This original petition arises from OS 929/2008, filed by Jumaila Beevi against government land records and for correction of resurvey entries. The State contends plaint ‘C’ schedule land is Government property and the purpose of the suit is to defeat the State’s title. The suit was decreed ex parte in 2009 due to non-representation of the State’s officer. After about 752 days, petitions to set aside the ex parte decree were filed, along with delay condonation applications, all of which were dismissed for non-representation or failure to act. Thereafter, the petitioners sought restoration of those orders, filing another round with a long delay, followed by CMA Nos. 25 and 26/2019 with a total delay of about 1007 days; these were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed. The petition under OP(C) 511/2021 seeks to set aside the judgment and permit contest on merits. The Government Pleader urged a liberal approach to condonation of delay, invoking Lipok Ao and Mandal Revenue Officer. The respondent counsel argued casual handling of the suit and that delay cannot be condoned without substantial reasons. After hearing, the court declined to interfere, emphasizing accountability for officials and holding that liberal condonation is not, by itself, a justification for allowing the original petition. The petition is dismissed; there is no relief to the petitioners, and the State must address responsibility for the delay.
Rajani filed WP(C) No.1161 of 2024 challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent banks for a housing loan of ₹35.93 lakh taken in 2017. After default, the loan account was declared NPA in 2021 and the bank commenced Section 13 proceedings (OA No.641 of 2023) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. An Advocate Commissioner issued Ext.P1 notice threatening possession of the mortgaged asset. Rajani sought interim relief to stay Ext.P1, proposing to repay the outstanding amount in 20 equal monthly installments if the loan account were regularized, arguing that the delay would cause irreparable loss. The respondents countered that the loan default led to NPA status, and that SARFAESI remedies have been and are being pursued (Section 13 proceedings and DRt OA), making the writ petition not maintainable. The court relied on established precedents holding that writs under Article 226 are not maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings where efficacious remedies exist, including United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., Anilkumar v. State Bank of India, South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, and Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed; however, the petitioner may approach for repossession if possession occurs or for settlement of the loan account.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No. 4753 of 2022) before the Kerala High Court, heard by a Single Judge, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. The petition seeks to quash further proceedings in Crime No. 458/2007 of Balramapuram Police Station, now refiled as CC 914/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, against petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and 5 (Ravi, Arun and John Paul) for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 332 IPC (read with 149) and Section 38 read with Section 52 Kerala Police Act. The prosecution alleged that on 27.12.2007, during patrolling at RC Church, Balramapuram, the petitioners refused to disperse and assaulted police personnel, obstructing official duties. The trial court, in CC 306/2008, acquitted co-accused 1, 3 and 6; petitioners’ case was separated and later refiled as CC 914/2019. The petition contends that with the acquittals, the substratum of the prosecution collapses, and continuing is futile. The State opposes quashing, arguing the petitioners’ roles remain to be tried. The Court analyzed the evidence: independent witnesses were hostile and there were material inconsistencies among PW 1, PW 2, PW 9 and PW 10; the court noted contradictions with the FIR and final report, undermining the prosecution case. Relying on existing principles, the High Court held the substratum destroyed and invoked 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against petitioners. The result is a quashing of Annexure B in Crime No. 458/2007 and all further proceedings in CC 914/2019 against the petitioners.
JALALUDEEN P.I. sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order Exhibit P4, challenged the rejection of his nomination for the managing committee of the 4th respondent society, and prayed for mandamus to compel acceptance of his nomination. The core issue turned on Clause 34 of Ext.P5 bye-laws, which bars a member from serving more than three consecutive terms, and whether the Explanation to Rule 35A(4A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules nullifies such restrictions. The petitioner argued that the Explanation to Rule 35A(4A) applies to all restrictions on voting and contesting, rendering the three-term cap void. The respondents contended that bye-laws govern internal management and that the three-term cap is a valid restriction under Rule 44(1)(j) and not contrary to the Act or Rules. The court reviewed Sections 19, 20, and 28(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, and Rules 35A(4) and 35A(4A), including the explanatory provision. It held that the Explanation to Rule 35A(4A) is intended to clarify eligibility to be included in the voters list, not to extend or widen the main restrictions on the right to contest. Accordingly, the court found Clause 34 compatible with the Act and Rules and allowed the writ appeals, setting aside the interim order and dismissing the petition.
