Petitioner Sreeraj S. challenged the registration of Ext.P7 sale certificate under SARFAESI after encumbrances/attachments were noted against the property. He relied on Ext.P1, a 2017 judgment in W.P.(C).No.6880/2017, which directed the Sub Registrar to register the sale certificate without endorsing prior attachments. The Sub Registrar had refused registration, citing the existence of encumbrances disclosed in Ext.P3. The bank confirmed a mortgage in 2008 and a 2016 attachment arising later, which, according to the bank, need not be shown in the sale certificate since it postdates the mortgage. The court analyzed whether attachments created after a mortgage affect the sale and emphasized that post-mortgage attachments do not prejudice the sale or title. Relying on Housing Development Finance and another v. Sub Registry Officer and Others (2011 KHC 851) and Madhan v. Sub Registrar (2014 (1) KLT 406), the court held that such attachments may be effaced and need not be reflected in the sale certificate when the sale is confirmed. The court directed Ext.P7 to be registered without modification, and permitted mutation if required. It also ordered the petitioner to move for a non-encumbrance certificate and to implead affected beneficiaries to ensure due process, with attachments post-mortgage to be effaced within a stipulated period. The petition was allowed with these directions."
Jayasree, daughter of a senior citizen, challenged Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, contending it is open to misuse and vague in its terms. Her petition argues that leaving a senior citizen in any place with the intention of abandonment could be misapplied, and the phrase "having the care or protection of the senior citizen" lacks precise definition, potentially enveloping individuals not in de facto care. Relying on Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, she invokes Article 14 and 21 challenges to demonstrate vagueness. The Kerala High Court notes the factual backdrop—mother died in an old-age home and the petitioner’s limited ability to provide in-person care—but proceeds under Article 226 to assess constitutionality rather than merits. The court reiterates a well-settled principle that mere possibility of abuse of a provision cannot render it void, citing foundational judgments such as The Collector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Others (AIR 1962 SC 316), State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (3 SCC 658), Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) and Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. UP Financial Corporation (2003) 2 SCC 455, among others. It holds that Section 24, within a special statute aimed at protecting seniors, uses language meaning a person legally obligated to care and protect. The petition is dismissed, but liberty is granted to pursue defences if evidence shows non-abandonment or inability to provide care.
Ahmed Thazhe Chalikal, owner of a commercial building in Kozhikode, challenged a second building tax assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act. He had earlier been assessed and paid Rs. 11,94,163, but was now demanded Rs. 13,34,837 on the basis of alleged additional constructions. The petitioner contends that there were no new constructions; the extra demand stems from open truss work executed by the lessee, which cannot justify a fresh assessment on the petitioner. The opposition argues that the writ petition is not maintainable since an appeal under the statute lies against Ext.P2, the assessment order. Crucially, the petitioner argues that Rule 9(3) of the Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area) Rules, 1992 requires the assessment order to specify the basis of assessment, amount payable, instalments, and deadlines, and that Ext.P2 fails to disclose any basis or reasons, rendering it vitiated for violation of natural justice. The court notes the decision in Abraham Thomas v. State of Kerala, which held that assessment orders must be supported by reasons. It held that a lack of reasoning amounts to a breach of natural justice and warrants quashing the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P2 is quashed, and fresh orders must be issued after affording the petitioner a hearing.
CRA(V).No. 229 of 2013; Crl A(V) 229/2013 & Crl M.C 3834/2012 This is a Kerala High Court judgment in CRA(V).No. 229 of 2013 (with Crl M.C 3834/2012) arising from a 1999 communal violence at Achukulangara in which Dasan, a CPI(M) member, was killed. The appellant, the widow Pushpavally, challenged the order of acquittal in SC 386/2002 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Thalassery. The prosecution alleged an unlawful assembly of BJP/RSS members to murder Dasan, with several accused tried under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 302; Explosives Act Sections 3,5; and Arms Act Section 27. The trial court acquitted some accused; the State filed this appeal and petition (Crl M.C) seeking expungement of adverse remarks against a police officer. The High Court found the case deeply tainted by political bias and procedural irregularities: substitution of the 4th accused in place of DW1, manipulation of the inquest sheet (Ext P2) after production, and unreliability of eyewitnesses PW1–PW3 due to delays and their CPI(M) affiliations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Harbans Singh; Balakrushna Swain; Viswambaran), it upheld the acquittals of several accused, dismissed the appeal, and allowed the M.C to expunge adverse remarks against PW9, with liberty to departmental inquiry into any guilty officers.
