AFA Nos.23/1992, 29/1993 & 31/1993 These appeals arise from a common judgment in OS No.2 of 1976 of the Sub Court, Kavaratti, concerning a suit for partition of velliyazhcha property under the Marumakkathayam system. The trial court partly allowed the partition, excluding certain properties of defendant Nos.20–22. In the intra-court appeal, the Kerala High Court held the suit not maintainable for non-joinder of the entire thavazhi members, clarifying that there is no bar on filing a fresh suit after arraigning all the thavazhi members. The court relied on Kunhipappada Beefathummabi v. Kunhikoya (Full Bench, 2006) which held that partition of velliyazhcha property cannot be maintained if an individual member files it and that partition must be per capita rather than per stirpes. Consequently, AFA Nos.23/1992, 29/1993 and 31/1993 were dismissed, though the court indicated the possibility of a fresh suit in accordance with law. Regarding AFA 29/1993, the court noted that a mere finding cannot operate as res judicata; all issues may be decided in the future. The judgment underlines that the issues involve complex, long-standing familial and guardianship arrangements across the island of Angedroth, Lakshadweep, with many minors represented by guardians. The final disposition is that all three AFA appeals stand dismissed.
Sasikala M., a teacher at AMUP School, Klari North, Palachiramad, Malappuram, challenged Ext.P9 dated 14.08.2012, which conferred minority status to AMUP School. The background traces to a headmaster vacancy arising 01.05.2005 after the retirement of M.P. Kurian, where the manager appointed A.P. Moidu (junior to Sasikala M.) in violation of seniority rules. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected Moidu’s proposal on seniority grounds; the matter was challenged before the District Educational Officer, who allowed it, and later the government granted minority status on 24.05.2005. Sasikala contended that Ext.P7 (the minority status order) was provisional and harmed staff who were unaware of minority status, while the manager argued the school had long belonged to the minority and that minority status permitted appointment irrespective of seniority. The High Court previously directed fresh decision in light of WP(C) No. 29723/2005 (2011). Ext.P9, after hearing, restored minority status and directed compliance. The court noted that a majority of students and teachers belonged to the minority, and that minority status allows meritorious appointments over strict seniority. The petition was ultimately dismissed; the government order restoring minority status was sustained.
WP(C) Nos. 443/2023, 1096/2023, 638/2023, 22488/2023, 555/2023, 375/2023 The Kerala High Court, in a batch judgment delivered on 21 February 2024 by Justice Basant Balaji, dealt with six writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 443/2023, 1096/2023, 638/2023, 22488/2023, 555/2023, 375/2023) filed by daily-wage Abkari workers challenging pay parity with regular employees employed in similar posts under Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M&M) and the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board (KAWWFB). These workers joined service under rehabilitation schemes for perished Abkari workers and are enrolled in the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. They allege discriminatory treatment: though they perform the same duties as other Abkari workers, they receive a daily wage of Rs 675 which is not on par with pay scales granted to three other categories of Abkari workers absorbed in the go-down/retailer cadre. The court examined Ext.P4 (2011) and related government actions which allowed pay parity for those three categories, while distinguishing the petitioners’ category, which were recruited via different methods. Citing State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, the court held that "equal pay for equal work" applies where duties are the same and posts identical. It concluded that there can be no pay parity discrimination within one homogenous group of Abkari workers registered under the Welfare Fund, directing parity to the petitioners from the date of enrolment in the Welfare Fund Board. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, with relief limited to the enrolment date.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash FIR No.40/2018 of Balussery Police Station and the connected final report (No. 384/18) in CC No.671/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perambra, Kozhikode. Petitioners, four accused persons, are named in the FIR for offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 427, 451 and 354 r/w 34. The crux is that the parties are involved in a dispute with the third respondent, alleged to have been settled amicably: the third respondent swore Annexure-A3 affidavit stating she has no objection to quashing the case and no subsisting grievance. Annexure-A3 is supported by the Investigating Officer’s report and by submissions from the petitioners’ counsel and the respondents’ counsel; the third respondent also submits there is no grievance. The petition relies on Supreme Court authorities Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat to contend that where the dispute is settled and offences are not serious, quashing may be warranted to secure ends of justice. After considering the materials, the court holds that the offences are not grave, there is no public interest, conviction likelihood is remote, and continuing proceedings would waste judicial time. Exercising inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, the court allows the Crl.M.C and quashes the FIR, final report, and all further proceedings.