CRL.MC NO. 2625 OF 2019; WP(C) NO. 27959 OF 2017 This is a Kerala High Court decision by Justice Ashok Menon, delivered on 20 July 2021, arising from WP(C) No. 27959 of 2017 and Crl.M.C. No. 2625 of 2019. The petitioner is SIVANANDAN, a convict undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Viyyur, who had been involved in 14 different criminal cases (theft, housebreaking, lurking house trespass, etc.) across various courts. He pleaded guilty in all cases and received sentences ranging from six months to five years along with fines; he has been in custody since 2003. The petition seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C, arguing that the trial courts should have exercised power under Section 427 Cr.P.C to direct concurrent sentences and that, due to the long cumulative imprisonment and the totality of sentences, he should be released or have concurrent terms. The petition cites several precedents (Abdul Rafoor v. Abdulla; State of Punjab v. Madhan Lal; Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya; Neera Yadav v. CBI; Ammavassai v. Inspector of Police; V.K. Bansal; Benson v. State of Kerala; Moosa; Najakat Ali Mubarak Ali) to support concurrency and discretionary relief. The State contends for the traditional approach, but the court ultimately holds that invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C is warranted to prevent abuse of process and achieve ends of justice, directing release forthwith after recording that he has undergone sentences across all cases.
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from ITA No.66/17, 2017, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging the Income Tax Tribunal’s conclusion that an unregistered joint development agreement (JDA) constitutes a transfer of a capital asset under section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The assessment year is 2008-09, triggered by a notice under section 148 alleging escaped income. The Tribunal held that possession of the property was handed over to a developer on 17-07-2007 under the unregistered agreement, enabling development and sale of the built-up units, with a portion to be allotted to landowners. The central issue is whether such an unregistered agreement can be treated as a contract under section 53A, thereby making the transaction a transfer of a capital asset for capital gains tax purposes. The court examines the statutory framework: section 2(47)(v) includes possession or retention under a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A; post-2001 amendments to the Registration Act require registration for instruments under 53A to be legally effective. Citing Balbir Singh Maini (Supreme Court, 2018), the court notes that after amendment, there is no contract enforceable under 53A unless registered. The court also references Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi (supra) for the six features of such contracts. It concludes that an unregistered JDA cannot create a transfer of a capital asset, and the appeal is allowed with the assessment order set aside, consistent with binding precedent.
Mat.Appeal.No.161 OF 2012 This is a matrimonial appeal arising from Family Court, Kozhikode, in OP No. 747/2010, consolidated with MC 295/2010. The petitioner-wife alleged ill-treatment, dowry demands, and misappropriation of gold ornaments and a monetary loan; the husband responded with denial and claimed he had returned the ornaments via a neighbour. The Family Court granted relief in favor of the wife, directing the husband to yield six sovereigns of gold (or their value of Rs. 1,04,000) and Rs. 2,000, while rejecting further relief. On appeal, the Kerala High Court held that the initiating burden to prove entrustment lies on the claimant; citing Alphonsa v. Neetha and Royson Mathew v. Minimol, it clarified that a decree for recovery requires pleadings/evidence of a specific entrustment or understanding of repayment. The High Court found that the wife did prove misappropriation of six sovereigns of gold and therefore affirmed the six‑sovereign recovery, but set aside the Rs. 2,000 decree due to lack of proof regarding the money entrustment. The appeal was allowed in part, directing realization of Rs.1,04,000 within two months with 6% interest if not realized, and costs to be borne by the parties. The judgment emphasizes the evidentiary burden in entrustment cases and re-scopes the family court’s decree accordingly.
