This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Ragavan, the sole accused in Crime No.134/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station, Kasaragod District, for quashing the FIR and ongoing investigation under Section 482 CrPC. The FIR, lodged on a statement by the defacto complainant who is Ragavan’s brother (second respondent), relates to offences under Sections 447 and 326 IPC in connection with a property dispute that escalated into a family quarrel. The parties have since settled the dispute with intervention from mediators and family members, restoring harmony in the family. The second respondent has filed an affidavit stating the settlement and his desire not to prosecute his brother, and submits that there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, stating that the investigation is in a preliminary stage and that some offences are non-compoundable. The High Court, after considering the private, family nature of the dispute and the settlement, cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that in such cases, where the wrong is personal and settlement has removed the likelihood of conviction and continued proceedings would be oppressive, a quashing order under 482 CrPC may be warranted to promote peace and ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the proceedings are quashed, with directions to inform the Judicial First Class Magistrate accordingly.
W.P.(C)No.10462 of 2020(G) This writ petition challenges Ext.P13, an order dated 05.04.2019 of the Sub Collector, Ottapalam, and Ext.P15, an order dated 13.02.2020 of the District Collector, Palakkad, under the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (Act, 1999). The petitioner, Mayil Swamy N, is in possession of 4.40 acres of land (Sy. No. 648/2, Agali, Mannarkkad, Palakkad) under a sale deed dated 10.04.1974. The land’s history traces back to Mannarkkad Moopil Sthanam with possession certificates (Exts. P7, P8) and earlier transfer restrictions initiated in 1974. The Act of 1999 largely restricts transfers by Scheduled Tribes and provides for restoration of possession where transfers are invalid. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 makes such transfers invalid, but the proviso allows retention up to two hectares if used for agricultural purposes, and Section 7 authorizes restoration upon proper application. The petition contends the 4.40 acre extent falls within the proviso and that Exts. P13 and P15 were issued without jurisdiction. The court ultimately held that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction under Section 7(2) to adjudicate such transfers for an land extent of 4.40 acres, and that Exts. P13 and P15 were void for want of jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of by setting aside these orders with no costs.
MACA.No.1940 of 2012; MACA.No.1344 of 2014 Two connected Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from two O.P.(M.V.) petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, disposed by a common judgment of Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan. MACA 1940/2012 concerns an autorickshaw damaged in a January 24, 2008 accident; the claim for compensation for the damaged vehicle was granted by the Tribunal. MACA 1344/2014 relates to a death claim filed by the wife of Pazhaniyappan in the same accident. The insurer (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) challenges the finding of negligence against the lorry driver and contests the quantum drawing on loss of consortium. The Tribunal held the lorry driver rash and negligent based on Ext. A4 final report and a police charge sheet; it awarded Rs.5,80,000 to the claimant and Rs.21,013 for vehicle damage. On appeal, the High Court upheld the negligence finding, rejecting the insurer’s rebuttal, citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal as support for the presumption of negligence. Regarding quantum, the court reduced the loss of consortium from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.40,000 in light of Pranay Sethi and Magma decisions, while maintaining other heads of compensation. The appeals were disposed: MACA 1940/2012 dismissed; MACA 1344/2014 allowed in part. The judgment thus affirms liability while refining damages awarded to the claimant.
This appeals arises from the ITAT Cochin Bench’s order in ITA 224/2015 concerning AY 2010-11. The Revenue (the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi) challenged the Tribunal’s decision which, in paragraph 10, estimated income by applying a 0.44% gross profit rate on a reduced turnover after excluding certain items—amounting to Rs.31,07,29,889—from the turnover and thereby adjusting the gross profit. The assessee, Silpa Project & Infrastructures (India) Pvt Ltd, a contractor, had filed an appeal contending that the excluded items are reimbursements and cannot form part of turnover. The Commissioner argued that turnover must be understood in accounting parlance and that, under the Income Tax Act, all components of turnover should ordinarily be included. The High Court cites the Supreme Court in CIT v. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries, holding that turnover must be understood as in accounting/commercial parlance, and that excluding items from turnover is not justified. The court emphasizes that the turnover returned by the assessee included items later ordered to be excluded, and disputes the Tribunal’s method of applying 0.44% on Rs.59,45,76,475. The result is that the High Court sets aside the Tribunal’s order, allowing the Revenue’s appeal. The decision clarifies that turnover should include all components unless legitimately excluded under accounting practice, and that the gross profit percentage must be recomputed accordingly.
