Cont.Case (C) No. 2434 of 2019 This Contempt of Court Case arises from alleged willful disobedience of directions issued in Annexure A1 to the judgment dated 12-10-2018 in W.P.(C) No. 5937/2016 and connected matters, which related to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) pension scheme post-2014 amendments. The petitioners, who are a large group of former and present employees of Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., contended that the 2014 amendment to the pension scheme and related directives (as read with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Sunil Kumar B. and connected matters) entitle them to higher pension and greater options. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, specifically in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 5634), held the G.S.R. 609(E) notification legal and valid, directed read-down of certain provisions, and extended options with a time frame and conditions. The Kerala High Court, noting these developments, directed the EPFO to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension in light of the 2022 judgment, and ultimately closed the contempt petition, while preserving EPFO’s right to undertake such reconsideration. The order thus桥 aligns compliance with the Supreme Court directive and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
This is a suo motu Special Court proceeding before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, titled SSCR No. 24 of 2022, concerning the supply of Aravana Prasadam and Appam Prasadam at Sabarimala during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1198 M.E. (2022-23). The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, reported that the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) must urgently procure high-quality composite cans,, possibly from alternate suppliers, to meet rising demand and avoid shortages. The court suo motu impleaded the Joint Director, Kerala State Audit Department, as additional 6th respondent, to oversee stock verification and tender processes. Over successive hearings (from 22 to 31 November 2022, and through December 2022 and January 2023), the court reviewed stock levels, production defects (leakage from defective can bottoms), and the performance of the 5th respondent contractor, Moti Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd., in fulfilling an order to supply 50,00,000 cans. It directed the 2nd respondent Board to ensure uninterrupted supply, to take strict action for contract violations, and to explore alternative manpower arrangements for Appam Prasadam and even potential on-site can-planting at Nilakkal. The court also directed inspection by the Special Commissioner and required reports within weeks. While the court did not decide the merits of the rival claims, it disposed of the SSCR with clear directions to safeguard pilgrims’ provisioning.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Kusuma Kumar @ A.R. Kannan challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which dismissed a petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-V (Special Court for Marklist Cases) on 30 November 2015, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment plus payment of Rs. 20 Lakh as compensation to the 2nd respondent. He filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, but there was a delay of 803 days in filing the appeal. A petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay (Crl.M.P.268/2018) was dismissed by the appellate court on 30 September 2019, leading to dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner contends lack of notice to his counsel and the transfer of the matter to the Additional Sessions Court without his knowledge, resulting in non-appearance. The argument pivots on liberal, justice-oriented condonation of delay and merits-based adjudication, supported by precedents such as Ganesharaju S. v. Narasamma and Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh. The High Court, allowing the revision, remits the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration after hearing both sides, directing disposal within three months and appearance on 12 December 2023, in light of the liberal approach to condonation.
This suo motu proceedings was initiated by this Court on 26.08.2022 in response to a complaint dated 17.07.2022 by the State General Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Pensioners’ Federation, alleging inaction by the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking action on vigilance and audit reports, as well as on enquiry reports of the Devaswom Commissioner, dating from 2015 onwards. The petition asserts that, despite the vigilance and audit findings, no steps have been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings or recover liabilities, resulting in a systemic lull in accountability within the Board’s administration of temples. On admission of the matter, the 2nd respondent sought time to obtain instructions, and the 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit with Annexure R3(a) detailing the action taken on the vigilance and audit reports. The counter explains the Devaswom Manual’s channel of forwarding vigilance reports to the President and audit reports to the Devaswom Commissioner, and outlines the sequence of preliminary notices, explanations, memos of charges, and domestic inquiries, noting five enquiry officers and ongoing proceedings against certain officers. The Court examined provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, particularly Sections 15A, 16 and 31, underscoring the Board’s fiduciary, supervisory and trustee-like obligations to protect temple properties and ensure timely action on findings. The order disposes of the petition by directing the Annexure R3(a) action taken report to be placed before the Ombudsman for enquiry and report, with the Ombudsman’s findings then to be placed before the Devaswom Bench for necessary orders.