WP(C).No. 9939 of 2017 and connected matters This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court, presided by Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu, concerns retired employees seeking recalculation of pension on the basis of their actual salary and payment of pensionary benefits computed on an actual salary basis, with the differential 8.33% of actual salary remitted to the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS). The petitions were heard on 11 December 2018 along with several connected matters (WP(C).8815/2017, WP(C).9882/2017, WP(C).10432/2017, WP(C).10433/2017, WP(C).22720/2018, WP(C).27358/2018, WP(C).28704/2018, WP(C).28922/2018, WP(C).30850/2016). The central issue, as framed by the parties, is whether pension should be re-computed based on actual pensionable salary rather than the average pay used for pension computation. Counsel for both sides agree that the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court or High Court precedent in P. Sasikumar v. Union of India, which supports recalculating pension on the basis of actual salary. The court, applying the ratio of Sasikumar, disposes of the batch by directing recalculation of pension as per actual salary and remittance of the differential to EPS. The judgment culminates in a disposition that grants relief to the petitioners consistent with the cited precedent.
This petition, filed by the survivor in Crime No. 297/2017 (Nedumbassery) seeking transfer of the ongoing trial (S.C. No. 118 of 2018) from the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, to a court presided by a woman judge, centers on ensuring dignity and protection for a rape survivor while expediting justice. The petitioner, a known actress, was allegedly subjected to gang rape and related offences during a vehicle journey in February 2017; alleged offences include sexual violence and recording acts intended to reveal her identity. The trial has been progressing in Ernakulam; the petitioner sought trial by a woman judge, a specialized court, camera-only proceedings, and denial of media discussion. The Sessions Court rejected some requests, citing no competent woman judge in Ernakulam and existing directives to expedite proceedings. The State supported expediency and proposed trial by a woman judge, possibly in Ernakulam or Thrissur, while acknowledging logistical constraints on CBI-related courts. The High Court examined pendency and availability of suitable judges, noting that the only competent woman judge in Ernakulam is a Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, who handles CBI offences and is subject to scheduling constraints. Balancing interests, the Court allowed the petition, transferring S.C.No.118/2018 to the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, with directions to transmit records and ensure expeditious disposal without disrupting CBI matters.
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from an Original Petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order dated 14 February 2019 in RA(Ekm) No.15 of 2018 in OA(Ekm) No.679 of 2017, filed by petitioners seeking directions to fill Lower Primary School Assistant posts in Ernakulam district. The petitioners had participated in the PSC notification of 30.12.2008 and the ensuing written examination on 12.09.2009, with the rank list published on 20.04.2012 which expired on 19.10.2016. Their case: inadequate staff fixation left several vacancies unfilled, prompting requests (i) to set aside the PSC’s Ans.A9 record; (ii) to determine staff strength in light of ILR 2016 (1) Ker 590; (iii) to appoint 27 Head Teacher posts currently held by protected teachers; (iv) to remove temporary hands-on/daily wage teachers and appoint from the rank list against vacancies; (v) to issue appointment orders as advised by the fourth respondent; (vi) other proper directions. The PSC argued NJD (non-joined duty) vacancies arose after the rank list expired, hence could not be filled from it, citing Babu v PSC and Nair Service Society, while Benoy v PSC was distinguished. The Tribunal’s recall of the NJD vacancy directions was challenged. The High Court concluded that once the main list expires, NJD vacancies cannot be filled from that list, overruling a divergent line of precedent in light of Unnikrishnan Nair G.S. and others. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1331 of 2009 This is a Kerala High Court revision in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1331 of 2009 arising from ST 1145 of 2006 (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom) and CRA 243/2008 (Ad hoc- I, Kottayam). The three revision petitioners—Najeeb, Joshy, and Remanan—were convicted under Section 58(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules for unauthorised loading of river sand, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and fines of Rs.5,000 each with 15 days further imprisonment for default. The appellate court dismissed the appeal; the revision challenges the legality of cognizance under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the application of Rule 58(1). The petition contends that Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central or State Government and that PW4, Circle Inspector, was not so authorized to initiate prosecution under MMDR Act, rendering cognizance unlawful. The petition references a decision reported as [2020 KHC 6672], which analyzed the scope of Section 22 and the authority to register offences under Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court, after considering these issues, held that PW4 was not an authorized officer, the bar under Section 22 applied, and therefore cognizance and the ensuing conviction were without jurisdiction. The petition was allowed; the accused were acquitted, bail bonds canceled, and release ordered; pending matters disposed of.