The petitioner, B.M. Noushad, is the brother of the sole accused in Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Kozhikode’s crime registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for wealth disproportion during 01/01/2007 to 31/10/2016. A confidential verification report was prepared by the VACB (5th respondent) and forwarded to the VACB Director, who sanctioned and registered the crime on 26.02.2018 (Ext.P8 FIR). The petitioner seeks relief, arguing that four properties mentioned in Ext.P7 were allegedly said to have been purchased by the petitioner’s brother, though he did not acquire such properties, and that the petitioner’s own properties were included in the alleged Benami properties listed in the FIR. He prays for entrusting the investigation to a senior IPS officer and for a further inquiry into the conspiracy behind obtaining Ext.P7 and registering Ext.P8. The court notes the investigation is in its infancy, with the present IO (Respondent 3) continuing the probe, and the petitioner not yet being an accused. Citing Lalitha Kumari, the court holds that preliminary inquiry is only to determine cognizable offences, not to verify veracity, and declines interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed at this stage.
W.P.(C) No.4723 OF 2021(M) The petitioner, P.A Zubair, is the Chief Executive Officer of Nandilath G Mart Private Limited, Pathanamthitta. He approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondents 1–3 to consider representations Ext.P11 (30.01.2021) and Ext.P13 (19.02.2021) by the shop manager and to provide police protection to safeguard life and property of employees and ensure free ingress/egress to and from the store during a strike organized by respondents 5 and 6 and their supporters. The factual matrix shows that 5th respondent, an employee of Innovsource Service Pvt. Ltd. assigned to the Pathanamthitta store, allegedly misbehaved with customers leading to a termination-related dispute; 5th and 6th respondents (the latter being General Secretary of the Shop and Establishment Mazdoor Sang) jointly organized protests that impeded customer entry (as evidenced by Ext.P7). HR and the Labour Department engaged in conciliation (Exts.P8–P9). The petition contends that without police protection, the establishment faces threats to life, property and orderly operations. The court granted an interim order directing police action to prevent obstruction and later disposed of the petition with directions for police protection upon request, urging cooperation with conciliation, and allowing peaceful protest without disrupting business. The decision underscores the police’s protective role while balancing workers’ rights to protest within lawful limits, citing established precedents on police duties and industrial relations.
WP(C).No. 7818 of 2015 (B) Petitioner P. Raman, an officer at Omassery Branch of the Kerala Gramin Bank, was dismissed in 2006 for alleged financial indiscipline, including misusing his official position, forging customer signatures, and withdrawing money via cheque against a customer. The departmental inquiry relied on a confession allegedly obtained under threat and coercion by the then Branch Manager and an inquiry officer, a contention the petitioner has consistently raised, claiming harassment due to his Scheduled Caste status. The department’s misconduct findings were upheld on appeal and the dismissal order (Ext.P2) stood. In the criminal arena, the petitioner was charged in C.C. No.214/2009 with multiple offences; in Ext.P3 the Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted him on 31.12.2013, along with co-accused Muhammed. The petitioner argues that since the criminal verdict acquitted him on the same set of facts, he must be reinstated per the Supreme Court’s reasoning in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat. The respondents counter that the writ petition is time-barred and not maintainable against orders already issued in 2006, and that the law distinguishes between departmental proceedings and criminal trials; a criminal acquittal does not automatically require reinstatement where the departmental inquiry was independently conducted. The High Court ultimately disposes the writ with directions to file a review petition and for the bank to consider it within a three-month window, indicating no automatic reinstatement but inviting a fresh look on merits post-acquittal.
W.A.No.1170/2016; W.A.No.1171/2016; W.A.No.1212/2016 These writ appeals arise from a common judgment in Radhakrishna Kurup v. Nadakkal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd (2016 (4) KLT 82). About 10.12 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 278/21 and 278/21-2 in Paripally, Kollam Taluk, belonging to the appellants, were brought to sale by the Nadakkal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. The sale occurred on 14.01.2009 for a total of ₹44,78,130 in execution of awards for two loan accounts. The appellants, a husband and wife, filed several writ petitions challenging the sale, which were dismissed for default or withdrawn. The Government later directed the bank to return the property on repayment of the loan; the bank refused, citing member sentiment and Lok Ayukta proceedings. The Government invoked Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (disposal of non-banking assets within seven years with prior sanction of the General Body and Registrar). The learned Single Judge held Section 56A unconstitutional under Article 14. On appeal, the court held that the Government had no jurisdiction to compel parting with the property, and the Registrar’s communications could not substitute the statute. It upheld Section 56A’s applicability to cooperative banks, rejected the constitutional challenge, and dismissed WA Nos.1170/2016 and 1171/2016 while allowing WA No.1212/2016. The appeals emphasize that disposal of non-banking assets should liquefy assets to support liquidity, without unconstitutional discrimination, and that statutory provisions govern the bank’s sale and Government directions.
