WA 48/2020 (and connected cases) This judgment is a consolidated decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji) delivered on 22 August 2022, in WA Nos. 48/2020 and a large batch of connected writ appeals, challenging the amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) in the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, in the wake of the shift to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitions questioned the authority and effect of amendments to Section 25(1) of KVAT providing an extended period for reopening assessments (from five to six years) and the corresponding third proviso, arguing inter alia that the amendments either retroactively alter accrued rights or surpass legislative competence post-CAA 2016. The court undertook a detailed statutory construction, considering (i) the commencement vs operation dates of amendments, (ii) the repeal of KVAT and savings under KGST Act, (iii) Article 246A and the 101st Constitutional Amendment, and (iv) precedents including Baiju A.A., Jyoti Traders, Calcutta Discount Co., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, and Mohit Minerals. The bench ultimately held that the 2017 substitution is prospective and the 2018 amendment to the third proviso lacks legislative competence, especially after the KVAT repeal and GST introduction. The appeals were dismissed with consequential orders.
This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court concerns appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the State Tax Department against amendments made to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) via Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018. The central issue is whether Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, as amended, and its third proviso, could be applied to reopen assessments beyond the previously prescribed period, and whether such amendments have prospective or retrospective effect in the wake of the 2016 Constitution (106th amendment) and subsequent removal of KVAT with the introduction of the KGST Act. The bench systematically reviews the concept of retrospection, vested/accrued rights, and the legislature’s power to amend; it distinguishes several precedents, including Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Jyoti Traders, and Calcutta Discount Co., while aligning with Baiju A.A. and Mohit Minerals to hold that the 2017 substitution of “five years” to “six years” in Section 25(1) is prospective, and that the 2018 extension via the third proviso has limited retrospective reach. The Court ultimately holds that the writ petitions/appeals under KVAT amendments cannot revive time-barred reopenings, and the State’s challenge to the amendments is rejected; the appeals are dismissed.
This is a Kerala High Court decision on interlocutory applications filed in A.S. No. 689/1972 (G) and related IA applications concerning the management and scheme of Sree Narayana Trusts (Quilon). The petitioners (including Kaviyadu Madhavankutty, Babu Kumar, M.K. Devarajan, C.S. Sujathan, Krishnan Unni G, and several other trustees and associates) sought modifications to the SN Trust scheme under Clause 34 and 34A, contending that changes were necessary to ensure fair governance and administration, including donor/list verification, election reforms, and governance controls. They relied on jurisprudence supporting the court’s power to modify a trust scheme via scheme provisions. The respondents, the Sree Narayana Trust represented by its secretary, Vellappally Natesan, and the executive committee, defended the principle that modifications should originate in a formal petition under Clause 34/34A and not as interlocutory orders in a disposed-of appeal, citing earlier Division Bench orders (e.g., IA 4016/2004) and the principle that reliefs under Section 92 CPC are not invoked here. The court ultimately clarifies that while Clause 34/34A empower modifications through appropriate petitions, interlocutory applications in a disposed appeal are not maintainable; reliefs must be sought via an Original Petition (SPJC) under Clause 34/34A. The decision directs potential petitioners to proceed via proper channels rather than ad hoc interim orders.
This batch judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court deals with challenges to amendments made to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT) by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, which altered Section 25(1) and its third proviso, effectively extending the period for reopening escaped turnover. The petitions were brought against assessment notices issued under Section 25(1) for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, after the KVAT Act was repealed by the 2016 Constitution Amendment and the State enacted the KGST Act, with a saving clause (Section 174). The core issue was whether the amendments to Section 25(1) have retrospective operation or are prospective, given the 2016 constitutional changes (CAA 2016, Article 246A) and the KVAT repeal, as well as the interaction with the GST framework. The court examines arguments about vested/accrued rights, the commencement vs operation dates of the amendments, and the correct interpretation of the terms “five years” vs “six years,” as well as the expanded proviso to include reassessment during 31 March 2017 to 31 March 2019. It cites Baiju A.A., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount Co., Jyoti Traders, S.C. Prashar, and Mohit Minerals among others. The judgment ultimately holds that the amendments have prospective effect and dismisses the writ appeals with no costs.
Judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam on 30 November 2022 in WA Nos. 676/2020 and connected matters, arising from petitions challenging the retrospective operation of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) as amended by the Kerala Finance Act 2016 (Act 18/2016). The petitions contend that Section 42(3) authorizes reopening of assessments beyond the period of limitation under Section 25 by treating certain returns as pending, undermining finality and the five-year/ six-year caps. The State contends that the Legislature could confer retrospective reopening, with a fixed effective date and safeguards ensuring certainty, as reflected in the notes on clauses. The respondents/dealers rely on decisions such as Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel Secunderabad, and Vatika Township Private Limited to argue for a tempered approach, emphasizing time limits and preservation of records. The court undertakes a structured interpretive analysis, examining the text, the relation of Section 42(3) with Sections 20–25, and relevant case law, including Baiju A A and Najeem, to reconcile retrospective operation with rights and certainty. The bench holds that Section 42(3) is permissible but must be read in light of a reasonable period and harmonized with existing provisions. Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed and the connected petitions disposed of, stressing that the fiction of ‘treated as pending’ should not override clear limitations and that certainty in tax law should be preserved.
WA No. 48 of 2020 (and connected WA Nos. 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021) This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court deals with the validity and retrospective/ prospective operation of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) introduced post-CAA 2016 in the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018. The core issue is whether the amendments to Section 25(1) (changing the period for re-opening assessments from five to six years and the third proviso extending the window for reopening) can be applied to reassessments where the limitation had already expired before the amendments or whether the amendments admissibly operate only prospectively. The learned Judges examine the nature of the amendments ( substitution by Finance Act 11/2017; savings and repeals under the post-CAA regime; and Finance Act 5/2018 extending the proviso) and analyze the legal framework including Article 246A and the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, the CAA’s sunset clause, and the KVAT Act’s repeal, while considering numerous precedents (Baiju A.A., Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount Co., Jyoti Traders, Mohit Minerals, Reliance Industries, etc.). The bench ultimately holds that the 2017 amendment is prospective in operation, while the 2018 amendment to the third proviso lacks competence in the post-CAA constitutional framework, and the batch appeals are dismissed. The judgment integrates complex constitutional interpretation with fiscal statutory construction regarding tax reassessment timelines.
WA 1447/2021, WA 1448/2021, WA 1462/2021, WA 1486/2021 These writ appeals arise from a common judgment disposing of three writ petitions challenging surcharge orders under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 against members of the Managing Committee of the Sreekandamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The core dispute concerns the Bank’s land acquisition in 2016 for expansion, allegedly causing a loss of Rs.14,40,000. A Section 65(1) inquiry and a Section 66(2) inspection culminated in Exts. P8 (surcharge order) and Ext. P10 (government confirmation). The High Court, in a consolidated decision, held that the conduct of the petitioners fell within Section 68(1) as mismanagement and wilful negligence, even though arguments about the sale-back option, the factual proximity of the land to the head office, and lack of sanction under Rule 54 were debated. It rejected the petitioners’ contentions that malice, non-compliance with Rule 54, or the land’s alleged market-value impairment voided surcharge, and it observed that the remedy under Section 68 is to recoup losses before a finding of loss is finally concluded, not afterwards. The court distinguished Thrikkadavoor Service Co-op. Society Ltd. and Pollachi Coop. Marketing Society, holding their dicta inapplicable. Consequently, the writ appeals were dismissed affirming the surcharge and administrator’s appointment.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases This is a consolidated challenge by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) and their franchisees against State Government actions regulating access permissions for starting Petroleum Fuel Retail Outlets in Kerala. The petitions attack Ext.P2 (GO No.16/2020/PWD dated 10.02.2020) and Ext.P4 (GO No.67/2020/PWD dated 16.10.2020) along with related orders including Ext.P1–P6, arguing that these guidelines and executive measures misapply or supplant central law, violate the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and encroach upon powers reserved for Highway authorities. The petitioners emphasize that Petroleum Rules (Rule 144) and the Petroleum Act are central to approving NOCs for fuel stations, and that District Authorities cannot rely on state guidelines (Ext.P4) that regulate access to State Highways and Major District Roads, in isolation from the statutory framework. The State counters that local traffic, safety considerations, and road infrastructure justify regulatory measures, and points to MoRTH/Government orders and Kerala’s Highway Protection Act regime. The Kerala High Court, in a detailed judgment, holds that Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 guidelines cannot be used to deny NOC under Rule 144; such guidelines lack statutory sanction and cannot override central statutes. The Court directs District Authorities to reassess NOC applications under Rule 144 in light of the Petroleum Rules and prevailing statutory provisions within two months, while dismissing other issues raised. The decision emphasizes the primacy of central petroleum regulation, while curbing executive overreach through state guidelines.
