WP(C).No. 26300 of 2009 & WP(C).No. 30457 of 2009 These writ petitions arise from a long-standing dispute over the appropriation of funds collected at the Parassinikkadavu Sree Muthappan Temple, specifically the money placed at the Sopanam (devotional platform). The petitioners challenge the claim that such offerings are Kanikka to the Deity, arguing instead that they are Dakshina to the Madayan/Chief Priest and must not be treated as temple funds. The respondents contend that, although the temple is publicly recognized, the management and funds are controlled by the three families, and the temple’s income must be accounted and administered under HR&CE Act provisions. The petitions trace a history of mismanagement and past court directions (OP 631/90 and related orders) aimed at ensuring transparency, auditing, and proper allocation of Hundials and other collections. The court examined whether Hundials should be sealed, whether a Special Officer should supervise, and how the Department’s intervention should be structured to protect public money while acknowledging custom and usage. Crucially, the court ultimately upholds Ext. P6 directing accountability and introduces a dual-vessel framework to segregate Dakshina to Madayan from Kanikka to the Deity, while directing finalization of a scheme and ongoing oversight. The matter emphasizes balancing devotion, tradition, public accountability, and statutory control over temple finances.
CRL.A. No. 645 of 2014; CRA(V). No. 406 of 2015 This is a consolidated judgment of two criminal appeals arising from the acquittal of four accused (Ramadas alias Shaji, Thankamani, Nishamol and Chathunni) in SC 641/2010 of the Palakkad Sessions Court. The prosecution alleged dowry-related cruelty and dowry death under Section 304B IPC, with possible involvement of Section 302 IPC, 34 IPC, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The deceased Krishnaleena, wife of the 1st accused, died of burn injuries in 2010 after returning to her matrimonial home and reportedly facing repeated dowry demands. The trial court acquitted all accused. The State and the victim’s legal heirs (via CRA(V).406/2015) challenged the acquittal. The Kerala High Court, in a division bench, reaffirms the settled principle that appellate courts should not lightly reverse a trial court’s findings unless shown perverse or unreasonable reasoning. It clarifies that charging under 304B and 302 can be simultaneous, citing Regbir Singh v. State of Haryana to support permissible framing. The court emphasizes the essential ingredients of 304B, the presumption under 113B, and that “soon before” is a relative concept requiring a live link between cruelty and death. Ultimately, the appeals are dismissed and the acquittal stands. The case involves questions of evidence of dowry cruelty, proximate causation, and the correctness of trial-court conclusions.
This is a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by Rajan, the accused in Crime No.72/2018 of Areacode Police Station, Malappuram, registered under Section 302 IPC. The case pertains to the death of the applicant’s daughter, aged 21, who allegedly was murdered by her father after a troubled sequence following her elopement with a man from a Scheduled Caste background. The prosecution contends the daughter eloped with the lover, returned under a promise of marriage on 23.3.2018, and was later subjected to threats and coerced confrontation by the applicant, culminating in a fatal stabbing on 22.3.2018. Eye witnesses CWs 1-7 are near relatives or neighbours. The final report has been laid and the matter committed to the Court of Session, Manjeri. The applicant’s counsel argues the accused is a loving father who suffered mental trauma and that further custody would be punitive; the presence of the final report and the accused’s family dependents weigh in favour of bail; reliance is placed on Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to stress circumscribed judicial discretion. The Public Prosecutor counters with the gravity of the offense, proximity to witnesses, and the risk of tampering, arguing bail would undermine justice and trial expedition. The court enumerates bail factors, including gravity, chance of absconding, witness protection, and public interest, and concludes the serious allegations and witness risk justify denial of bail, directing expedited trial. The application is dismissed.