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges two notices (Exts. P9 and P10) issued by the Sub Group Officer directing payment of arrears of rent for shop premises belonging to the Travancore Devaswom Board, for July 2020 to December 2021, with penal interest. The petitioners contend the notices are unlawful coercive steps; the Board had earlier rejected representations seeking waivers on Covid-19 lockdowns and the Swadeshi Dharshan project; authorities maintained that arrears are due and actions would follow if not paid. The Court recalls and relies on Kerala decisions requiring Devaswom Boards to manage properties with due diligence and to generate income, not at the cost of market-rate rents, citing H.N. Vijayan, T. Krishnakumar and M.V. Ramasubbiar, among others. It canvasses jurisprudence emphasizing fiduciary duties of trustees, parens patriae doctrine protecting temple properties, and the need to fix rents not below market value (DSR considerations). The Court ultimately dismisses the petition (Exts. P9/P10 cannot be sustained) but permits payment of arrears in four installments starting 15 May 2023, directing four monthly installments thereafter, while noting that rent fixation shall adhere to the controlling precedents. The Appendix records lease and notices relied upon by the parties.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Misc. Case arises from the accused Khalid’s petition to quash Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.500 of 2022 of Cherpulassery Police Station and the connected proceedings in SC No.1238 of 2022 before the Fast Track Special Court, Pattambi. The prosecution alleges multiple acts of sexual assault on a minor girl (aged 11) in March 2020, May 2021, and July 2022. Khalid contends innocence and alleges false implication by a close relative out of vengeance; he relies on travel records (Annexures A3 and A4 passports) to establish alibi, claiming he was abroad during the dates of alleged offences. The petition also cites his duties to show non-availability in Kerala on the dates in question. The court notes the gravity of offences under IPC sections 376AB and 376(2)(n) and POCSO Act sections 3(b), 4, 5(l), 5(m), 6(1). It discusses the alibi doctrine under the Evidence Act (Section 11), emphasizing that alibi is a defense that becomes relevant after the prosecution proves the incident; if the prosecution discharges its burden, the accused must prove alibi with absolute certainty. The court ultimately dismisses the Crl.M.C, leaving open the plea of alibi for trial, and leaving contentions for SC No.1238 of 2022 to be taken up."
This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court deals with suo motu proceedings initiated on 9 January 2024 based on a complaint dated 12 December 2023 by Ajoy L.S. regarding encroachment of Chengannur Mahadevar Temple land by third parties, including a CBSE-affiliated Senior Secondary School (Chinmaya Vidyalaya) operating on temple property. The petition concerns alleged encroachment of temple land under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The 4th respondent, Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), submitted an affidavit outlining encroachments and steps taken under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The court noted a related complaint dated 11 October 2023 and the pendency of O.S. No.191 of 2010 in which TDB is a defendant. Relying on authorities about pleadings in writ petitions, including Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court emphasized that facts and evidence must be pleaded, and relief cannot rest on pleadings alone. The court held that the issues raised cannot be resolved in a DBP under Article 226 and directed that proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act continue, without prejudice to the petitioner’s rights. The DBP is disposed accordingly, with no immediate relief granted to the petitioner.
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd challenged an order enhancing compensation payable for diminution in land value caused by the laying of 400 kV electric lines across the respondents’ properties in Re.Sy.No.57/11, Eangappuzha Village, Kozhikode. The respondents, a husband and wife, own adjacent parcels of 23 cents and 10 cents, and trees were felled for the Mysore–Kozhikode transmission corridor. They sought compensation for the value of felled trees and for diminution in land value. Although the trial court initially awarded enhanced compensation, the civil revision petitions were allowed, remanding to ascertain yield and to consider all components of diminution in land value. On remand, the court fixed the diminution in land value at 50% and noted that the properties abutted a village centre with several institutions within 1.5 km; nearby properties with similar status were valued differently. The impugned order directed Power Grid to pay Rs.4,22,760 in O.P.(Ele) 57/2010 and Rs.1,72,000 in O.P.(Ele) 58/2010, with 12% interest from 17.02.2009 and costs within two months. The Corporation alleged the land-value figure was not legally supported and the quantum exceeded government guidelines; the respondents argued the enhancement was reasonable, reflecting situs and other factors. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order, held it was not bound by government guidelines, and dismissed the petitions, upholding the lower court’s assessment.