CRL.M.C. No. 5726 of 2017 Rejimon Joseph, the petitioner, seeks to quash Annexure A14 FIR registered on 8 October 2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Kattappana, alleging the death of his father, Sebastian Joseph, in February 2011 was natural and not suspicious. The High Court of Kerala examined a challenge to the investigation after more than four years, noting that the death occurred in 2011 and the FIR was lodged in 2015. The petitioner argued, relying on decisions like Manoj Kumar Sharma v State of Chhattisgarh (AIR 2016 SC 3930) and Rhea Chakraborty v State of Bihar (AIR 2020 SC 3826), that the object of Section 174 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether death was suspicious, not to drive a belated inquiry, and that quashing is warranted where delay reveals malafide or the investigation is a futile exercise. The respondents contended the petitioner lacks locus to obstruct an investigation that could uncover truth about the death and that the court should not scuttle an ongoing inquiry. After considering the documents, including Annexures A13–A15, and noting the extended delay, lack of concrete allegations, and the impracticality of exhuming a body after more than a decade, the court held that continuing the investigation would be futile and that quashing the FIR is warranted. The order was delivered by Justice K. Haripal, Single Judge.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA 318 of 2003) challenges a Subordinate Judges’ Court, Kollam, decree dated 28 October 2002 in OS 399 of 1995, which granted specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, V. Ramachandran Nair. The defendant, Abdulshukkoor @ Yousufjan, sought to avoid or limit this relief by contending that Ext. A1, the sale agreement dated 28 November 1993 for the plaint schedule room in a line of shop rooms in Andamukkam, Kollam, was either not validly executed or not acted upon; the defendant further argued that he had already settled the property in his wife’s favour (via a settlement deed) and that the plaintiff had defaulted on rent, among other issues. The plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness to perform and sought specific performance, or in the alternative recovery of advance money with interest. The High Court, while noting that the trial records were missing, proceeded on Ext. A1 and the surrounding pleadings. It rejected the Stamp Act objections, held that the endorsement Ext. A1(a) (extension of time) does not render Ext. A1 inadmissible, and concluded that the plaintiff was not prevented from obtaining a discretionary remedy. Ultimately, it held no inference to interfere with the trial court’s findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree for specific performance and its delivery in 2008.
This writ petition challenges Ext. P7, an Insurance Ombudsman order directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to pay Rs. 18,00,000 to the first respondent under four LIC policies issued by LIC. The facts show that the insured suffered an accident on 22-10-2017, leading to permanent disability, and the first respondent claimed disability benefits and a “double accident benefit.” The Ombudsman accepted the claim, prompting LIC to approach the High Court. LIC’s counsel contends that the facts reveal a fall on the road resulting from an underlying medical condition (spastic tetraplegia and extra pontine myelinolysis), and that the injuries were not caused by an accident as defined in the policy. He relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Smt. Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2019) 6 SCC 64, which held that a heart attack suffered while riding a motorcycle is not an accident under an accident policy. The respondent’s counsel disputes this interpretation, asserting that the applicant’s fall occurred on a public road and that the insured’s paralysis is a direct result of the accident. The court examines policy clauses (Accident Benefit clauses 10.2, 10, 11), the meaning of “accident”, and the requirement that the injury be caused by outward, violent and visible means and be the sole and proximate cause of disability or death. Ultimately the court finds no direct causal link to an accident, references the Alka Shukla precedent, and allows the petition, setting aside Ext. P7 and directing refunds and payment with interest where applicable.
Mat.Appeal No.179 of 2022; Mat.Appeal No.201 of 2022; Mat.Appeal No.495 of 2022; OP(FC) No.285 of 2023 These appeals arise from a matrimonial dispute between Bino Joseph and Neenacherian (Neena Cherian) decided by the Family Court, Kottayam Ettumanno r. The wife/petitioner claimed patrimony of Rs 12.5 lakh and Rs 1,46,25,270 allegedly misappropriated by the husband; she also sought declarations, injunctions, and relief in respect of the petition schedule property. The husband counter claimed for Rs 3,11,55,935, which after set-off stood at Rs 1,65,30,665. The Family Court partly decreed in favor of the wife, directing payment of Rs 8,50,000 as patrimony and Rs 1,46,25,270 as misappropriated with 6% interest, while rejecting other reliefs and dismissing the counterclaim. On appeal, the High Court examined two principal issues: (i) the claim to Rs 4 lakh as patrimony and the related reliefs over the petition schedule property, and (ii) the amounts alleged as entrustment between relatives. The Court found certain counterclaim items fanciful and held that some payments cannot be treated as patrimony under the Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. Citing Philipose v. Sunil Jacob, the court emphasized that commercial transactions between in-laws arising out of marital life do not automatically constitute patrimony. The appeals and OP(FC) 285/2023 were dismissed with no order as to costs, thereby upholding the Family Court’s decrees and dismissing stay requests.