This writ appeal challenges a 16 January 2019 High Court order (WP(C) 33815/2017) directing reinstatement of Bindumol S pending disciplinary proceedings initiated by East Eleri Bank on 15 June 2013 for unauthorised absence and alleged misconduct. The bank contends there was no suspension order and the disciplinary process remained uncompleted for over five years, while the employee remained out of service; the delay has prompted a complaint to the Legislative Sub-committee for Women and Children. The first respondent Joint Registrar, acting under supervisory authority over cooperative societies’ administration, issued Ext.P3 directing reinstatement in service “without prejudice to the Bank’s right to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law,” effectively keeping the disciplinary action alive while permitting the employee to return to duty. The appellant-bank argues the Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to interfere with internal disciplinary action and relies on Kanjoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), 2016 (3) KLT 73 to argue procedural limits. The learned Single Judge found that delaying finalisation of disciplinary proceedings and prolonged absence are serious. The appellate court agrees with the Registrar’s supervisory role to keep the process within the law but holds that there was no illegality in Ext.P3; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and Ext.P3 is sustained, reinstating the second respondent while preserving the bank’s right to complete the disciplinary process.
WA No.1021 of 2015 and connected matters This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns the interpretation of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) and the treatment of manufactured sand (M-Sand) produced in crushers using various machines, including VSI/HSI, in relation to the compounding scheme under Section 8 and its proviso. The State of Kerala and Commercial Taxes Department challenged the exemptions claimed by dealers primarily engaged in producing granite metals who opted for compounding, arguing that the proviso to Section 8 exempts only M-Sand produced by the specified machines and not otherwise. The Single Judge held that the proviso exempts M-Sand produced by dealers who have opted for compounding, covering all production methods, including VSI/HSI. The State appealed across multiple writ appeals (1021/2015 and connected) with numerous respondents such as Mar Basil Granites, A.S. Granites, Kinattukara Metal Crusher, Panachayil Industries, Thomson Granites, Amity Rock Products, etc., and also challenged notices under Section 67. The court ultimately upheld the learned Single Judge’s view on exemption for M-Sand under compounding, while recalling parts of a common judgment to address a separate aspect in one appeal (W.A.1927/2016) concerning a notice under Section 67, which was held to be issuable or not depending on the interpretation of the exemption and assessment regime. The batch was disposed of with a general dismissal, except WA 1927/2016 which was allowed. The decision emphasizes legislative intent to curb tax loss via the introduction of VSI/HSI and clarifies the scope of the proviso to Section 8 for compounded units.
This writ petition challenges amendments to central and state regulations governing NEET-PG admissions for 2018-19. Petitioners, MBBS graduates included in NEET-PG 2018 ranked lists, allege that the Medical Council of India (MCI) amended the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (Ext. P1) on 05.04.2018, by adding Rural areas to the existing category of remote/difficult areas for weightage marks for in-service candidates. The State Government also issued Ext. P2 (12.04.2018) to align the admission process with the amended regulations. Petitioners argue that the mid-course rule change, after the 1st State Quota allotment and during the 2nd allotment, destroys legitimate expectations, and violates Article 14 (equality before the law) and procedural fairness. Respondents contend central regulations (Entry 66, List I) have primacy over state rules; the 2018 amendment is binding and necessary to harmonize with central standards, and the State is empowered to revise the prospectus (Ext. P7) in light of Ext. P1. The Court, noting Supreme Court precedents on central regulation primacy and reasonable rule-change, refuses to interfere and dismisses the petition. The decision upholds the amended framework for NEET-PG admissions and weightage practices, subject to further statutory contestation if needed.