This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court arising from a batch of writ appeals challenging notices and orders under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) and CST Rules, made in the context of the transition from KGST KVAT regime to the KVAT Act, 2003. The core issue is limitation for completing assessments under CST Rules, particularly Rule 6(5) read with Rules 6(7) and 6(8), and the interplay with the KVAT Act (Sections 21, 25 and the amended Section 42(3)) and Section 9(2) of the CST Act. The earlier regime under KGST Act allowed assessments to be completed within a four-year frame (Section 17 of KGST) and the CST Rules provided no explicit limitation for Rule 6(5). The Single Judge had held that assessments must be completed within a “reasonable time,” effectively four years, relying on Bhattinda and Abdul Majeed P.A. The Division Bench, however, overruled that narrow interpretation and held that a reasonable period under Rule 6(5) could extend to five years for initiation of proceedings for completion of assessment, recognizing the KVAT regime’s five-year cap for initiation of escaped turnover (Section 25) and aligning with the statutory framework. The court then evaluated each writ appeal, allowing some and rejecting others based on whether notices were issued within or beyond the extended reasonable period. The judgment emphasizes timely assessment while respecting statutory limits, and directs 30-day objection periods post-certified copy.
Jaya S.N. v. M.P. Arun Kumar involves a Regular First Appeal filed by the defendant against a Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, decree in OS 62/2008. The contract, dated 13 July 2007, envisaged sale of the plaint schedule property at Rs. 25,000 per cent (total Rs. 10 lakhs). The plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000 as advance and claimed readiness to execute the sale deed within five months, with the deadline fixed to 12 December 2007. The defendant admitted the sale but denied extending the time, and contended that Ext. A1 did not bear a genuine extension endorsement; she alleged manipulation of the document to extend time, asserting there was no lawful extension to 12.03.2008. The plaintiff allegedly sought three months’ extension via Exts. A2 and A3, arguing readiness to pay the balance and to clear mortgage-related impediments; notices were sent but the defendant did not respond. The trial court decreed specific performance, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance. The appellant challenged this by arguing the endorsement was forged, that there was no proven extension, and that readiness/funds were not established; the respondent countered with documentary proof and notice evidence. The High Court examined evidence, doubted the extension genuineness, and emphasized that specific performance is discretionary under Section 20, ultimately allowing the appeal and ordering return of Rs.50,000 with interest.
The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, delivers a succinct order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner, Sunitha Nizar, accused No.2 in CC No.1308/2014 arising from Crime No.389/2012 of Paravoor Police Station. The dispute centers on a power of attorney (PoA) executed in 2004 by the de facto complainant, Mohammed Basheer, authorizing the 1st accused to manage his property; the complainant later cancelled the PoA in 2012 after suspecting impropriety. Allegations allege that the 1st accused, aided by the 2nd accused (the petitioner) and the 3rd accused, conspired to procure pre-dated stamp paper and execute a sale agreement in favour of the 3rd accused, fabricating documents to show an advance payment. The petitioner’s counsel contends there is no direct link tying the petitioner to the alleged conspiracy; she is roped in merely by virtue of being the 1st accused’s wife, with no actionable conduct attributable to her. The de facto complainant argues she played an active role within the conspiracy. The court reiterates the settled principle that Section 482 relief should be sparingly used to prevent abuse of process, citing Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. On considering the materials, the court finds the petitioner’s involvement to be based on frail materials and mala fide, and states the proceedings would amount to harassment. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the final report along with all further proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from an appeal by Swapanan S/O Ravi challenging a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing 5 litres of illicit arrack. The trial court’s judgment, dated 10.10.2006, held the accused guilty and sentenced him to 1 1/2 years’ rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The prosecution case rests on the Excise Preventive Officer’s seizure on 5.2.1998 and the subsequent chemical analysis (Ext.P7) of a sealed bottle containing arrack. The defence argued substantial gaps in the chain of custody: seals, sampling, and forwarding notes were not established; no sample was drawn at the scene; no evidence showed the specimen impression of the seal had been provided to the Chemical Examiner; Ext.P3 chemical analysis lacked evidentiary value. The court carefully scrutinizes these aspects, citing Rajamma v. State of Kerala (2014(1) KLT 506) and Daulat Ram (AIR 1980 SC 1314) to emphasize link-evidence requirements, tamper risks, and the need for co-relation between seized material and the laboratory report. It also references Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P (AIR 2019 SC 3569) to stress that a lab report alone is not conclusive. On these grounds, the court acquits the appellant and allows the appeal.