This is a suo motu original petition (OP No.3821 of 1990) before the Kerala High Court concerning alleged illegality, embezzlement and irregularities in the administration of temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB). The petition, initiated on 11.04.1990, named as petitioners two examiners of local fund accounts (Thiruvananthapuram and Thrissur) acting as auditors for the TDB and CDB, with the Secretary of the TDB, the Secretary of the CDB and the Chief Secretary to Government as respondents. Over the years, numerous interlocutory orders and impleadments (R4–R37 and beyond) were recorded, addressing the constitution of a High Power Committee for the Sabarimala Master Plan, the appointment of a Special Commissioner for Sabarimla, an Ombudsman for the Devaswom Boards, and various Board appointments. In 2023–24, the Court noted pendency in SLPs (8254–55 of 2019) arising from a 2019 order relating to Devaswom Commissioner appointments and referenced a later decision (Radhakrishnan R.G. v. State of Kerala) which affected such appointments. The Court disposed of the petition by directing a fresh suo motu DBP proceedings for 21.05.2024 and a consideration of the Thulasidas Committee report on 24.05.2024, with an emphasis on digitizing records and clarifying the status of interlocutory applications. It also issued a correction to a line in the judgment regarding the board appointments.
CRL.M.C. No. 9523 of 2022 This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case concerns two petitioners, accused Nos. 6 and 7 in Crime No. 1915/2021, Perumbavoor Police Station, under NDPS Act sections 20(b)(ii)C, 27A and 29, who sought default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The investigation extended beyond the statutory 180 days, but the final report was filed on 12.09.2022, within 180 days, and later found defective by the Sessions Court on 09.11.2022. The petitioners argued that because the final report was defective and only later cured after verification, their entitlement to default bail should subsist, per Achpal @ Ramswaroop and other precedents. The Public Prosecutor contended that there is no default bail where the final report is filed within the 180-day window and delay in verification cannot revive default bail rights. The court examines Section 167 Cr.P.C, NDPS 36A, and the interplay of completion of investigation versus filing of the final report, noting that the primary criterion is completion of investigation, not mere filing of a defective final report. It cites Saharath v. State of Kerala to recognize that defects can be cured and the charge-sheet can be represented; however, since the final report in this case was completed and verified, with minor defects curable within time, the court declines to grant default bail and dismisses the petition. The order underscores that default bail is not triggered by a late final report where the investigation is completed and defects cured timely.
BAIL APPL. NO. 234 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Shaju, the second accused in Crime No. 2092/2023 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The FIR alleges that on 02.12.2023 at around 6:30 p.m., four persons attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons, causing injuries including fractures; the first accused allegedly uttered obscene words and assaulted the complainant; the second accused struck him with an iron rod; the first accused used a chopper to cut the left hand of the defacto-complainant, constituting offences under IPC Ss. 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 34. The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated, pointing to a six-day delay in lodging the FIR as evidence of falsity, and expresses willingness to comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting a specific overt act and ongoing investigation, with case diary and medical records showing a closed fracture. The court places reliance on established Supreme Court guidance in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, underscoring that anticipatory bail is not governed by rigid guidelines and must be weighed against the seriousness of the offences, investigation needs, and risk of tampering. After hearing both sides, the court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, it grants a conditional option: the petitioner may surrender within 10 days for interrogation and subsequent bail proceedings on merits. If surrender does not occur, arrest may proceed.
272/2024; 274/2024; 275/2024; 276/2024; 277/2024; 278/2024 These are six regular bail applications filed by the sole accused in Crime Nos. 1179/2023, 1180/2023, 1181/2023, 1182/2023, 1183/2023 and 1184/2023, all of Town Police Station, Kozhikode. The incidents relate to alleged sexual offences under IPC section 354(1)(i), combined with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The victim girls were students of the Himayathul Islam School. The date of alleged incident is 12.12.2023, with complaints lodged on 18.12.2023, resulting in the accused’s detention since 20.12.2023. The prosecution contends the nature and seriousness of the offences justify no release on bail, while the defence contends delays in complaint and the improbability of multiple victims acting in the same room within a single day, highlighting investigation progress and the accused’s willingness to comply with conditions. On 29.01.2024, the court considered these submissions and noted the large class size, with 12 victims explicitly mentioned but the record indicating 34 students in the class. Balancing factors, the court granted regular bail under several conditions, including bonds, reporting schedules, travel restrictions, no contact with victims, and safeguards to ensure the integrity of the investigation.
This writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, concerns the regularisation of five KTDC employees who were initially appointed in 2011 as Accountants and later accommodated as Store Attendants. The petitioners challenge the Government’s Ext.P5 order (dated 18.02.2021) which regularised only those with ten years of service as on 31.01.2021, arguing that their appointments were made through a proper selection process and that their continuance in service, despite not meeting the ten‑year cut‑off, warrants regularisation given vacancies and the public interest. The petitioners rely on prior Court judgments (Exts. P1, P2) which had directed consideration of regularisation, and on a 2015 decision in W.P.(C) No.23186/2014 that even contract employees with some years of service could be considered for regularisation as per Court directions. The Government counters that the ten‑year criterion was a policy-based criterion reflected in Ext.P5 and that the petitioners did not meet it, despite meeting other criteria. The court notes that the petitioners have completed ten years of service as on 31.01.2021 and that there are vacancies, insisting on a reconsideration. The judge directs the first respondent to consider regularisation within three months after receipt of a copy of the judgment, recognizing the petitioners’ long service and due selection process. The petition is disposed accordingly with a direction to act in light of these observations.
CRL.REV.P NO.4017 OF 2009 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition arising from a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenging a conviction recorded in C.C. No. 44 of 2008 (Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod) and upheld by the Sessions Court in CRL.Appeal No. 275 of 2008, though with the substantive sentence reduced to one month. The complainant alleged dishonour of Ext. P1, a cheque dated 29 August 2007 for Rs. 96,000 purportedly issued toward discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The petitioner contends there was no transaction and no debt; Ext. P1 was drawn long after the account had been closed (1997), the cheque book had been lost, and the cheque is argued to be a self-cheque later altered by the complainant; Exts. P7 and P8 show account closure and loss, cast doubt on the source of funds and the debt. The trial court convicted, and the appellate court affirmed conviction but reduced the sentence. This Court analyzes whether a cheque drawn on a closed account can attract Section 138 and whether there was a genuine, bona fide transaction. Relying on Vathsan v. Japahari, Salim v. Thomas, and Bhaskaran Nair v. Mohanan, the Court finds the prosecution failed to prove a legally enforceable debt and significant transactional proof, acquitting the petitioner and allowing the revision petition. The petitioner is acquitted and released.
This is a Revision Petition filed under Section 125 CrPC before the Kerala High Court challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Mavelikara in MC No.47/2020. The respondent wife was granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month, following which the revision petitioner’s defence was struck off for non-payment and the main maintenance petition was allowed. The petitioner contends that the Family Court had no power to strike off the defence in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, since Chapter IX CrPC provides for execution of maintenance orders (e.g., under Section 128) and there is an available remedy to enforce payment, not to strike pleadings. He relies on Sakeer Hussain T.P. v. Naseera and Hari B. v. Harsha S. to argue that no enabling provision supports striking off. The respondent argues that non-payment, if wilful and contumacious, justifies the drastic remedy, supported by Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, Mahesh v. Roopa, and Muraleedharan, as well as Supreme Court guidance in Rajnesh v. Neha. The High Court ultimately holds that Hari B. was per incuriam and that the law has crystallised to permit striking off only as a last resort, after giving opportunity to pay arrears. It remands with conditions: deposit arrears within 60 days, revival of MC 47/2020 upon payment, and expedited disposal with asset disclosures.
Rineesh K., owner of motor vehicle KL-85/A-9114, challenged orders concerning interim custody and release of his vehicle, seized in NDPS case Crime No. 442/2023 (Mavoor Police Station) where 1.070 g of MDMA was recovered from the pocket of the accused Abdul Fatah K. The Special Judge (NDPS Act) at Vatakara held the contraband to be methamphetamine and concluded the quantity was small, transferring the matter to the Judicial Magistrate’s Court for appropriate action. The petitioner obtained Ext.P3, an order of the JMFC releasing the vehicle with conditions, but execution was blocked by an APSP instruction stating that confiscation proceedings had been initiated, leaving the vehicle undelivered. Subsequently, the petitioner sought release of the vehicle’s registration certificate and insurance under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. Ext.P4 (dismissed) followed. The High Court relied on established decisions, Wilson C.C. v. State of Kerala and Shanil v. State of Kerala, to hold that where contraband is recovered from a person during a vehicle stop, the vehicle itself is not the subject matter of confiscation, and Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. interim custody remains available. The court confirmed Ext.P3’s order releasing the car and set aside Ext.P4, directing the JMFC to reconsider in light of this judgment. The petition is disposed of with directions, and the matter is remanded for reconsideration under the clarified legal framework.