The petitioner, Kunnathunad Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., a cooperative bank incorporated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, challenged Ext.P10, an order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking certain documents for disclosure to a third party under the Right to Information Act (RTI). The petition argues that as a cooperative society, it is not A RTI subject, and the Registrar cannot compel production of documents merely to furnish information to a third party. The State Information Commission advocate (amicus curiae) and respondents point to prior jurisprudence, notably the Division Bench decision in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank, Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013(4) KHC 131), which has also received imprimatur from the Supreme Court in part, to uphold that a Registrar is a public authority under RTI and may gather information from cooperative societies to the extent permissible by law. The court also cites Thrissur District Co-operative Bank v. State Information Commission (AIR 2017 Kerala 120), which holds that a Registrar should give notice to the cooperative society before deciding exemptions and disclosing information. The judge concludes that while the Registrar can seek information, disclosure must comply with RTI provisions and include a hearing for the society and affected parties. The petition is disposed with directions to complete the process expeditiously, and only after hearing the society and third parties, furnish the information under RTI within one month of the judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 15034 of 2018 This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P2, the seniority list published by the 1st respondent bank, and Ext.P4, an order of the 1st respondent. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk in the bank (a society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act), seeks to quash the seniority list and order and to mandate the publication of cadre-wise seniority for promotion based on feeder categories. He also seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 petitions before the Joint Registrar and to declare that he is senior to the 3rd respondent, arguing that Ext.P1 award of the Industrial Tribunal did not contemplate the claimed benefits, especially where the 3rd respondent was out of service. The respondents contend maintainability issues under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and emphasize the statutory mechanism for redressal. The court surveys jurisprudence on when writ petitions may be entertained in the presence of an efficacious statutory remedy and ultimately holds that the disputes relating to promotion and inter se seniority fall within the statutory Co-operative Arbitration Court process. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Act; all interlocutory applications are closed.
This writ appeal, filed by the respondents in WP(C) No.28933/2013, challenges the February 25, 2016 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which quashed a disciplinary action taken by the Andhra Bank against its employee, the respondent herein. The employee, while employed as an Assistant Manager at Thodupuzha, faced a charge sheet dated 22 November 2011 alleging multiple misconducts. An enquiry found some charges proved, and the management accepted the report, issuing Ext. P1 (30 November 2012) dismissal, later converted to compulsory retirement by Ext. P3 (25 April 2013). The respondent challenged this order in the writ petition, and the learned Single Judge directed a fresh departmental inquiry while keeping it in abeyance due to a pending CBI/criminal case. The appellants argued that once the enquiry officer found guilt and appellate authorities affirmed, the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence; that staying the enquiry pending criminal proceedings was unwarranted; and that the Court should not thwart a banking institution’s loss of confidence. The appeal relies on decisions emphasizing that domestic inquiries and criminal trials can run concurrently, and that loss of confidence and proportionality principles justify appropriate disciplinary action. The Kerala High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing that fresh disciplinary proceedings may be conducted independently of prior findings, while quashing the earlier quashment order.
WA.No. 82 of 2016 (in WPC. 18889/2014) This writ appeal arises from a challenge to an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the subsequent judgment in W.P.(C).No.18889 of 2014. The appellant, S. Krishnakumar, contends that the Corporation’s application for site plan approval and construction permission, denied on grounds relating to a Green Strip Zone and a pre-requisite concurrence, should have been guided by the deeming provisions under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. The Tribunal had held that the appellant was entitled to a deemed permit under Section 392, resulting in a deemed permission under Section 387. The learned Single Judge accepted that the 30-day timeline for Secretary-level decisions could be counted even if the communication of the order was belated, effectively allowing deemed approval. The appellate court, however, re-examined the statutory scheme and concluded that the deeming provision applies when the Council fails to determine the matter within the prescribed periods, and that the reference triggered was for site approval rather than building permission. In a consequential order, the court declared that the appellant had a deemed site approval under Section 392 and directed the Corporation to consider the building permit afresh within six weeks, applying the norms in force in 2013, while quashing the interim order dated 12.08.2016. The writ appeal is disposed as above, with the court emphasizing statutory interpretation over procedural delays.