Anu Mary George v. Biju Mathew and Ors. is a Kerala High Court MACA under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging a 2011 award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV)1385/2006 arising from a car collision on 4 November 2006. The appellant, a minor girl then aged 11, sustained fractures and other injuries requiring 25 days of inpatient care. The Tribunal held respondent 1 negligent and awarded Rs.68,025 for medical expenses, general expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The appellant argued the amount was insufficient in light of the injuries, surgery and impact on a child’s life; the insurer contended the award was just given the medical and economic losses. The High Court stressed the special vulnerability of a child and the broader concept of just compensation, invoking Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager and Pranay Sethi, and explained that damages for pain and suffering include distress caused by treatment and the fear of future incapacity, not merely a numerical sum. It thus allowed the appeal in part, determining an enhanced compensation of Rs. 32,000 in total (Rs.30,000 for pain and suffering and Rs.2,000 for general expenses) with 8% interest from the petition date, directing deposit within three months from certified copy, and modified the original award accordingly.
The petitioner, IZAH AK (IZAHAK), a BPL beneficiary, purchased land and started constructing a house under the Life Mission Project. The property, Ext.P1, was erroneously included in the Data Bank, and release of funds would be blocked until removal from the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Form 5 (Ext.P5) for removal, which Ext.P7 rejected, allegedly in a mechanical manner based solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report, without independent assessment by the first respondent. The court had previously directed the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 (Ext.P6) and, while examining this issue, placed reliance on a line of judgments recognizing that the Data Bank must reflect cultivable paddy land and wetlands in existence on the relevant dates, and that eligibility turns on the land’s character as of the Act’s 2008 commencement and the 2008–2009 regulatory framework. The judgment emphasizes that the RDO must independently assess the land, consider whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation and nearby wetlands, and may resort to scientific data (e.g., satellite imagery) where necessary. It cites Salim C.K., Lalu P.S., Joy, Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon to underline required criteria for Form-5 determinations. Ext.P7 is set aside; Ext.P5 must be reconsidered within two months, with due regard to law and judgments, and the petitioner’s sole landholding and Life Mission eligibility acknowledged. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
This matrimonial appeal arises from a Family Court order directing recovery of Rs.5,00,000 as patrimony from the appellants by the respondent, who sought payment along with gold ornaments and other relief. The couple, Christians, solemnized their marriage on 11 May 2011 and lived together for about three months before separation. On engagement day—07 May 2011—the respondent’s father stated that Rs.5,00,000 was entrusted with the second appellant, derived from Rs.4,00,000 withdrawn from Indian Overseas Bank and Rs.1,00,000 from another branch. The appellants admitted the engagement and a small marriage expense of Rs.25,000 but denied receipt of Rs.5,00,000. The Family Court relied on Exts. A3 (statements of account) and Exts. B2 (passbook entry showing Rs.3,00,000 deposited on 09.05.2011, two days after engagement) to hold that Rs.5,00,000 was paid as patrimony. The appellants challenged lack of averments about entrustment, absence of independent witnesses, and the unexplained source of funds, while contending the Rs.3,00,000 deposit and brokerage amount are insufficient proof of Rs.5,00,000. The High Court affirmed that the parties’ affluent background makes the payment plausible, but reduced the interest from 9% to 6%, keeping the Family Court’s finding largely intact. The result is that Rs.5,00,000 is sustained as patrimony, with modified interest, and no costs awarded.
Johnson Padamadan, President of the Kerala Bus Transport Association State Committee, filed WP(C) No.10608 of 2020 challenging alleged malpractices in the Motor Vehicles Department and seeking vigilance scrutiny. The petition centers on a 08.10.2014 vehicle-check near the toll booth on Indira Gandhi Road, Willingdon Island, by the 7th respondent, an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, reportedly after duty hours and in a vehicle other than a departmental car. It is alleged that during the inspection, a folder containing the check report book, TR-5 book, Rs. 21,400 in fines, and four driving licenses were lost. The matter was reported to Harbour Police Station, and a crime under Section 379 IPC was registered but subsequently closed as undetected. The petitioner sought registration of a vigilance case and a detailed investigation into the incident, and to examine the role of respondents 4–6 in assisting the 7th respondent. The petitioner contended that the actual fines collected were far higher (claimed Rs.4.45 lakh) and that officials colluded to shield the officer. The 7th respondent denied the allegations, characterizing the petition as false, frivolous, and an abuse of process. Ultimately the court dismissed the petition as abuse of process, citing Kishore Samrite on unclean hands and PIL abuse, and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000 as costs.