The High Court of Kerala hears a criminal miscellane ous petition under CrPC sections 107 and 111 challenging the Sub Divisional Magistrate Fort Kochi’s order dated 21.06.2023 directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not execute a bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for keeping the peace for one year. The petitioner contends that the impugned order cites several crimes but reveals no material detailing the offenses’ nature or the likelihood of disturbance; it fails to set forth the grounds under Section 111, and appears to be a default invocation of preventive power without proper mind-sets or record. The petitioner asserts Section 107 is preventive, not punitive, and requires cogent materials and credible information; the Magistrate must form an opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, recording those grounds in writing. The State contends the Sub Inspector’s report shows a real threat to public peace and tranquility, justifying preventive action under 107 CrPC. The court, after reviewing the record, notes the impugned order lacks essential particulars, revealing a lack of due mind and reliance on decades-old crimes without demonstration of imminent danger. Drawing on Madhu Limaye and other authorities, the court emphasizes safeguards to protect liberty and cautions against abuses of 107/111 powers. The petition is allowed, and the order and all further proceedings are quashed.
SAMAJ E.V., a devotee of Sree Annapoorneswari Temple Cherukunnu, has filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging proposed Gramolsavam and Mega Event on temple land known as Choyi Ambalam, seeking to restrain the 9th to 11th respondents from carrying out programs in the temple property and to direct authorities to inspect and file a report on alleged illegal activity. The petition relies on Ext.P4, a 2023 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 38734 of 2022, which directed the Executive Officer of Sree Cherukunnu Annapoorneswari Devaswom to secure the 28 cents of land by fencing and to protect it from alienation due to centuries-old rites associated with the temple's annual festival. The court admitted the petition, issued interim orders, and noted that Respondents 9-11 had published a public notice and started constructing a temporary stage near Choyi Ambalam. The 8th Devaswom, through its Executive Officer, lodged a police complaint, and the court continued interim relief aligning with Ext.P4, directing the 4th respondent to take action and the Executive Officer to prevent use of the property for Gramolsavam and Mega Event. The petition is disposed of in terms of these directions.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 817 OF 2023 This is a criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the sole accused, Prasanna S. Nair, challenging concurrent verdicts convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 5.5 lakh and issued two cheques for Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 2,50,000, which were dishonored for funds insufficiency. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to three months’ imprisonment and a ₹5.5 lakh fine, directing the amount to be paid as compensation under Cr.P.C. Section 357(1); on appeal, the Sessions Court reduced the imprisonment to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and maintained the fine. The revision challenges these concurrent findings, alleging lack of disclosure of the nature of the loan and the relationship between the parties, and contends that the sources of funds and the complainant’s capacity require closer scrutiny. The High Court notes that Cr.P.C. revision powers are not wide enough to re-appreciate evidence and relies on established law regarding the presumption under NI Act Sections 118 and 139, which are rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities. The Court ultimately upholds the concurrent verdicts, dismisses the revision petition, and grants four months to pay the fine with a deferment of execution pending that period.
WP(C).No. 33335 of 2015 (N) This writ petition, filed by a large batch of law students, challenges the Cochin University of Science and Technology’s compliance with the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The petition asserts that the honours-law courses (BBA-LLB and B.Com-LLB) must be taught for not less than 18 weeks per semester with at least 24 lecture hours per week and not less than 36 class hours weekly, including seminars, moot court and tutorials, with a minimum of 30 lecture hours for honours courses. The petitioners contend that the distribution of class hours across Semesters I, III, V, VII, and IX falls far short of the prescribed 648 classroom hours per semester (18 weeks × 36 class hours), with the schedule purportedly providing only about 304 hours in some semesters. They sought postponement of examinations set to begin on 17.11.2015 and an ordering to ensure compliance with BCI prescriptions before examinations. The university extended teaching hours to 17.12.2015 and rescheduled exams to 28.01.2016 due to inter‑college events, a decision the court notes with cautious approval. The court reiterates the regulatory framework, cites Satheesh Kumar v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Bar Council of India decisions, and emphasizes education as a human right that must not be compromised by administrative lapses. The petition is disposed of with no costs.