WP(C) Nos.16614 & 17274/2021 The Kerala High Court heard two writ petitions challenging COVID-19 containment measures under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and related orders (G.O. 4.8.2021 and 10.8.2021) issued by the Kerala Disaster Management Authority. Halvi K.S., an advocate, challenged the 4.8.2021 guidelines that conditioned access to shops, offices, and other venues on vaccination status or RT-PCR results, and sought to strike down discrimination between vaccinated and non‑vaccinated individuals, asserting violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21. N.V. Habeebu Rahman challenged clause (iv) of the 10.8.2021 order, which likewise restricted unvaccinated persons’ indoor access, arguing it deprived personal liberty and livelihood. The government defended the measures as a proportionate, time‑bound response to a public health emergency, grounded in the Disaster Management Act, with micro‑containment strategies and risk mitigation for livelihood concerns, supported by expert opinion and public health data. The court emphasized that during a public health crisis, the executive’s policy decisions may be given deference but subject to judicial review for reasonableness and proportionality. It held that the restrictions were not arbitrary, irrational, or violative of fundamental rights, and that the state, as guardian of public welfare, may impose reasonable restrictions in the larger public interest. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.
DevAnand, the 1st accused in Crime No. 1726/2013 at Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between him and the informant/victim. The prosecution registers offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), and 326 IPC. The informant alleges that on 19 December 2013, around 8.15 pm, five persons restrained him and assaulted him, resulting in injuries. Investigation identified the petitioner as the 1st accused; the petitioner denies involvement. Annexure-2 affidavit filed by the 1st respondent claims no involvement and notes that the investigation had not progressed and no final report has been laid. The petitioner submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; Annexure-3 corroborates this. The court directed the investigating officer to record the victim’s statement and report whether the settlement is genuine and whether any impediment to termination exists. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing solely on the basis of settlement, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and potential public interest. The court then surveys Supreme Court precedents including Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and others, laying down that Section 482 powers may quash non‑compoundable offences with a civil/private character when disputes are settled, subject to exclusions for heinous offences and certain statutes. It ultimately holds that the circumstances justify quashing, and the petition is allowed; FIR and proceedings are quashed.
This writ petition, filed by twenty-four retired employees of the 4th respondent establishment, seeks higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners contend that pension must be calculated on actual contributions and salary drawn, rather than the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, and they urge mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to collect the difference in pension contributions based on actual contributions from joining to date. They also seek a directive to the 4th respondent to furnish joint consent for higher option, enabling higher pension. The respondents, through counsel, contend that the issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC online SC 1521, and that the petition should be disposed in accordance with those directions. The High Court, after considering the submissions, disposed of the petition by directing the competent respondents to re-consider the claims in light of the Supreme Court dictum, taking into account the bank's status, within three months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision does not decide the merits but provides a time-bound direction for re-evaluation.
This Kerala High Court MACA 898/2010 appeals against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) 503/2006, issued 20 January 2010, arising from a fatal motor accident. The insurer contends the Tribunal erred in computing dependency loss, arguing the calculation did not follow Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and the Supreme Court’s subsequent conventional-heads framework. It urges adopting the split multiplier method (as in Puttamma v. K. L. Narayana Reddy) and challenges the Tribunal’s assumed monthly income of 12,000, proposing Ext. A7’s 6,488 as the correct net monthly income, while querying deductions for income tax and professional tax and questioning the treatment of pain and suffering. The insurer also cites R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. to discourage the split multiplier and urges adherence to Pranay Sethi for conventional heads. The respondents maintain the Tribunal’s award is just, aligning with established jurisprudence. The Kerala High Court, considering Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, declines the split-multiplier approach and recalculates compensation using Ext. A7 income (6,488), adds 30% future prospects, applies a multiplier of 14, and deducts 1/4 for personal expenses, while granting loss of estate and loss of consortium as per Pranay Sethi. The result is a total of 13,59,684 with 7.5% interest, payable within two months.