This writ petition (WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019) challenges SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. against petitioners Raveendran S. and Geetha. The court immediately acknowledges its jurisdictional limitations under the SARFAESI regime and the binding judicial pronouncements, notably Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, and the Kerala High Court’s subsequent approach in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). While refusing to conduct merits review of the bank’s actions, the judge considers the petitioners’ financial burden and the bank’s recovery interests. The court ultimately opts for a settlement-oriented resolution: the petitioners are directed to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs. 8,04,633 (as on 15.03.2019), plus charges and interest, in 12 equal monthly installments commencing from 16.04.2019. A default would void the granted relief and allow the bank to continue recovery. The directions are peremptory, with a clear warning against requests for extensions. The order reflects a balancing act: upholding the SARFAESI framework while permitting a structured payment plan to expedite recovery and reduce litigation. The petition is disposed accordingly with the bank’s welfare in view.
This is a writ petition challenging the process and conduct of a no-confidence motion against the President and Vice President of Kumbalam Grama Panchayat, part of Kerala’s local self-government framework. On 24.12.2018, seven elected members served notices of intention to move a no-confidence motion. The notices, together with proposed motions, were received by the 4th respondent (Secretary Palluruthy Block) who convened a meeting on 10.01.2019 for discussion of the motions. In the meeting, 10 of 18 members participated; after deliberation, the motion was carried with voting by the majority; petitioners and several allies abstained. The petition challenges the validity of the notices, the form and content of Exts P2/P2(a) as not constituting valid no-confidence notices against the President/VP, and Ext P3/P4 as defective. The respondents contend that Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 15 of the 1995 Rules were scrupulously followed, that the motions expressed loss of confidence in the President and Vice President, and that the majority’s will determined the outcome, invoking Section 157(2)-(3) and related provisions. The court examines whether minor form defects nullify the process, and whether the notices communicated the intended motion. The judge ultimately holds that Section 157 is a self-contained code and minor defects can be waved in light of democratic will, citing various precedents, and dismisses the petition, with no order as to costs.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1004 & 1005 of 2010 These matrimonial appeals challenge a Family Court Kozhikode order that dismissed a divorce petition while allowing a restitution of conjugal rights. The marriage between Manoj and Seema was solemnized on 04.05.2003. The appellant-husband approached the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) (cruelty) and Section 13(1)(iii) (incurably mentally ill) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of dissolution. The respondent-wife denied mental illness and cruelty and claimed restitution of conjugal rights through O.P.No.648/2009. The Family Court held no pre-existing mental illness and, relying on psychiatric evidence, dismissed the divorce petition and allowed restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant challenged, arguing that pre-existing mental illness is not a prerequisite for divorce and that cruelty is a valid ground under Section 13(1)(ia). The High Court, while noting Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh as a cited authority, reappraised the evidence and found that the husband had established gross cruelty, including a late-night incident where the respondent threatened the petitioner with a chopper. It held that cruelty suffices for dissolution even without a pre-existing mental illness and allowed the appeals, setting aside the Family Court’s orders and dissolving the marriage by decree under Section 13(1)(ia).
This Kerala High Court writ appeal addresses appointment qualifications for Assistant Professors under the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS). The central question is whether a Master’s degree must be in the specific subject (for example, MFSc in Fish Breeding or Fishery Biology) or whether Master’s degrees in allied or related subjects also qualify, so long as the degree is at Master’s level with at least 55% marks and the candidate has NET/SLET/SET where applicable. The University’s 2014 notification lists 13 discipline posts across six departments and authorizes grouping of allied subjects to determine eligibility, as evidenced by minutes Exts.R2(l)-(o). Petitioners contend that only MFSc in the concerned subject should count and that the Screening Committee’s grouping violates both UGC Regulations (4.4.1) and the First Statutes (Chapter 9). The Single Judge rejected these contentions after detailed analysis. The Division Bench upholds that the qualification is a Master’s Level degree in a relevant subject, not necessarily in the exact subject, and that grouping allied subjects is permissible under the UGC Regulations and the university notification. It finds no prejudice from the process, affirms the lower court’s decision, and notes no malafide. The court closes by granting liberty to the petitioner to apply for any vacancy if available, to be considered within a specified period.