CRL.M.C. No. 6284 of 2023 Noufal, Mubasher, Akbar, and Mugadis, petitioners in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC, challenge the order in CC 79/2022 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnani, arising from Crime No. 28/2022 of Perumbadappu Police Station, Malappuram. The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by affidavits from the victims indicating consent. The State Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded the matter is settled. The High Court examined the settled law—especially State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, which holds that Section 482 CrPC power to quash non‑compoundable offences may be exercised in matters of predominantly civil character where the dispute is resolved, with limits excluding heinous offences and offences under special statutes. The court also considered Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to understand the scope of quashing and the requirement of preliminary evaluation after evidence. After reviewing the facts and documents, the court found the dispute private in nature, the settlement genuine, and there is no indication of need to proceed with trial. Accordingly, the court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashed all further proceedings in CC 79/2022.
Rajith, the accused in S.T. No. 8 of 2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - IV, Kozhikode, challenges the continued prosecution for offences of wrongful restraint and criminal trespass (Sections 341, 323, 448, 452 read with 34 IPC) arising from Crime No. 376/2019 of Vellayil Police Station. The Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC contends that the dispute between the parties has been settled and the complainant/victim has no objection to quashing the proceedings. The victim filed an affidavit in support of the settlement, and the victim's counsel also indicated agreement to quash, while the Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing based solely on a compromise but conceded that the matter is settled. The judge examined authoritative pronouncements, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, which, following Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, lays down when the power under 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences with a predominantly civil character, especially where the parties have resolved the entire dispute. The court also cautions against quashing where offences are heinous or fall under special statutes. After reviewing the records and the victim’s affidavit, the court held that the dispute is private, the settlement is genuine, and criminal proceedings need not continue. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in S.T. No. 8/2023 are quashed.
W.P.(C). No. 21511 of 2021 This writ petition challenges the denial of approvals for eight teacher appointments (LPST and UPST) in the RRMUPS, Punnayurkulam, against vacancies that arose between 2016 and 2019. Petitioners, eight female teachers appointed in 2018–2019 by an approved Manager, contend that approval of their appointments cannot be denied solely on a change in Educational Agency/Manager and that the de facto manager's approval should be respected, with retroactive validity if necessary. The petition relies on Kerala Education Rules (KER): Rule 4 (Chapter III) on Manager’s approval, Rule 8 (Chapter XIV A) on teacher approvals, and Rule 9(1) (Chapter XIV A) which provides that an appointment by an approved Manager remains unaffected by changes in the Educational Agency or the Manager. The Court notes prior Kerala precedents — Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala; Manager, St. Mary’s High School v. Beji Abraham — and Noushar P.K. v. State of Kerala, as well as a 2022 decision in WP(C) No.26917 of 2022 — supporting the protectorate effect of de facto managerial authority and retrospective approval where necessary. The court proposes to reconsider Ext.P9–Ext.P17 in light of these rulings, set them aside, and direct the competent authorities (Respondents 1–3) to reconsider the petitions expeditiously, with disbursement of benefits if ultimately approved.
WP(C).No. 34460 of 2016 (F) The petitioners are a group of auto-rickshaw operators in Thrissur District challenging certain conditions imposed in their vehicle permits, specifically relating to parking and the manner of picking up passengers. They allege that the objectionable conditions hinder their livelihood and have approached the first respondent for variations to these conditions, which they claim has not been forthcoming. The petition relies on a prior Kerala High Court decision, Rajesh v. Secretary, R.T.A. (2014 (3) KLT 341), arguing that similar grievances in the permit framework have been addressed by permitting variation of permit conditions. The court heard submissions from the petitioners’ counsel and the Government Pleader. The learned judge recognizes the parallel with Rajesh and, citing the same, disposes of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to accept and consider variation applications filed by the petitioners. The directive requires that such applications be reviewed in light of the Rajesh decision, and to do so within a week of their submission. The judgment thus balances regulatory concerns with the need for flexibility in permit conditions, providing relief to operators while preserving administrative processes. It underscores the court’s reliance on precedent to facilitate timely redress in permit-related disputes affecting livelihood and traffic management.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Crime No.485/2023 registered at Vattiyoorkavu Police Station for offences under Sections 324, 326, 506 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners, Arun @ Arun Kumar.M.M., Manikandan, Murukan and Rajappan @ Rajan S., were accused in the FIR dated 9.6.2023. The prosecution alleges that on 05.06.2023 at around 11:00 PM, the petitioners attacked the victim from behind the head and face with an unknown weapon, causing serious injuries. The petitioners' counsel contends that the entire dispute between the parties has been settled and that the victims support the settlement via affidavits, hence the proceedings should be quashed under S.482 CrPC. The Public Prosecutor reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that the matter is settled with no objection from victims. The Court relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688, which summarises when non-compoundable offences can be quashed, and the related principles from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. The court notes that the dispute is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and there is no grave public interest at stake. Consequently, it allows the criminal miscellaneous case and quashes all further proceedings in Crime No.485/2023.