Shiva Texyarn Ltd (the appellant) filed Regular First Appeal against an order in O.S. No.542/2001, from the Additional Subordinate Court, Ernakulam, seeking realization of money loaned under a hire-purchase arrangement. The first defendant availed finance on 14.11.1992 to purchase a vehicle; defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors. Installments were scheduled to run until 1995, but the debtor defaulted from 13.6.1993. Despite notices, the outstanding amount remained unpaid, leading to a suit for Rs.5,63,555.20 with interest at 18% per annum. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, relying on the lapse of three years from the default date. The appellant argued two key points: (i) Ext.A8 (14.4.1996) acknowledging liability by the principal debtor does not constitute a variance of terms and therefore cannot discharge the sureties; (ii) Ext.A9 (12.10.1998) creating a promise to pay could give rise to a fresh cause of action under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, reviving a time-barred debt. The court examined Section 133 of the Contract Act (discharge of surety by variance) and noted that mere acknowledgment does not discharge the sureties. Citing Wandoor Jupiter Chits and Union Bank of India v. Stephen, among others, the court concluded that Ext.A8 is not a variance and that Ext.A9 can revive a time-barred debt. The appeal was allowed with a decree in the plaintiff’s favour for Rs.5,63,555.20 plus 6% interest from the date of suit till realization, costs to be borne by the parties.
W.P(C).No.8843 of 2013-E; WA.No.1099 of 2010; WA.No.1761 of 2018; W.P.(C) No.3251 of 2015; W.P.(C) No.32230 of 2015 This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court deals with the mining activities of English India Clays Limited (EICL) in Veilur and surrounding areas, with petitions and appeals spanning W.P.(C) 8843/2013-E and connected matters, including W.A. Nos. 1099/2010 and 1761/2018, and W.P.(C) Nos. 3251/2015 and 32230/2015. The Court scrutinises whether EC (Environmental Clearance) was properly obtained for mining leases exceeding five hectares, and whether interim permissions and police protection could legally sustain ongoing mining without prior EC. The judgment traces a long history of government orders (Exhibits P1–P3) allowing mining in >5 hectares, payment of environmental and land-consent prerequisites, and a pattern of delay or denial in obtaining EC from SEAC/SEIAA despite recommendations. Relying on Deepak Kumar and subsequent Kerala decisions, the court holds that mining carried on without prior EC was illegal and that state actions and amendments (including MMCR 2015) could not override the EC requirement for larger tracts. The judgment directs enforcement action: stopping further mining, recovering 100% value of illegally mined clay, and initiating prosecutions, while also penalizing the Company for abuse of process and ordering costs.
This writ petition challenges Exts.P8 and P11, by which the petitioner’s pay was fixed with withdrawal of the weightage granted for his earlier aided-school service and the request to restore the same was rejected. Abdul Nazar K joined the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) as a Superintendent in 1996, after having served as an Upper Primary School Assistant in an aided school from 1985 to 1996. On joining the Board, his pay was initially fixed with weightage for the aided service. The 2011 pay revision (Ext.P5) revised the pay and stated that aided-school service could not be reckoned for weightage, and this was treated as a mistake. The petitioner contended that Government and aided-school employees are paid by the Government and that the Board’s circulars and orders, including Ext.P1 and Ext.P3, provided for reckoning such service for weightage and pension; the respondents argued there is no Board provision permitting reckoning aided-service for weightage. The court observed that Ext.P1 does not expressly authorize aided-service for weightage, but it contemplates that Government service followed by Board service can count for weightage. It held that there is no substantial difference between aided and Government school service, and that the fixation allowing weightage cannot be treated as a mere error. Considering peculiar circumstances, it set aside Exts.P9 and P11, declared that aided school service followed by Board service is liable to be reckoned for weightage and pension, and directed restoration of pay with all consequential benefits within two months. The petition was allowed.