CRP Nos. 147 & 149 of 2023 On 21 November 2023, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 147 and 149 of 2023 filed by judgment debtor S. Somaraj, challenging two orders of the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Kottayam directing warrants for arrest under Section 51(c) CPC to detain him in civil prison in execution petitions EP 83/2021 (OS 720/2020) and EP 89/2021 (OS 258/2020). The decree-holder is Self Employers Service Society and others. The petitions contend that the debtor had no means to satisfy the decree; annexures show assets historically swapped or mortgaged and properties sold—landed property and a building sold for about Rs. 1.5 crore, with proceeds used to discharge several loans from cooperative societies. The petitioner argues there was no contumacious refusal to honour the decree, citing Xavier v. Canara Bank Ltd (1969 KHC 195) to support that “means” must be considered as liquid resources and that mere non-payment without contumacious intent should not trigger prison, and seeks remand to formulate a payment plan. The respondents assert the debtor’s status after decree shows means to pay, pointing to loans and assets diverted to other creditors. After evaluating Exts A1–A12 and B1–B16, the court concludes there is evidence of means post-decree and that the proviso to Section 51(c) is satisfied; it refuses to interfere, and the CRPs are dismissed with warrants upheld.
M.F.A.(ECC) No. 66 of 2013 This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees' Compensation Act) filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited against an award in W.C. No. 7 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode. The claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 7,17,239 with interest at 12% per annum; the insurer challenged the computation and sought adjustment in light of the statutory framework. There was a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned, and an order directed that a deposited amount in excess of Rs. 4,78,159/- pending disposal not be paid to the claimant. The matter was referred to a Full Bench with MFA No. 124/2011 arising from a dispute regarding Section 4(1)(c) and the proper basis of reliance on Explanation II. The Full Bench overruled the earlier Division Bench decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razak (2012 (1) KLT 818) and endorsed the reasoning ultimately set out in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Balachandran (2014 (4) KLT 499). The appeal is allowed in part; the compensation amount is recalculated using a monthly wage of Rs. 4,000, resulting in Rs. 4,78,159 with 12% interest from 13.06.2007, and the balance deposit is to be refunded to the insurer. The penalty under Section 4A is not applicable since the payment was deposited before the Commissioner’s order.
Raveendran v. State of Kerala is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by the appellant challenging a conviction under section 58(a) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara, in S.C. No.1025/2001. The Sessions Court had found the accused guilty and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with a default sentence of three months. The prosecution case, as laid out, claimed that on 21 May 1998, while on patrol at the Marappalam-Nellimoodu road, Preventive Officer encountered the appellant with a 5-litre can. The can contained a liquid, later identified as arrack on smell and taste, and only 1.5 litres remained. The container was seized; a seizure mahazar was prepared; seals affixed; a case registered as Cr. No.16/98; final report submitted and the matter transferred to the Sessions Court for trial. In defense, the appellant contended that the critical sampling for chemical analysis was not performed by a competent official; ministerial staff conducted sampling; the court-records did not show seal impressions on the seizure mahazar; there were no contemporaneous documents proving chain-of-custody; Ext.P7 chemical analysis was relied on without unimpeachable link to the seized liquid. The High Court, invoking Baburaj v. State of Kerala and related authorities, held that strict compliance with Abkari Act procedures is mandatory, and the sampling chain was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.
This is an Income Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, challenging the ITAT Cochin Bench’s 04.09.2018 order in ITA No.127/Coch/2018 directed at the assessment year 2014-15. The central issue concerns entitlement to deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) viz., Vazhapally/Vazhappally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a cooperative bank registered under the Kerala Societies Registration Act. The appeal engages whether the PACS qualifies for the deduction under 80P(2) and whether its functions align with the definition of a Primary Agricultural Society under the Banking Regulations Act, as well as whether the interest from the surplus fund should be treated as income from business or income from other sources. The Revenue contends that the deduction is confined to the precise language of section 80P(2) and that ancillary considerations may negate the deduction if the transaction contravenes the object. The Court references the Supreme Court’s decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax and related Kerala cases (notably Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd) to state that the issue is no longer res integra. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal, with the Tribunal’s order and the assessment set aside. The judgment ultimately allows the Income Tax Appeal to the extent of remand and reiterates the established principles guiding 80P deductions and income characterization for PACS.