Present writ petition challenges the preliminary order 04.08.2009 and the final award 09.12.2009 in Industrial Dispute ID No. 22/2005 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, arising from the dismissal of a security guard employed by G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. The 1st respondent workman faced a charge of misconduct following a December 2003 incident. The enquiry officer conducted a domestic enquiry, and the Labour Court came to a view that the enquiry was vitiated for denying the workman the opportunity of legal assistance under Ext.P8, and set aside the enquiry report under Section 11-A of the ID Act, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The management challenged the Labour Court’s orders on the grounds that no right to legal representation exists in domestic enquiries and that the evidence on record could sustain the charges, and the employee had cross-examined witnesses effectively. The High Court reviewed the matter, agreed that the enquiry was flawed, held that the management failed to prove the misconduct, and reinstatement is not appropriate given the employee’s age. Relying on BSNL v Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, the court modified the remedy and directed payment of Rs. 2.5 lakh as compensation in full and final settlement within three months, instead of reinstatement.
WP(C).No.35009 of 2016 (A) Joseph C.X., a resident of Idukki district, filed WP(C) No. 35009 of 2016 (A) challenging Ext.P2, dated 20.09.2016, of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. The Forum had dismissed or rejected his complaint against respondents 2 and 3 on grounds that the complainant was absent, the claim was time-barred, and that the complainant was a defaulter with no clean hands. The petitioner alleges the complaint (Ext.P1) filed on 31.08.2016 was not numbered or posted for proceedings and that no notice was given, as shown by Ext.P3 (the cause list). The Forum’s explanation in its President’s affidavit states that fraud and cheating allegations had been made, and since fraud cases require voluminous evidence, and the Forum is expected to decide within a statutory period by a summary process, such matters should be returned to a Civil Court for adjudication. It is also noted that, under Sec.12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Forum may proceed or reject a complaint after giving an opportunity of being heard, but it posted for admission on 20.09.2016 and none appeared. The High Court held Ext.P2 illegal for lack of natural justice, set it aside, and directed the Forum to take up the unnumbered complaint, issue sufficient notice, and re-consider after providing opportunity, with the petitioner to appear on 28.11.2016. The writ petition was disposed accordingly.
The petitioners, Ansamaged, Thasimaged, and Muhammed Jibin, residents of Thiruvananthapuram district, challenge the continuation of criminal proceedings in SC No. 289/2020 arising from Crime No. 50/2018 of Palode Police Station. The matter concerns offences alleged on 26 December 2017, when the 2nd respondent and his companions were allegedly taken to a market, assaulted, and subjected to casteist abuse, leading to FIRs under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 323, 506(i) read with 34, and under sections 3(1)(r), (s) and (zd) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petition seeks quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue the case further, a stance supported by an affidavit from the victim. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, cautions against quashing based solely on compromise given the offences’ non‑compoundable nature and the petitioners’ involvement in other cases, though those are minor. The High Court analyzes binding Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—to decide that, in private, non‑heinous offences, a settlement can justify quashing under 482 CrPC if the dispute is fully resolved and public interest is not offended. On these facts, the court allows the Crl.M.C., quashing all further proceedings in SC No. 289/2020.