OP(CAT).58/2018 (Z) & OP(CAT).139/2018 A scheduled tribe candidate challenged the selection of an open post on the ground that the applicant was beyond the age limit under the recruitment rules applicable to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The tribunal had ruled in favour of the ST candidate in OA 145/2017, which the administration and the successful candidate challenged. The court examined whether the age relaxation announced by central orders could be incorporated into local recruitment rules for Lakshadweep posts. It noted that Annexure A1 (1998) introduced an age relaxation by two years for direct recruitment under central norms, and Annexure A2 (2014) reflects the Lakshadweep Recruitment Rules for the post of Social Welfare Inspector with an upper age of 30 and a specific ST relaxation, five years. The administration argued that the relaxation was a general measure and that Lakshadweep still had to follow its own recruitment rules; the petitioner argued that the government order should apply across the board. The court held that such relaxations, if intended, must be incorporated in the Recruitment Rules and notified; post-notification relaxation cannot be ad hocly granted to a single candidate. It relied on Bank of India, Kochi v. Aarya K. Babu to stress that relaxations must be in rules, not in case-by-case notifications. Ultimately, the court did not interfere with the tribunal’s order and dismissed the petitions, with costs, while leaving open a potential appointment if the next eligible candidate meets the notification criteria.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No.1560 of 2012, heard an appeal by P.K. Sojan (the claimant) challenging an award under a Motor Vehicles Act claim petition (O.P.(MV) No.314/2010) arising from a 25.07.2009 road accident involving an autorickshaw. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, held the driver negligent and the insurer liable, and awarded Rs. 7,00,050 with 8% interest from the petition date. The appellant contends that the compensation under several heads is inadequate and that the tribunal failed to apply the correct assessment of disability, future prospects, and earnings. The court examines extensive documentary evidence (disability certificate Ext.X1, medical Exts A3–A7, hospitalization records Ext.A6, etc.) and relevant precedents. It revisits the evidence of income and disability and invokesRamachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, Raj Kumar and Pranay Sethi to justify a higher notional income, the addition for future prospects, and the correct multiplier. Finding the claimant 31 years old with 100% locomotor disability and noting 2009 economic conditions, the court fixes a notional monthly income of Rs. 6,000, applies 40% future prospects for under-40 fixed salary, and uses a 16-multiplier, re-calculating disability compensation to Rs. 16,12,800. The court therefore awards an enhanced total additional sum of Rs. 18,42,050 with 8% interest and disposes of the appeal with no costs.
The appellants are claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1164/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, under Section 166, seeking compensation for the death of Ciju Paul in a 22.07.2007 accident involving a Maruthi Van (KL-17/B-9022) hit by a LMV van (TN-38Q-2522) driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal held the LMV negligent and liable, awarding Rs.3,01,500 under heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, pain and suffering, love and affection, and loss of dependency, with 8% interest and costs directed to the insurer. The appellants challenged the quantum, contending that the award did not reflect ‘just compensation’ as understood in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Reshma Kumari, particularly with respect to notional income, future prospects, and the multiplier. The respondents urged that the amount awarded was not excessive and that the insurer should not bear more liability. The High Court, examining the evidence and following Supreme Court jurisprudence, held that the deceased, aged 23, could be assigned a higher notional income (Rs 4,500), and that 40% future prospects should be added since he had a permanent job. It applied an 18-year multiplier and adjusted personal living expenses accordingly. Conventional heads were revised: funeral expenses Rs 15,000; loss of estate Rs 15,000; filial/other love and affection awards were standardized in light of Pranay Sethi and Magma, with Rs 40,000 each to appellants 1 and 2 under filial consortium and the 3rd appellant excluded from loss of consortium. The court ordered the insurer to pay the enhanced compensation at 8% interest from the petition date, disposing of the appeal.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P11, a CBSE affiliation directive, and seeks directions to process the petitioner’s CBSE affiliation application without insisting on a State Government NOC. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 for affiliation and argues that Ext.P10, a 2016 judgment, directed consideration of the application without an NOC, and that Ext.P12’s later amendment introducing a comprehensive class-wide State recognition requirement cannot operate retroactively against Ext.P9. The respondents rely on CBSE affiliation bye-laws, including Rule 3, 3(i) and Rule 15(i)(a), and on the State’s policy of not issuing NOCs, to contend that recognition from the State Government is a precondition for submitting an application for affiliation, and that unaided schools must comply with the recognition requirement for CBSE middle/secondary syllabus. The petitioner cites Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan and Michael to challenge retroactive restrictions on unaided institutions, while the respondents cite DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India to emphasize there is no fundamental right to affiliation. The High Court ultimately holds Ext.P11’s blanket requirement unreasonable, sets it aside, and directs the first respondent to consider Ext.P9 on merits, after inspection, within three months, in line with Ext.P10 and relevant rules.