Sunil, the appellant, filed MACA No. 2657 of 2012 challenging the award in OP(MV) No. 994/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The claim arose from a 13 February 2005 motor-vehicle accident in which Sunil, a pillion rider, sustained injuries while riding on KL7/2742; the opposing vehicle, KL-8/8246, collided with it. The appellant alleged a monthly income of Rs. 3,300 and a permanent partial disability of 26% (functional disability 70%), seeking compensation of Rs. 4,80,600. The Respondents 3 and 6 (insurers) contested; R3 argued the policy was an “Act only” policy not covering pillion riders; R6 disputed quantum. The Tribunal held that, under Section 163A, issues of inter se negligence need not be adjudicated and apportioned liability between R1 and R6, exonerating R3. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,52,320 with 7.5% interest. The appellant contended for a full adjudication of negligence and greater compensation. The High Court held that 163A aims for speedy resolution without deciding negligence; it modified the award, allowing recovery from any one or more of R1 and R6 jointly and severally, re-fixed income at Rs. 3,300, and set disability at 70%, yielding a revised total of Rs. 5,58,560 with interest and costs. It also adjusted heads of compensation (loss of earnings, pain and suffering). The decision cited Ramachandrappa and New India Insurance Co. v. Vappu to justify income and the Section 163A framework.
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. hears Crl.M.C 5493/21 challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C against Rajan for allegedly giving false evidence in SC No. 214 of 2001 (Kollam). The Sessions Court had found grounds to proceed and forwarded the matter in Annexure A2/A3, leading to CC No. 8 of 2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. The Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings during the SLP but, after disposal, the Magistrate resumed. The petitioner contends that continuing with perjury proceedings is illegitimate since most of the main accused were convicted and the factual setting shows little likelihood of prejudice to the prosecution; more importantly, there has been a long lapse of time—about 21 years since the deposition (PW71 on 17.08.2001) and 17 years since the complaint—thus it would be an abuse of the process of court. The State opposes, arguing the validity of the proceedings and that law must take its course; the gravity and consequences of false evidence require consideration. The court surveys Thomman v. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Muraleekrishna Das, and Kuriakose v. State of Kerala, noting that not every false statement warrants initiation, and that a summary enquiry may be appropriate to determine whether the deposition was false. The High Court ultimately holds that the proceedings are an abuse of process and quashes them, allowing the Crl.M.C.
This writ petition challenges Exts. P4, P7 and P8 notices issued by the second respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1962, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner, a home maker and co-owner of a property sold in 2015, did not file a return for AY 2016-17. On 24.01.2023, she received Ext. P4 show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) alleging escaped income, and was asked to respond by 03.02.2023. Lacking certified copies of Exts. P2 and P3 deeds, she sought enlargement, which was granted only till 20.02.2023. She argues that due to non-receipt of the copies and the fluidity of amended Sections 147-151, a fair opportunity to contest Ext. P4 was essential, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal decision (2023). Before she could submit a reply, Ext. P7 under Section 148A(d) was issued and Ext. P8 demanded a return under Section 148. The petitioner also filed Ext. P9 objection on 28.06.2023. The respondents contend adequate opportunity was provided, and the petitioner’s delay is not justified. The High Court, after hearing, held that the petitioner must have a fair opportunity to contest Ext. P4 on merits, accepted her explanation for lack of copies, quashed Exts. P7 and P8, and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext. P4 in light of Ext. P9 objection, ensuring due process and no prejudice to either side.
A writ petition filed by Gilgal Cashew Exports, an MSME unit, challenges an order of the Banking Ombudsman and seeks consideration of its Exhibit P8 representation under RBI schemes. The core dispute concerns a loan from UCO Bank and the bank’s actions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 after the account was declared NPA on 30.06.2021. The petitioner asserts that pandemic lockdowns caused severe losses and that the bank imposed interest and charges beyond contractual rates; in response to the crisis the bank provided limited relief under RBI directions and government schemes but failed to refer the matter to the MSME Committee as envisaged in RBI Master Circular Exhibit P3. The petitioner submitted representations to the bank and to RBI, but claims no action was taken before the bank proceeded to possession. The Bank, in defense, contends it extended moratorium, GECL, UCECL, and other reliefs, and maintains that the remedy lies under SARFAESI Section 17 and not under Article 226. The Banking Ombudsman dismissed the petition for lack of deficiency of service. The High Court ultimately holds that the petitioner cannot challenge these SARFAESI measures in a writ petition, citing Satyawati Tondon and related authorities, and directs the petitioner to pursue remedies under the statute; the petition is dismissed with leave to approach the appropriate forum for agitating the matter.