This is a first appeal from orders arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,09,426 with interest in O.S. No. 508/2013, filed by The Parish Chit Company Ltd before the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The decree was passed ex parte on 25.09.2013. The appellant, Anie, is the legal heir of the deceased 2nd defendant, and she challenges the ex parte decree by filing I.A. Nos. 531 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, and I.A. No. 530 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 1936 days. The Sub Court dismissed both applications on 16.01.2020. The High Court admitted the appeal, granted an interim stay in I.A. No. 1 of 2020, and later directed LCR calls in related proceedings. The Sub Court’s reasoning traced service of summons and asserted knowledge regarding the plaint property and title deed, while deeming the delay to be unexplained. The Kerala High Court, applying Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee, and noting Rafeek v. K. Kamarudeen, held that condonation of delay must be liberal but not unfettered, and remanded to reconsider the interlocutory applications after providing reasonable opportunities to both sides. The court preserved the interim stay until orders are passed. The appeal is thereby allowed and remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
WP(C).No. 34363 of 2016 (U) The petitioner, Aadharsh C., seeks correction of the date of birth maintained in Ext.P8 Birth Certificate issued by the third respondent. The certificate records the birth as 31 August 1993, but the petitioner contends that the true date is 30 August 1993, with birth at 11:50 p.m. on that day, and that the hospital intimated the date as 31 August 1993 the following day. The petitioner relies on consistent declarations in school records, the SSLC certificate, passport, and other documents indicating 30 August 1993 as the birth date, supported by an affidavit from the petitioner’s mother and declarations from two credible persons as required by Rule 11 of the Kerala Births & Deaths Rules. The respondent’s counsel argues that the entry in the Births and Deaths Register was based on hospital intimation and cites Registrar (Births and Deaths) v. Jayakrishnan (2003) to suggest that later documents (SSLC/passport) cannot overturn the register entry. The judgment also references Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob and Others (2011) (DB) to emphasize that corrections are permissible under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Rule 11, upon credible evidence. The court finds the hospital’s 31 August 1993 entry to be a bona fide mistake in the circumstances and directs correction to 30 August 1993, with production of originals, payment of late fees, and issuance of a corrected certificate within one month."
WP(C).No. 36352 of 2015 (T) This writ petition under Rule 185(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules challenges the promotion of a post intended for a direct recruit vacancy by the Kollam District Co-operative Bank to a senior bank employee. The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) had notified a vacancy via Exhibit P1 for a Deputy General Manager with an initial rank list (Exhibit P2) dated 28.09.2011, valid for three years and extended to 28.03.2016. The petitioner, who stood third in the ranking, contends that vacancies must be filled strictly on a 1:1 basis between promotees and direct recruitees, and that the promotion of the third respondent to the vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment violates Rule 185(3) and the ratio in Jameela v. James Joseph (this Court’s Division Bench decision). The respondents, including the bank and KPSC, argue that after amendments to qualifications (26.11.2014) the subsisting rank list may be rendered ineffective, and that vacancies arising post-rank list must be notified afresh, potentially favoring open-category or member-society candidates. The court, relying on Jameela, distinguishes earlier Supreme Court cases (Devin Katti, Rangaiah) and holds that post-amendment vacancies cannot be filled solely from the old rank list. Accordingly, the Court disposes the petition by directing direct recruitment through PSC within two weeks, with the third respondent allowed to continue temporarily until a direct recruit is available.
WP(C).No.34051 of 2014 (F) Shafeeq P.K. challenges a COFEPOSA detention order (No. 7018/SSA4/2013/Home dated 06.05.2013) issued under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of COFEPOSA. The petitioner, a Dubai-based businessman, contends that the grounds of detention rely on the statements and materials relating to Antony Morris and that he was not served with the detention order; Ext.P8 indicates the COFEPOSA proceedings against him were dropped, suggesting lack of ongoing basis for detention. He also relies on Ext.P3 (Morris’ Section 108 Customs Act statement) and Ext.P2 grounds issued in Morris’ case to show the absence of real involvement. The State counters that the same facts and grounds apply to the petitioner and that Ext.P7 show-cause notice and related materials form the basis for subjective satisfaction. The court notes that Ext.P2 was issued in Morris’ case and that the detaining authority may rely on similar material; it observes that a detention order can be sustained even if some related proceedings were not adjudicated on the merits. The petition relies on several Supreme Court precedents (Alka Subhash Gadia, Subhash Popatlal Dave, Pooja Batra, Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi, Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya) to challenge pre-execution detention; however the High Court ultimately concludes that the pre-execution challenge is unwarranted, and the writ petition is dismissed. The decision clarifies the narrow scope of pre-execution interference in COFEPOSA cases where considerable evidence supports detention.
