 be paid as compensation under Sec.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, on appeal, confirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to two months and the fine to Rs.5,000 with a 15-day default imprisonment. The revision petition before the Kerala High Court challenges these judgments. The High Court noted the long interval since the cheque’s dishonour (over 20 years) and, citing Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal and Kaushalya Devi v. Roopkishore, considered reducing the substantive sentence further to imprisonment till the rising of the court to balance justice with compensation to the complainant. The Court affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court, and ordered Rs.24,400 compensation under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. with Rs.5,000 already deposited, directing payment within six weeks and personal appearance on 18.11.2017. The revision petition is disposed of with these directions.
WP(C).No. 5419 of 2016; WP(C).No. 13957 of 2018; WP(C).No. 21036 of 2018; WP(C).No. 33777 of 2018 The batch of writ petitions challenges the Kerala Public Service Commission’s rejection of candidates for the post of Branch Manager in various District Co-operative Banks under Notification dated 14.12.2009. The petitioners—Manoj Kumar K.; Biju V.; Noorjahaan M.; Jeejesh K.; Ragini P.M.; Preetha E.D.; Carmel Thomas—contend that subsequent amendments to the qualification criteria, notably G.O.(P) No.172/2010/Co-op dated 02.11.2010 amending Rule 186(1)(ia) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, render a B.Com with Co-operation qualification eligible, and that the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected matters (and related SLPs) held the amendment to be clarificatory in nature, thus applying to those who appeared for the written test. They seek inclusion in the ranked lists or a declaration of eligibility to be considered for selection as Branch Manager across Thrissur, Kozhikode, Pathanamthitta, etc. The PSC maintains the amendment is prospective, and vacancies arising after the amendment need not be advised from the earlier ranked list. The judgment, delivered by a Single Judge, ultimately concludes that the appellants before the Supreme Court are not entitled to relief beyond those appellants, and that petitioners who did not challenge earlier refusals and acquiesced cannot claim extended benefits. The petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Jahangir Gopal, the third accused in CC No.10/2004 before the Special Judge (CBI/SPE)-I, Ernakulam, approached the Kerala High Court in Crl.MC No.223/2013 seeking to quash an order that dismissed his application to alter the charge under Section 482 CrPC. He faced charges along with eight co-accused for offences under IPC Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 468 and 471, and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)). The dispute concerned the period of alleged misappropriation spanning 20.05.1999 to 02.03.2002 and whether a single charge could be framed for a scheme extending over more than one year, or whether it must be split into separate one-year spells. The petitioner argued that misappropriation, being a form of dishonest misappropriation, must be charged as distinct offences within a year, citing Section 212(2) CrPC and the proviso to Section 23 POC Act, and relied on Parameswaran Nair v. State of Kerala (1990) 2 KLT 229, and Hariharan Nair v. State of Kerala (unreported). The CBI contended that the alleged acts stem from a single conspiracy causing a single transaction, justifying a unified charge, supported by Swamirathnam v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 340). The High Court examined the interplay of Sections 212, 213, 219 CrPC and Section 23 POC Act, and ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the lower court’s charge framing and rejecting the challenge to alter the charge.