WA Nos. 676/2020, 52/2020, 395/2020, 800/2020, 711/2020, 721/2020, 712/2020, 713/2020, 754/2020, 735/2020, 743/2020, 790/2020, 1382/2020, 765/2020, 801/2020, 773/2020, 774/2020, 805/2020, 1391/2020, 1400/2020, 821/2020, 1363/2020, 1377/2020, 823/2020, 1491/2020, 1416/2020, 1381/2020, 802/2020, 803/2020, 859/2020, 873/2020, 871/2020, 883/2020, 3705/2018, 961/2020, 1036/2020, 1112/2020, 1101/2020, 1338/2020, 87/2022, 1206/2020, 11649/2017, 12570/2017, 12619/2017, 12959/2017, 17753/2017, 19310/2017, 20196/2017, 20283/2017, 1718/2020, 21946/2017, 24228/2017, 1705/2020) This Kerala High Court judgment (delivered on 30 November 2022 by a Division Bench) concerns the retrospective amendment to Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (Act 18/2016). The Court analyzes whether reopening of time‑barred assessments under Section 42(3) can be given effect in light of the five‑year/ six‑year limits under Section 25(1) and the broader Chapter V framework for assessment, returns, and reassessment. While upholding the retrospective amendment as a valid legislative choice, the court emphasizes that such retrospectivity must be read harmoniously with existing time‑limits and safeguards; the fiction of “treated as pending” cannot annul statutory timelines. The judgment engages a spectrum of authorities (Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel, Vatika Township, Maruti Suzuki, Ramdas Laxmidas, Baiju A A/Najeem, Nathi Devi) to determine the proper scope and limits of retroactivity, and rejects arguments that retrospective amendments override settled rights or create unlimited reopening power. Ultimately, the court dismisses the writ appeals, sustaining a balanced interpretation that preserves certainty in tax law while permitting legitimate reopenings within constitutional and statutory bounds.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 19 OF 2011 This is a criminal revision petition filed by the sole accused, Afsal, challenging his conviction under Sections 393 and 394 IPC by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur, which was upheld by the Fast Track- I Appellate Court and affirmed on revision by the Kerala High Court. The prosecution case, dated 11 September 2003, details that PW1, returning with PW2 and children after a cultural event, was followed near Punkunnam overbridge and the accused allegedly fisted her chest and attempted to snatch a gold chain weighing 4.5 sovereigns. The Trial Court convicted the accused after evaluating PWs 1–3 and Exts. P1–P3, while the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and sustained the conviction. In the revision before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued identity was not established, pointing to the absence of a test identification parade (Section 54A CrPC, which was inserted in 2006) and alleging contradictions in the testimonies of PWs 1–3. The Public Prosecutor defended the conviction, noting corroboration by other witnesses and the overall strength of the evidence; she also contended that the 2003 timeline negated the need for 54A analysis. The High Court, applying the well-settled limits of revisional power under CrPC Secs. 397–401 and citing Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, confirmed the concurrent findings, dismissed the revision, and upheld the conviction and sentence. It directed appearance to suffer the sentence by 15.01.2024, with execution deferred until 14.01.2024.