WP(C) Nos. 12966/2021 & connected cases These writ petitions, collectively filed by Anganwadi workers and helpers across Kerala, challenge the fixation of retirement age and seek enhancement to 65 years, along with relief to continue service on contract until regular appointments are made. The petitioners point out that Anganwadi workers receive about Rs. 12,000 gross monthly and rely on the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers Welfare Fund contributions, with primary responsibility for welfare benefits and retirement provisions resting with the fund’s administrators. The court traces a history of welfare schemes, including a 2016 G.O. introducing a contributory welfare fund and earlier proposals to raise retirement age; it notes repeated attempts to adjust retirement age, but holds that retirement age is a policy matter. The respondents contend that retirement age is a policy decision and that due process, vacancies, and cadre rules must govern appointments, with posts sometimes filled by transfers or by engaging retirees on contract until regular appointments are made. The judgment emphasizes that while policy matters lie outside judicial interference, where permanent vacancies remain, retirees may be engaged on contract until due process fills the posts, to ensure continuity in ICDS programs. It references prior judgments and directives but ultimately disposes of the petitions with a contractual-engagement directive in lieu of vacant posts."
VELAYUDHAN, the appellant, filed OP(MV) 24/2002 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, seeking compensation for injuries suffered on 11 November 2001 when a motor car, driven rashly by the 2nd respondent, struck a scooter and toppled the claimant. The car was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent; the scooter was owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the same insurer. The Tribunal allowed only Rs. 57,620 with interest, prompting this appeal. The appellant argued that the accident occurred due to the careless driving of the car driver and that the insurer should indemnify, with the damages reflecting loss of earnings, disability, medical expenses, and bystander costs. The respondents denied negligence by the car driver and contended the 4th respondent was at fault; the insurer argued the claim was excessive. The High Court, after reappreciating evidence, recalculated damages: fixed notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month (instead of the Tribunal’s Rs. 2,000), held the appellant suffered 12% permanent disability, adopted a multiplier of 11 under Sarla Verma, and awarded enhanced sums for loss of earnings, loss due to disability, and bystander expenses. The court increased the total to Rs. 1,01,170 and, ultimately, ordered deposit of the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% per annum and costs. The judgment underscores application of notional income standards, disability assessment, and the multiplier approach in light of cited precedents.
Chams Branding Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19 issued after notices under section 142(1) and 143(3). The petitioner contends that the assessment order is bad in law for violation of the principles of natural justice since only the initial 142(1) notice was served and the subsequent assessment order dated 15 March 2021 was issued without proper process. The Department contends that the petitioner was repeatedly given opportunities to furnish details and that several notices were issued on 28.09.2019, 24.12.2019, 04.03.2020, 28.07.2020, 17.12.2020, 18.02.2021 and 12.03.2021, with the petitioner failing to respond. It is submitted that the last notice required a reply by 14.03.2021, and the assessment followed thereafter, with a postulated revenue demand. The court noted the petitioner’s repeated non-response to notices and held that there is no justified claim of natural justice violation; it emphasized that Article 226 intervention is inappropriate where statutory remedies remain available, and that a minor computational error could be rectified under section 154. While citing a Supreme Court decision to acknowledge exceptional circumstances for interference, the court concluded the present case does not meet that bar and dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
This is a matrimonial appeal under the Family Courts Act challenging a Family Court Thiruvalla verdict on the status of marriage and entitlements of death benefits of late S. Reghunathan, a South Western Railways employee. The appellant Rajeeve, claiming to be married to Reghunathan since 1977 and mother to two children, contends that her marriage was solemnized at Kateelu Temple, Mangalore, and that the couple cohabited for years until Reghunathan’s death, forming a legitimate marital relationship with a right to family pension and death benefits. The first respondent Sarasamma asserts her own valid marriage to Reghunathan, solemnized in 1981 at Parthasarathy Temple, Aranmula, with two children, living together thereafter. The court below found the first respondent’s marriage valid under Hindu customary rites and ceremonies and that long cohabitation in the later marriage created no superior right for the appellant. The High Court, noting the absence of clear ceremonial proof for the appellant and relying on statutory requirements for a valid Hindu marriage (Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act; Section 50 Indian Evidence Act; and the Family Courts Act framework), upheld the declaration of the first respondent as the legally wedded wife and reversed the injunctions against the railways, allowing the appeal in part. The matter underscores the primacy of valid ceremonial marriage evidence over long cohabitation in the absence of such ceremonies.
Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust (KMCT) runs KMCT College of Teacher Education, which was granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to start a B.Ed course in 2004-05. With the NCTE Regulations, 2014, a revised recognition order was issued in 2015, permitting a two-year B.Ed course with an intake of 100 from 2015-2016, subject to compliance. Subsequently, the SRC issued show-cause notices and a final show-cause for alleged deficiencies; KMCT submitted detailed replies (Ext.P4) and an affidavit (Ext.P5). Despite these submissions, the NCTE, by Ext.P7/Ext.P15, withdrew recognition for B.Ed and later for D.El.Ed, for the 2021-22 academic year. KMCT contends that the withdrawal was arbitrary and violated natural justice since it was not preceded by a hearing and relied on a list of defective documents (land documents, CLU/ENC, language translations, building plans, facility and faculty qualifications) that were either corrected or not applicable, especially as KMCT was not conducting a D.El.Ed program. Respondents argue withdrawal is authorized under Section 17 of the NCTE Act and related Regulations for contravention, and that hearing prior to withdrawal is not mandatory. The Court, on reviewing the procedure and citing Abdulla T.A. v. Supply Co and Uma Nath Pandey, found serious errors in the withdrawal process, stayed Ext.P16, treated Ext.P15 as a show-cause, and directed fresh proceedings within 45 days, clarifying post-2017 qualification norms and recording that Smt. Sijina V.V.’s appointment will be considered with due records.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.10595 of 2020) by Peter P. George challenges the proposed BPCL petrol retail outlet at Elanji, Piravom, Ernakulam district. The petitioner contends that exhibits leading to the proposed project, notably Exhibit-P3 (NOC) and related approvals, are incompatible with statutory and policy guidelines—specifically the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines and Public Works Department (PWD) guidelines. The prayer seeks certiorari to quash Exhibit-P3, a declaration that the outlet would violate IRC and PWD guidelines and cannot operate, and a direction to the 3rd respondent not to grant a license to the 6th and 7th respondents. Additional reliefs include directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to expeditiously dispose of Exhibits P10 and P11 complaints and ensuring no construction activity on plots covered by the lease (Exhibit P9). In proceedings, the Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for BPCL opposed maintainability and authority to entertain the representations, arguing the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and that there is no statutory backing. The court, noting the limited nature of the prayers, disposed of the petition by directing the concerned authorities to consider the representations (P10, P11) within a specified time while preserving the merits for later determination and without granting any interim relief against construction.
The appellant Radhamani Amma, defendant in O.S.72/2012 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha, challenges orders in I.A.Nos.452 and 453 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which rejected condonation of delay for setting aside an ex parte decree dated 19.10.2013 in a suit for specific performance or recovery of advance sale consideration. The High Court notes that interim orders had been issued in 2016: deposit of Rs.5,00,000 in fixed deposit with lien in favour of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The appellant, now aged over 80, resided in Bangalore with her daughter, with alleged illness and limited involvement in court matters due to family constraints. The trial court had refused condonation for 557 days of delay and dismissed the application. The High Court examines the principles governing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee, and related authorities to emphasize a liberal, yet reasonable approach that serves ends of justice, while distinguishing inordinate delays from short delays. Ultimately, the appellate court allows the appeal, sets aside the ex parte decree on payment of Rs.30,000 as costs (out of the Rs.5,00,000 deposited), directs acceptance of the written statement, lifts the lien on the fixed deposit, and asks the Sub Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously (within five months) with parties to appear on 13.12.2021.
This is a matrimonial appeal decided by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in 2021. The appellant-husband challenged the Family Court, Thalassery, which had dismissed his original petition under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage from his wife, whom he had married in 2014 at an advanced age. The parties cohabited for about three months; the husband had previously been married and had a son in the Army. The core grounds alleged by the appellant included (i) coercive removal of photographs of his deceased wife from the shared dwelling, (ii) alleged sexual conduct by the wife, and (iii) an accusation of the appellant’s illicit relationship with a part-time maid, including a pornographic snap. The respondent refuted most allegations and, in a counter notice, claimed the appellant’s illicit relationship with the maid and alleged video/photo material. The Family Court found no cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage. On appeal, the High Court recognised that cruelty can arise from mental distress and sexual conduct but emphasized that mere sexual misconduct may not suffice unless it renders living together impossible. Relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the court held that unsubstantiated accusations of adultery can amount to cruelty. It reversed the Family Court and granted a decree of divorce, with no cost award, underscoring the grave impact of imputations on marital life."