This writ petition (criminal) challenges a KAAPA detention order against Jose Sebastian @ Jose @ Anoop (detenu) by the District Magistrate, Alappuzha, under Section 3(1) KAAPA, issued on 26.01.2018 (Ext. P1) and executed in February 2018. The detaining authority based the detention on Ext. P2 grounds, with Ext. P4 (police report) and Ext. P3 (executing memo). The detenu is asserted to have four earlier criminal cases (1868/2013; 392/2015; 1486/2016; 1567/2017) originating from Alappuzha North Police Station, and a Section 107 CrPC bond (Ext. P20/P21) executed in 2017. The petitioner argues the identity of the detenu is disputed (Jose vs Joseph), delays in issuing detention order, lack of material to designate him a known rowdy under Section 2(p) KAAPA, bail conditions and possible bail violation, non-information about rights under Section 7 KAAPA, and non-consideration of his representations before the Government and Advisory Board after Board’s report. The High Court, after hearing, criticizes the identity ground as not sustainable, notes explanation for delay, and ultimately finds fault with the Government’s treatment of the detenu’s representation; it distinguishes some authorities but relies on KAAPA provisions and constitutional guarantees. The court quashes Ext. P1, releases the detenu forthwith, and directs the prison authorities to comply; it is a Division Bench decision emphasizing due process in preventive detention and the need for proper consideration of detainee representations.
Deepa, a Development Officer with LIC North Parur, challenges Ext.P1 show cause notice proposing termination under Rule 6(8) read with Rule 7 of the LIC (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 as amended in 2016. The show cause relates to the appraisal year ending 31.8.2016 and states that two of the three preceding appraisal years exceeded 50% of the aggregate eligible premium, making termination possible. Deepa contends that Ext.P2 judgment upheld the rules’ validity, Ext.P4 (dated 14.8.2016) condoned defects in appraisal years up to 2014–15, and relying on 2015–16 figures would be contrary to that disposition. She had earlier challenged a similar termination in W.P(C).No.28220 of 2014, and Ext.P1 was issued after that judgment. Respondents argue the petition is premature, that the second relief is barred by res judicata, and that Deepa had opportunity to respond and appeal; they maintain the rules were upheld in prior proceedings and that the 2016 amendment relaxed the cost ratio. The court ultimately holds there is no basis to interfere with Ext.P1 and directs the Senior Divisional Manager to decide on Ext.P5 after considering Ext.P4 and providing a hearing.
The petitioners challenge proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) on the ground that the orders are vitiated by a period of limitation. The writ petitions were treated with a Division Bench due to pending questions on limitation in W.A No.344/2017 (The Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Sameer). The court notes that initial KVAT limitation under Section 67 started as one year, later extended to three years and then removed from the statute in 2014-15; failing which proceedings must be completed within a reasonable time, with five years as a benchmark under Section 25 for reassessment. In the facts, the departmental exercise began with an inspection of tobacco seller A.P. Kakku. Penalty against the seller issued on 30.09.2014, with notices to purchasing dealers issued in 2017. The court accepts that the timing of detection can anchor the permissible period, and that finalisation within five years of detection is permissible. It concludes that the petitioners should be relegated to statutory remedies, permitting appeals within 30 days from certified copy, with stay/recovery to be kept in abeyance for four months. Writ petitions disposed of with no costs.