WA.No. 2605 of 2015 (also WA Nos. 2557 of 2015 and 291 of 2016) These writ appeals arise from a common judgment of a learned Single Judge in two writ petitions under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, by an assessee engaged in hotel business challenging compounding of offences and a subsequent regular assessment. The assessee had applied for compounding for cooked-food turnover in AY 2009-10, which the department initially accepted. On 19 August 2009, the assessee obtained a beer and wine licence and commenced parlour operations. Section 8(c) of the Act bars compounding for dealers running a beer/wine parlour attached to a hotel serving cooked food, so from the date of licence there could be no valid basis for continued compounding. The department later unearthed the change, opened a crime file, and demanded Rs 4 lakhs; the assessee paid but the department sought to revise the amount to Rs 8 lakhs. A regular assessment under Section 25(1) was initiated on the ground of disentitlement to continue compounding. The learned Single Judge held that only Rs 2 lakhs could be charged under Section 74(1) (as then existing), discussed amendments to Rs 4 lakhs (2009) and Rs 8 lakhs (2011), and considered limitation under Section 25(1). The matter was heard by a Division Bench with two judges and culminated in dispositions on the compounding fee, limitation, and cancellation of compounding in light of the beer/wine licence. The three writ appeals were disposed accordingly in a mixed outcome for the assessee and the Department, reflecting the evolving statutory ceiling on compounding and the statutory limitation period.
CRL.A Nos. 677, 895, 1009 and 1500 of 2018 This is a consolidated criminal appeal judgment of the Kerala High Court arising from Crime No. 1829/2015 (Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram) and connected proceedings (SC No. 901/2016, CP Nos. 11 & 18 of 2016). The appellants/accused—several members of rival gangs—were convicted by the Trial Court under various IPC provisions for a conspiracy to murder Sunil Babu and for principal homicidal injuries. Accused Nos. 1–4 were convicted under 302 r/w 34 IPC, 341 IPC, and 326 r/w 34 IPC; accused Nos. 5–8 under 120B IPC; the 9th accused was acquitted. The High Court re-examines the evidence, including eyewitness accounts (PW1, PW3) and independent corroboration (PW6, PW33, PW48), medical and forensic findings (MO1–MO3; P37–P39; P44–P46; P65), and the chain of recoveries based on disclosure statements. The court addresses delays in FIR, possible witness bias (related witnesses), and the question whether there was a criminal conspiracy. It holds the death homicidal and upholds conviction for 341 and 302 r/w 34 against the first four accused, but holds that the conspiracy charges against accused Nos. 5–8 do not stand and thus sets aside 120B/326 convictions. The appeals Nos. 677 and 1500 are allowed; 895 and 1009 are allowed in part. Accused Nos. 5–8 are acquitted; others are to be released if not required.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 953 of 2017 Bright Glass Traders filed Cr.R.P. No. 953 of 2017 challenging an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur, dated 12 May 2017, which dismissed the NI Act complaint under Section 138 on the ground that the complainant had not paid the process-fee for service of a warrant. The complainant had earlier paid process-fee for summons; due to non-appearance of the accused, summons were repeated and non-bailable warrants were issued. The petitioner relied on Ayodya Printers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015) 4 KLT 251, arguing that where a complaint is paid for service of summons and the accused fails to appear, subsequent warrants (under Section 87(b)) do not require the complainant to pay process-fees; such costs should be borne by the State. The High Court agreed that the trial court’s dismissal under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. was illegal and ultra vires, applying the Ayodya Printers doctrine. It also cited guidance from Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) to adopt a pragmatic approach to service of summons. The court set aside the impugned order, directed the complainant to proceed to trial with proper addresses, and permitted police assistance to effect service, thereby ensuring the case proceeds according to law.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from a Tribunal award of Rs. 3,80,500 for the death of Sureshbabu in a road accident on 27-04-2005, when an autorickshaw was struck by a bus (KL-10M 8692) driven rashly. The appellants (mother, wife and minor daughter of the deceased) challenge the quantum of compensation and demand higher dependency and other heads. The High Court finds that the deceased was a carpenter earning Rs. 7,000 per month and that the Tribunal erred in applying a notional income of Rs. 2,500 and in using an incorrect multiplier of 18. It applies the evidence of PW1 supporting the 7,000 monthly income and recalculates the dependency using a 17 multiplier (for age 30). It holds that 1/3 of income is for personal expenses, and fixes dependency at Rs. 9,52,000. Following the Apex Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines, the court awards substantial additional sums for funeral expenses (Rs. 13,000), pain and suffering (Rs. 10,000), loss of estate (Rs. 12,500), loss of consortium (Rs. 35,000 to the wife), love and affection (Rs. 30,000 to the minor daughter and Rs. 10,000 to the mother), and clothing (Rs. 1,000). The total additional compensation becomes Rs. 6,93,500, with 8% interest from petition date. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount with interest within two months. The distribution of the additional award among appellants is fixed (10:30:60), with the minor’s share deposited in fixed deposit until majority. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Dr. K Prathapan, the second accused in VACB Crime No. VC 06/17 TSR, challenged Ext. P3, an order by the Special Judge directing registration of an offence under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the consequent F.I.R. in VC 06/17 TSR. The private complaint alleged corrupt appointments in M/s Kerala Feeds Company Limited, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakkuda, including posts of Managers, Office Assistants and Drivers. It was alleged that a minister pressed for direct recruitment contrary to the Managing Director’s position, leading to Prathapan’s appointment as MD after the MD’s removal. The complaint claimed 12 unauthorised appointments were made after taking bribes. After preliminary enquiry, the VACB filed Ext. P2 report finding no element of corruption; nevertheless the Special Judge directed further investigation. The petitioner argued that the Board delegated appointment powers to the MD, and the quick verification did not reveal a cognizable offence, so directing registration under 156(3) Cr.P.C. was unjustified; Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. was cited to define the scope of preliminary inquiry. The High Court, reviewing statements and reports, held that the alleged postings largely complied with authority delegated by the Board, save for Vipin.K.’s daily-wage posting without advertisement. No cognizable offence was established, and continuing the investigation would not serve ends of justice. Consequently, Ext. P3 and the FIR were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Petitioner T.V. Pushkaran, who retired as Assistant Secretary of the Cherthala Government Servants Co-operative Bank, challenged the bank’s payment of gratuity after retirement on 31 May 2017. He received Rs 10,00,000 but under the policy with LIC the maturity value of the master policy would entitle him to Rs 20,76,902, as shown in Exhibit P1. The bank withheld the higher amount, invoking Circular No.5/2016 and the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, arguing that gratuity payable must be limited by the statutory caps in the State Act. The threshold issue is whether employees covered by the central Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 can claim the higher terms under Section 4(5) even when the State Rules would cap the amount; the dominant question is the relationship between the central Act and the State law. The Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. held that the liability to pay gratuity does not shift to the insurer, and the central Act's Section 4(5) empowers an employee to receive better terms; any deficiency after insurer payment remains the employer's liability, and the insurer cannot be liable for more than the master policy's value. The court also held that Section 4(5) overrides the second proviso to Rule 59(iii). Circular 5/2016 was quashed to the extent of misconstruction. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by directing payment of the balance gratuity of Rs 10,76,902 plus 6% simple interest from 01.06.2017 within two months, without costs.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dealt with MACA No. 2286 of 2007 and connected matters arising from a common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 77 of 2004 and 1105 of 2003, stemming from a motor vehicle accident on 07.11.2003 near Gudalloor, Theni District. A three-seater goods vehicle owned by Kurisumala Ashram and driven by Rajesh S. allegedly collided, resulting in the death of Mariaraj and injuries to James. Mariaraj’s widow, minor children and mother filed for death compensation (O.P. M.V. No.77/2004); James filed for bodily injury (O.P. M.V. No.1105/2003). The MACT issued a common award on 30.12.2006, later revised on 12.07.2007, granting Rs. 3,40,908 for the death claim and Rs. 73,980 for the injury claim, with interest 7.5% from petition date. The insurer, NIC, challenged the liability and quantum, arguing an act-only policy and lack of coverage for a gratuitous passenger, referencing Asharani’s case. The claimants filed a cross- objection for enhancement, which was later not pressed. The Kerala High Court analyzed whether compensation for an employee/worker injured or deceased should be limited to the Workmen’s Compensation Act or recoverable under the MV Act, following Ramachandra v. Regional Manager (AIR 2013 SC 2561) that MV Act compensation need not be so limited, depending on policy terms. The court adjusted the calculation factor (209.92) and ultimately dismissed the appeals, holding insurer liability to indemnify the owner and confirming the award subject to the revised quantum, with no costs. Cross-objections were dismissed as not pressed.