This Matrimonial Appeal challenges a Family Court Thrissur decree (OP 1941/2010) that ordered recovery of Rs.11,00,000 from Alphonsa and Anthony (parents-in-law) by the bride Neetha and her husband Anson. The parties married on 31.12.2006 and the petitioner alleged that, at betrothal, her father entrusted Rs.5,00,000 and 40 sovereigns of gold with the appellants as trustees; the assets were allegedly misappropriated or misapplied in discharge of a private loan, with the 40 sovereigns claimed to have been used to secure a kuri loan, and Ext.A1 title deed of the petition schedule land allegedly entrusted to Neetha as assurance for an assignment. The Family Court held the appellants liable to return Rs.5,00,000 cash and the value of 40 sovereigns of gold, and directed sale of the petition schedule land to realise the decree. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, allowed the appeal in part. It held that the part of the order directing sale of land as a realisation method is illegal; the claim for gold ornaments could not be sustained as proven; but the claim for the cash amount, derived from entrustment, deserves consideration under Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and related principles. The result is a partial modification of the decree with Rs.5,00,000 payable along with interest; the gold claim is dismissed; costs follow.
Varghese, aged 67, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award in OP(MV) No.2466/2005, seeking enhanced compensation after sustaining serious injuries in a jeep-bus collision on 10 August 2005. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,44,647 with 7% interest from 7.11.2005. The appellant argued that the notional income of Rs. 2,000 used by the Tribunal was too low for that period and urged Rs. 4,500 as the notional income, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. He also pressed for higher sums for pain and suffering, loss of earning power, bystanders’ expenses, and future prospects, arguing the accident left him permanently disabled and dependent on others. The insurer contended that compensation under permanent disability sufficed, and suggested limiting future prospects to a modest percentage given his age and lack of income evidence. The High Court examined medical evidence and recent precedent, ultimately fixing the notional income at Rs. 4,500 and recalculating several heads. It granted further enhancement for pain and suffering, bystanders’ expenses, permanent disability, and other heads, culminating in a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,64,585 with 9% interest from 7.11.2005 and costs. The appeal was allowed in part.
This High Court of Kerala matter, OP(KAT) No.272/2018 (Z), arises from an order dated 02.11.2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Thiruvananthapuram Bench, in OA No.544/2017. The petitioners are State of Kerala and its officers challenging the Tribunal’s order that granted regularisation to K. Haridasan, a part-time sweeper employed since 1987 at Krishi Bhavan, Elappully, Palakkad, under the Government orders relating to regularisation of existing casual sweepers. The court traces the scheme initiated by GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin (25.11.2005) and its modification by GO(P) No.61/2010/Fin (09.02.2010), which provided regularisation based on sweeping area, with a 100 m2 threshold. The Tribunal held the respondent eligible for regularisation once the area exceeded 100 m2, notwithstanding the earlier threshold, relying also on Mercy v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT 848) and Leela Amma v. Managing Director, KSHD Corporation Ltd (2014 (4) KHC 831). The State contends that 2016 Circular No.19/2016/Fin barred such regularisation proposals. The Bench agrees with the reasoning of Mercy and Leela Amma that the Government orders protect the employee’s rights; it modifies the Tribunal’s order and dismisses the petition to the extent, granting the petitioner six weeks to comply with Tribunal directions. The petition is thus disposed with costs to be borne by the parties."
This is a Kerala High Court Rent Control Revision petition challenging an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The revision petitioner, Sudhakaran, tenant, challenges the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court, Attingal, in RCP 6/2001, which was upheld by the II Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram in RCA 16/2007. The original eviction petition, filed by Gopalakrishnan Nair (the husband of respondent 1 and father of respondents 2–4), claimed bonafide need for the petition schedule building to accommodate his elder son, alleging the building was let to the tenant since 2000 with a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The tenant countered that the title upon which the landlord relied—Ext. A1 sale deed—was not valid proof of title; the deed was alleged to be executed by the wife as security for a loan and not as a conveyance. The Rent Control Court found the landlord’s title bona fide and the need genuine, leading to eviction. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal for condonation of delay, and the revision petition was filed in 2019 after an extended delay. The High Court ultimately held the revision petition devoid of merit, citing deliberate delay, suppression of material facts, and mala fide tactics to prolong eviction, and awarded costs to respondents.