Nishal, brother of a detainee, challenges a preventive detention order under KAAPA, 2007, issued on 19 December 2017 (Detention No. D/49880/2017) by the Kasaragod authorities against the detenu. The detaining backdrop spans seven offences between 2011 and 2017, with the most recent being Crime No. 521/2017 under sections 120(b), 326, 307 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. The earlier detention order of 12 February 2013 had already kept the detenu in custody for six months, and a prior challenge WP(Crl) 388/2013 had been dismissed in 2013. The petitioner argues four breaches: (i) a delay of six months between the last prejudicial act (14.06.2017) and the detention order, undermining the “six-month” preventive detention window; (ii) non-application of mind regarding the period of judicial custody and release date; (iii) illegible copies and (iv) failure to inform the detenu of the right to represent to the Government and to the Advisory Board. The court notes the detaining authority’s Grounds of Detention (Ext. P2) and finds that delay was explained and the final report in last crime (30.10.2017) released the detenu from fetters. While there were minor issues about legibility (Ext. P10), the court held them non-fatal. The petition is dismissed with no costs, upholding the detention order as valid and enforceable.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P3 (reply by the bank’s secretary) and seeks a One Time Settlement (OTS) under Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 based on earlier orders and judgments. The petitioner, Avara Haji, a non-agricultural NAMT loan borrower of Rs.3,00,000 taken on 23.08.2001 from the Ariyur Service Co-operative Bank, contends that if allowed to settle the loan under Ext.P4 (Circular 9/2017) or Ext.P5 (Circular 6/2018), he would settle the entire due amount. The bank’s counter affidavit describes a long history: a 2003 arbitration (ARC 1030/2003) awarding in the bank’s favor, later modified by the Cooperative Tribunal on 27.06.2009, which directed realization of Rs.4,24,227 with 12% interest and costs, and allowed ten equal monthly installments; default would enable recovery of the full amount. The petitioner remitted Rs.1,00,000 during earlier proceedings, and Ext.P1 involved a 2016 judgment in W.P.(C) No.8593/2010, with subsequent orders on OTS. The court notes that there is currently no active OTS scheme and the petitioner cannot claim benefits under prior circulars. Citing Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India, and the principle of full and fair disclosure in writ petitions, the court finds this petition an abuse of process and disposes of it with costs.
This batch of connected writ petitions challenges the levy of seignorage on Government lands covered by mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). The petitioners, Crystal Granites Limited and G.K. Granites, hold quarrying leases from the State of Kerala for granite on private lands and, crucially, on Government puramboke lands. They contend that while MMDR Act regulates mining and royalty, the State cannot lawfully demand seignorage on Government lands leased for mining because such a levy would amount to an excessive, prerogative extraction beyond royalties prescribed under MMDR. The State argues that Sections 5-6 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules authorize seigniorage for occupation/removal of Government property, with rates notified under SRO 59/2015 and subsequent amendments. The judgment traverses constitutional allocation of powers (List I/II), clarifying that central regulation via MMDR does not extinguish State power, but may be limited by positive regulation. It distinguishes seignorage from royalty, concluding that seignorage, as a prerogative levy for depletion of Government land, is constitutionally valid when restricted to Government lands and not the mineral rights granted for private lands. The court also notes estoppel: petitioners cannot deny seignorage after accepting the grants with seignorage conditions. Finally, while upholding the validity of seignorage, the court quashes the demand notices for the purpose of re-quantification after allowing hearing, directing re-quantification within six weeks, and closes the Contempt case.