This is a writ petition (Civil) under WP(C) No. 1529 of 2019 filed before the Kerala High Court by the petitioners, partners of M/s. Vagamon Tea Estate, challenging interdictory orders (Exts. P-1 and P-2) issued by the first respondent preventing registration and sale of lands. The petition contends that the lands in question are exempted forests/plantations under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Sec. 81E) and that such lands can be transferred or mutated in favor of purchasers upon valid title, without requiring a no-objection certificate. Relying on a line of earlier judgments, notably R.V. Devassia and Others v. Sub Registrar (2015 (1) KLT 825) and related decisions (including Exts. P-3, P-4, P-6), the petition asserts there is no legal bar to transfer exempted land and that the competent authorities may initiate action under Sec. 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act if conversions occur. The respondents argue for compliance with the exemption framework and caution against improper fragmentation or transfer. The court, after hearing, directions, and analysis of older judgments, held that there is no bar to registration of exempted land and that the authorities should not insist on NOC solely on the ground of exemption. It ordered registration and mutation within four weeks, and disposed of the petition with no costs, aligning with the Devassia line of authorities.
Crl.A.No.1507 of 2013 (A) The Kerala High Court heard Crl.A.No.1507 of 2013 (A) arising from the judgment convicting the accused under Sections 302 and 294(b) IPC for the death of Bivin on 26.3.2009 during a Left Democratic Front booth convention near Bethani junction, Vengolakkara. The trial court relied on four eye witnesses (PW1–PW4) who identified the accused (Vijayan) as the assailant and on the recovery of MO1, a blood-stained knife, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, allegedly disclosed by the accused and ultimately recovered from a hen-coop on his property. The prosecution argued that the physical evidence and ocular testimony, despite inconsistencies, established the intent to kill and thus warranted a conviction under Section 302 IPC, along with a conviction under 294(b) for obscene abuse at the time of the incident. The appellant challenged the case on several grounds: non-examination of all material witnesses, inconsistencies in place of occurrence and provocation among PW1–PW4, mismatch between the disclosure statement and the recovery site, and lack of motive and injuries to the accused and his wife. The High Court examined these issues, noting significant contradictions but also the corroborative elements supporting the identity of the accused and MO1, ultimately correcting the verdict.”
Bail Appl. No. 5546 of 2018 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by the third accused in Crime No.590/2018 of the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, under NDPS Act, for 130.550 kgs of cannabis allegedly seized from a blue car on 27 April 2018. The applicant, Nidhin @ Thampu, contends he was merely bystander; his father was hospitalised (Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute) around that time, and the materials on record (Annexures A2–A7) allegedly show no involvement in the illicit activity. He has been in custody since 27.04.2018 and seeks bail, supported by documents such as case summaries, visiting passes, informed consent and anesthesia forms, and his diploma in Ayurveda Nursing/Panchakarma. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, counters that the applicant is the lynchpin and had a major role in obtaining drugs from Andhra Pradesh, travelling to East Godavari, and coordinating with other accused; the CDR data allegedly shows repeated contact with the first accused, and a close relative among the accused has a major role. The prosecution argues that releasing him would jeopardize the investigation and that drug trafficking is a grave societal threat. The court balances NDPS bail norms (Section 37) with presumption of innocence, but finds no substantial probable grounds to believe the applicant is not guilty and notes no sufficient basis to grant bail. The application is dismissed.
WP(C).No. 14038 of 2018 (D) Kerala Water Authority filed WP(C) No.14038 of 2018 seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash Exhibit P9 of the 2nd respondent under MSMED Act, 2006, and to declare that the 3rd respondent is not a “small enterprise” under the Act. The project involves laying water-supply pipelines in Thiruvananthapuram under the JNNURM scheme for the city corporation and nearby panchayats. The 3rd respondent, alleged to be MSMED-covered, was the successful bidder but accused of contract violations; facing termination, it approached the 2nd respondent under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The 2nd respondent initially rejected the claim, which Gujarat High Court remanded for fresh consideration. Later, without notice to the petitioner, the matter was referred for arbitration, appointing a retired judge as arbitrator. The petitioner challenged, arguing jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution and relying on several precedents to contend that the cause of action partly or wholly arose within Kerala. The respondents contended that the cause of action is confined to the filing of the Section 18 application before the 2nd respondent, and that the essential contract and work details lie outside Kerala. The High Court held that a writ petition is maintainable only where the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction; since the cause of action here arises with the 3rd respondent’s Section 18 application before the 2nd respondent (outside Kerala), the petition is dismissed.