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This is a batch of writ appeals filed against notices issued under the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT) challenging reassessment/re-opening actions after amendments in the GST regime. The Kerala High Court consolidated WA Nos. 48/2020 and several connected appeals to decide whether the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 could lawfully extend the period for reopening assessments under KVAT Section 25(1) and the third proviso, and whether such amendments operate retrospectively or prospectively in the wake of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) that introduced GST and the post-CAA framework. The court held that the amendments to Section 25(1) and its third proviso, in particular the six-year window introduced from 01.04.2017 (Finance Act 11/2017) and the 31.03.2019 extension via Finance Act 5/2018, do not apply retroactively to assessments finalised before the amendments; KVAT was repealed and replaced by the KGST Act with savings clauses, but legislative competence to amend KVAT post-repeal is lacking. The judgment ultimately dismisses the batch of writ appeals, affirming that the extended period cannot revive assessments that had already become time-barred. The decision clarifies the interaction of pre- and post-GST transitional provisions and the limits of retrospective amendments in tax statutes.”
CRL.REV.PET NO. 436 OF 2008 This is a criminal revision petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 against the conviction of the trial court under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing foreign liquor seized from a secret cabin in a lorry during a Police interception at Beach Road, Kozhikode on 02.12.1997. They contend they were merely the driver and cleaner, with no knowledge of the concealed contraband and no prior information about the secret chamber; FIR named other accused and the contraband as belonging to a third party, with the owner of the lorry also not arrested. The appellate court upheld the conviction. The High Court, while analyzing the law, emphasizes that possession requires dominion/control and intent to control, and discusses the distinction between possession and storage. It cites Santhosh v. State of Kerala, Ravi C. v. State of Kerala, Xavier v. State of Kerala, Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala, Gunwantlal v. State of M.P., and Ismailkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat to assess whether the accused actually possessed the contraband, or merely were present at the scene. The court finds serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s chain of evidence, sample despatch, and corroboration, casting reasonable doubt on possession. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, acquitting the petitioners under Section 55(a) Abkari Act and under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., with bail bonds cancelled and liberty granted.
WP(C) 8110/2020 & conn., WP(C) 9537/2020, WP(C) 11599/2020 These petitions arise from a Kerala State Human Rights Commission order Ext. P2 directing the state to compensate a torture victim (Arun S.) and to take steps against police officers involved in custodial torture on a hartal day in 2017. The petitioner Arun S. sought to enforce Ext. P2 through WP(C) 8110/2020 after the HR Commission found he was unlawfully arrested, subjected to custodial torture, and injured, with evidence including statements and medical records. The HR Commission directed the State Home Department to pay Rs. 35,000 to the complainant and to recover the amount from several police officers, and the State Police Chief to register an FIR under the Kerala Police Act and IPC, transfer investigation to the Alappuzha District Crime Branch, and initiate disciplinary action. In WP(C) 9537/2020, the additional 3rd respondent attacked Ext. P2 on the ground that the HR Commission's powers are only recommendatory and that the order contains generalized findings, while WP(C) 11599/2020 by other respondents challenged the same order on similar lines. The Court held that the HR Commission's proceedings are inquisitorial and the power under S.18(a)(i) can result in direct payment of compensation; the single bench procedure is valid. It disposed of the petitions by upholding the compensation portion of Ext. P2 and dismissing the other challenges, with directions to implement within two months and act under S.18(e) within one month. The decision clarifies that compliance with HR Commission recommendations, including payment, is enforceable by the Government.