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. delivers judgment in WP(C) No.21061/23 arising from Enforcement Directorate actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petition challenges six provisional attachments and freezing orders, including an order dated 09.06.2023 for Rs. 459,07,42,047 and earlier attachments totaling Rs. 910,29,87,556, directed to properties of the petitioners (and one attachment over Sri N. Jayamurugan). The petitioners contend that the proceeds of crime, as estimated by the ED at Rs. 910.29 crore, are attributable to the first petitioner only to 51% in the partnership M/s M.J. Associates (with the other partner holding 49%), so attachment should be limited to 51% of the proceeds, i.e., Rs.464.25 crore. They argue the last attachment is beyond the permissible share and that the ED acted without jurisdiction. The petitioners also contend that the statutory remedies under PMLA—adjudication, appellate tribunal, and court review—are efficacious and should be exhausted rather than invoking Article 226. Respondents counter that the PMLA provides a three‑tier remedy and that the writ petition is not maintainable while the attachment is part of ongoing proceedings in the Special Court (S.C. No.533/2018). The Court tabulates the six attachments, notes the total value, and holds that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of statutory remedies. The petition is dismissed, with directions that the Adjudicating Authority consider objections, if any, as per the PMLA.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.2542 of 2018) filed in the Kerala High Court by the petitioner, Saju Moolan, seeking to quash FIR No. 1001/2018 registered at Angamaly Police Station under IPC sections 420, 468, and 471 read with section 34, and to stay further proceedings. The factual matrix centers on a family dispute among the siblings and other relatives belonging to the ‘Moolans Group,’ involving a partition of properties and businesses, a Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure-5), agreements (Annexure-6), and a Power of Attorney (Annexure-7) executed by the 2nd respondent in favor of the petitioner's father. Allegations also include cancellation of the Power of Attorney, forged documents, and transfer of shares and assets in relation to various concerns. Arbitration attempts were made (Annexures 12–18) but did not culminate in a resolution. Annexure-19 contains a police complaint and the FIR, filed after a long sequence of civil settlements and mediations. The petitioner contends the dispute is civil in nature and no criminal offences attract. The respondents argue that the FIR discloses cognizable offences (including forged documents and misappropriation) and that the matter is at the FIR stage requiring investigation. The High Court, applying settled principles, declines to quash the FIR, noting that Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers are sparingly exercised and that merits should not be considered at this stage. The petition is dismissed, preserving rights to challenge final reports.”,
This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, where the appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh for possession of 6.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor found on 01.04.2004 at Chulliyode. The trial court convicted after examining Prosecution witnesses and documentary exhibits, and after the appellant’s 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the defence adduced DWs. The appellant challenges the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory in tamper-proof condition, suggesting defects in sample handling. Specific contentions include: (a) no seal affixed on sample bottles; (b) unexplained custody of the sample from 02.04.2004 to 13.04.2004; (c) lack of tamper-proof despatch evidence. Ext.P4 shows the sample was forwarded on 02.04.2004 and reached the lab on 13.04.2004, but key officials who transmitted and handled the sample were not examined, and the forwarding note (Ext.P7) left the official’s name blank. The court cites Viswanadhan v. State of Kerala and Kumaran v. State of Kerala, reaffirming that without satisfactory proof of tamper-proof transfer and delay explanations, the evidence linking the contraband to the accused cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the Ext. P4 report of no value. Consequently, the conviction is set aside and the accused acquitted, with liberty and restoration of deposits per law.
This writ petition (Civil) concerns Dr. C.P.V. Vijayakumaran, a former associate professor at the Central University of Kerala, who was found guilty of misbehavior by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and subsequently subjected to disciplinary action culminating in dismissal from service (Ext.P56). The ICC’s findings, based on complaints by students, were initially reviewed after the Supreme Court’s directive; a fresh inquiry (Enquiry Committee) examined additional witnesses and documents, ultimately recording that the petitioner had engaged in inappropriate conduct with some students. The petitioner challenged Ext.P53, the Enquiry Committee’s report, contending that the punishment (Ext.P56) was excessive and that the case largely rested on ICC findings. The respondents argued that Ext.P53 was grounded not only on ICC findings but on evidence and documents produced during the new inquiry, including testimonies from PW4 and PW5. The court acknowledged that while the ICC had found guilt on various charges, the punishment imposed appeared disproportionate given the ICC’s limited remedy (not to teach or evaluate in two semesters). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala, the court held that guilt must be established in a properly constituted enquiry and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider Ext.P56 with due procedure, providing hearing, and to issue a fresh order expeditiously within three months. Retirement benefits would be modulated accordingly.