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur) challenges the ITAT’s order in ITA No.30/Coch/2002 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 of Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (a Kerala State Government Undertaking engaged in chitties and financing). The Assessing Officer added Rs.18,43,38,284 as various “finance charges” (finance/interest) arising from hire-purchase and other loan-type transactions, raising a demand of Rs.99,65,582 on the premise that the assessee is a “credit institution” liable to pay tax under the Interest Tax Act, 1974. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the additions, while the ITAT partly allowed the assessee, relying on a prior ITAT decision regarding finance charges. The central issue is whether finance charges like interest on hire-purchase and related portfolio financing are taxable as “interest” under the Interest Tax Act. The Revenue argues that these charges constitute interest on loans and advances; the assessee contends that hire-purchase arrangements are outside the scope of the Act. The Kerala High Court examines the definition of “interest” in Section 2(7) IT Act and notes that the transaction is a genuine loan despite being styled as hire-purchase, citing Sundaram Finance Ltd. The Court critically analyzes prior judicial authorities (Punjab & Haryana and Madras High Courts) as not directly on point, and relies on a Division Bench decision involving the same assessee (K.S.F.E. Ltd.) to affirm that such financing charges attract tax. Ultimately, the Court allows the Revenue’s appeal, reverses the Tribunal’s order, and restores the assessment, with no costs.
Ammini, the appellant, was convicted by the trial court for possession of 32 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in her shop, in contravention of the Abkari Act. The trial court held her guilty under sections 55(a) and 55(b) and sentenced five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and a default clause. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized whether the facts established the offence under 55(a), which targets possession in the course of illegal import, export or transport. The appellant argued there was no evidence of illegal import or transport and that a bottle’s lack of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation seal does not prove import. Citing Mohanan v. State of Kerala, Venu K.V. v. State and Tippu Mohammed v. State of Kerala, the court noted that conclusive proof of import is required and that absence of a seal cannot alone establish violation. The court also discussed that the bottles bore labels indicating manufacture in Pondicherry, but held that labeling alone does not discharge the state’s burden. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under 55(a) and (b). However, the appellant was found to possess liquor beyond the permissible quantity during the relevant period under SR 725/03, and thus was convicted under Section 63 of the Abkari Act. The appeal was allowed in part; she was directed to surrender on 1 March 2017, with detention already served to be set off.
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from a criminal revision filed by Ashraf S. challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for presenting a dishonoured cheque to the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Thodupuzha. The cheque, for Rs 62,584, was drawn in the context of a loan transaction and dishonoured on 10.12.2012. The case began in the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha (ST No. 175/2013), leading to a conviction and a sentence of four months’ simple imprisonment plus a fine equal to the cheque amount, with a direction that the fine be paid as compensation under CrPC Section 357(1). The appellant’s appeal in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, resulted in a modified sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs 62,584, with a default imprisonment of four months. The High Court, relying on a precedent in Shaji v. Thodupuzha Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Crl.RP No.893/2017), held that the bank’s practice of filling a blank cheque in such loan agreements can attract Section 138 NI Act. The revision petition was disposed of with directions that the fine be paid within four months, and the default clause reduced to one month, with an order that receipts be issued upon payment and coercive steps deferred until 21.4.2018.