This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision petition, examines the conviction of Narayanan, Kunchan, Malu, and Radhakrishnan (the revision petitioners) for offences under IPC Sections 306 and 498A, arising from a prior SC No. 218 of 1998 case. The trial court convicted all four; the appellate court upheld the conviction but reduced the Section 306 sentence from four years to two. The prosecution had alleged cruelty by Chandrika’s husband and his relatives, leading to Chandrika’s suicide and death in 1997. The revision petitioners argued that Chandrika’s relationship with the first petitioner was not a legally valid marriage but a live-in arrangement evidenced only by Ext. P3, a marriage agreement, and did not satisfy legal formalities. They contended there was no valid marriage to attract Section 498A, and that there was no positive act by any petitioner to instigate or aid Chandrika’s suicide, as required for Section 306. The High Court found that Ext. P3 did not establish a valid marriage and that the couple’s live-in arrangement cannot attract 498A; it relied on precedents emphasizing the necessity of a valid marriage for 498A and the requirement of a positive act for abetment under 306. Consequently, the court acquitted petitioners 1 and 4 of both offences, noted the death of petitioners 2 and 3, and allowed the revision petition with directions for disposal.
This is an Article 227 challenge to a district-level injunction and the validity of the Nanminda High School Society’s general body meeting held on 21.01.2021 and the subsequent election of its governing committee. The plaintiffs contend that the Nanminda High School Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, was improperly administered: the general body meeting was not held in accordance with the bye‑laws, with improper notices, lack of a valid quorum, and flawed leadership selection. The bye-laws provide for a 21-member governing body elected for three years, with one-fourth to one-third of members constituting a quorum depending on the provision cited. The trial court dismissed I.A.2/2021 seeking interim injunction; the district court dismissed the appeal (CMA No.52/2021). The High Court upholds the discretion exercised by the courts below, noting disputed factual questions that require a full trial and that supervisory intervention under Article 227 is limited. While dismissing the petition, the court directs the trial court to decide the original suit and connected matters within three months, and preserves the ongoing functioning of the current committee subject to the suit’s outcome. The judgment emphasizes that the observations in the appellate judgment were for interlocutory purposes, not a final adjudication of the merits. The decision reflects a cautious approach to preserve school administration while ensuring due process in determining the society’s governance.
This writ petition challenges whether the Kerala Lok Ayukta could adjudicate the correctness of the Sales Tax Officer's order rejecting an option under Amnesty Scheme-2020 for settling arrears of sales tax. The complainants, directors of Welgate Video Private Limited, sought a declaration of entitlement to Amnesty Scheme-2020 benefits and to apportion the auction proceeds between the Revenue authorities and the Union Bank of India. The Lok Ayukta, after hearing, held that the Sales Tax Officer's order was discriminatory against the complainants' right to equality under Article 14 and set aside the order, directing reconsideration under the Amnesty Scheme and apportionment of the auction proceeds. The petitioners argued Ext. P3 exceeded jurisdiction; the action was a quasi-judicial function under the KGST Act and the Revenue Recovery Act; and that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 and substitute the statutory remedies. The respondents contended Ext. P1 was maintainable and that the Lok Ayukta could intervene to prevent injustice, relying on precedents on jurisdiction and statutory remedies. The High Court held that the Lok Ayukta cannot entertain Ext. P1 and decide the correctness of the order; the remedy lies in statutory channels or, where appropriate, in Article 226. Ext. P3 is set aside; the writ petition is allowed.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard O.P.(FC) No.133 of 2023, filed by Mubeena Latheef challenging the Family Court Nedumangad’s 09.03.2023 order granting interim custody of two children, Mariyam Mukhdar and Marva Mukhdar, to the father, Mukhdar Ahammed, in O.P.(G&W) No.1186 of 2022. The petition, under Article 227, was heard after notice on 31.03.2023. The petitioner argued that the children are with her; there is no material showing she remarried; the father is alleged to be a drug addict who subjected her to cruelty, and thus not entitled to custody. She contended that weekly custody would disrupt the children’s stability, given the 150-km distance between Nedumangad and Kayamkulam; her parents are available to help. The respondent contended that, as the natural guardian, he is entitled to custody and that the petitioner left the home and purportedly remarried. Family Court held that interim custody should go to the respondent on weekends. Citing Nil Ratankundu (2008) 9 SCC 413, Vasudha Sethi (AIR 2022 SC 476), and Rohith Thammana Gowda (AIR 2022 SC 3511), the court stressed welfare of the child and parens patriae, allowing visitation rights. The High Court modified the order to give custody to the respondent on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays monthly, 10:00 a.m. Saturday to 4:00 p.m. Sunday, disposing of the petition.
MACA No. 1142/2018 & CO No. 139/2023 This Kerala High Court judgment concerns a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of a veterinary surgeon in a 2009 accident. The deceased, aged 45, earned a monthly income of Rs 26,715, established by Ext.A9. The MACT-II, Alappuzha, had held the insurer liable and awarded Rs 39,14,488 with 9% interest. The insurer contends that the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation, while the claimants cross-object to enhance the award. The judge scrutinizes the quantum, noting the Tribunal’s use of a split multiplier was impermissible under Puttamma v. K.L Narayana Reddy, and directs a single multiplier of 14 applied to the entire income, with proper tax considerations. The assessment follows National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi for 30% addition for future prospects given the deceased’s age and employment. The court revises various heads: increases loss of consortium to Rs. 1,20,000 (three dependents), reduces funeral expenses to Rs. 15,000, and eliminates separate loss of love and affection after Satinder Kaur; fixes loss of estate at Rs. 15,000. After adjustments, the total compensation is Rs. 38,33,763, with interest at 8% per annum, deposited within three months. The appeal and cross-objections are disposed of accordingly, in a Single Judge bench of the Kerala High Court.
This is a criminal revision petition decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and heard by a single judge, Justice Viju Abraham, on 16 October 2023. The petitioner, Haridasan Kandamangalath Veli, was convicted under Sections 55(a) and 8(1) of the Kerala Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Cherthala, for allegedly possessing 2.5 litres of arrack in a 5-litre can on a public road near the Eco Wood Factory, Cherthala South Panchayat, on 4 May 1999. The trial court awarded simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with an additional two months’ imprisonment on default. An appeal (Crl. Appl. No. 80 of 2006) before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Alappuzha, dismissed the conviction and sentence. In the revision, the petitioner challenged alleged infirmities in Ext. P1 mahazar (no specimen seal affixed, no description of the seal) and the lack of a marked forwarding note, arguing a failure to prove chain of custody. The court notes that revisional jurisdiction is limited but allows scrutiny of strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities. Relying on Baburaj, Sathi, Vijayan, Nadarajan and other decisions, the court emphasizes the need for tamper-proof seals, marked forwarding notes, and proper custody. The court ultimately finds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allows the revision petition, acquitting the accused and canceling the bail bond, with refunds where applicable.
This is a Rent Control Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the Kerala High Court, arising from concurrent eviction orders under Section 11(3) of the Act. The landlord sought eviction of the petition schedule shop room on the ground that the premises were required for his dependent son to start a computer education training center. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff, Ponnani) held the need to be bonafide and rejected the tenant’s plea under the provisos, directing eviction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge, Tirur) affirmed, upholding eviction. The tenant challenged in revision, arguing inter alia about the availability of alternative accommodation and the applicability of the provisos under Section 11(3). The High Court examined the law relating to bona fide requirement, the first and second provisos to Section 11(3), and the revisionary scope under Section 20, relying on a long line of precedents including Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust, Shiv Samp Gupta, Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, Ammu v. Nafeesa, M.L. Prabhakar, and later decisions on revisional powers (Rukmini Amma Saradamma; T. Sivasubramaniam; Ubaiba; Hindustan Petroleum; Thankamony Amma). The Court ultimately held that the revision should be dismissed, but granted six months’ time to the tenant to surrender possession subject to conditions: affidavit of undertaking, deposit of arrears, no third-party occupancy, and continued rent payments.
