Bail Appl. No. 1093 of 2024 This is a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by accused nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.128/2024 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The petition seeks protection from arrest in connection with offences allegedly committed on 19.01.2024 at a tea shop near Kadavanthra, resulting in grievous injuries to the defacto-complainant. The accused are charged under sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 308 r/w 34 IPC, with a common allegation of assault by multiple accused in furtherance of a common intention. The petitioners contend their innocence, claiming the 308 and 326 allegations are unfounded and that the video footage (Annexure A1 pendrive) would reveal the true sequence of events, suggesting the defacto-complainant initiated the injury and that the petitioners are law-abiding with no criminal antecedents; custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and they are willing to comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor contends there are specific overt acts against each petitioner, supported by medical records indicating facial fractures and inpatient treatment, making custodial interrogation and recoveries necessary and arguing pre-arrest bail would impede investigation. The court cites Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sibbia, emphasizing careful discretion under Section 438 and noting factors to assess, including gravity, antecedents, flight risk, likelihood of re-offending, and potential tampering of witnesses. Ultimately, the court dismisses the bail application but directs surrender within 10 days for possible merits-based consideration later.
Cholayil Chandran Nellipoyil Amsom and Desom, the revision petitioner, was convicted under the Abkari Act for possession and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in S.C. No.347 of 2001 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The evidence shows that on 19 April 2000, a police team intercepted him near a fish stall on Pulloorampara Road, recovered three bottles of liquor bearing XXX Rum SALSA, along with cash and paraphernalia. The trial court convicted him, directing one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with default imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction. The petitioner challenged several points: unexplained delay between seizure and production of the contraband; absence of specimen seal on Ext.P1 and no seal description in the seizure mahazar; a long gap before Ext.P9 forwarding note; delay in chemical analysis and filing of the final report, allegedly contrary to Section 50 of the Abkari Act. He contended the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities is mandatory. The court, however, noted the evidence and the cited authorities, including Baburaj, Sathi, Ramachandran, Chandran, Vijayan and others, but ultimately found that the unexplained delays and lack of seal compromise the link between seizure and analysis, leading to acquittal. The revision petition is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P5 and seeks a declaration that the petitioner has obtained a deemed building permit pursuant to Ext.P3. The Petitioner, co-owner of Survey No.49/39 in Othukkungal, applied for a building permit on 20.12.2021 to construct a commercial building and resubmitted after defects were pointed out on 16.04.2022. Construction began under a belief of a deemed permit, but a dispute arose over a drainage outlet that opens onto the petitioner’s land, which reportedly involves a culvert belonging to PWD. The Panchayat issued a stop memo on 21.03.2023 stating that the permit could be granted only after obtaining an NOC from the PWD for the drainage. Respondents contended that the initial permit application was defective, and that NOC from the PWD was necessary due to the culvert. They asserted that the drainage was improperly reclaimed, leading to potential obstruction and risk to public welfare, and therefore the permit should not be issued without addressing those issues. The court examined whether a deemed permit exists, citing G.George and Ors. v. Pooyappally Grama Panchayath (2020 (6) KHC 652), and held that there is no statutory provision conferring a deemed permit under KPBR 2019. The court directed the 4th respondent to consider the building permit application expeditiously (within 30 days) without insisting on a PWD-NOC or culvert construction, while affirming that construction cannot proceed without a lawful building permit. The petition was allowed in part.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2031 OF 2019 This Contempt of Court case (Civil) concerns a petition by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.34533 of 2016 alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.34533/2016 and connected matters. The petitioners sought enforcement of those directions in light of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation’s (EPFO) non-compliance. The matter traversed through the appeal and review of related orders, including the Supreme Court’s dismissal of certain SLPs, recall of orders, and a detailed 2022 judgment in Sunil Kumar B. (Air 2022 SC 5634) upholding the legality and validity of Notification No. G.S.R.609(E) (22 August 2014) and directing readjustments in the pension scheme. The Kerala High Court acknowledges that the 2022 Apex Court decision requires reconsideration of the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension by the EPFO. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed, without prejudice to EPFO reconsidering the petitioners’ pension entitlement in accordance with law and the 2022 apex judgment. The order concludes with directions for implementing the 2022 judgment’s framework by the EPFO.”
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 8096 of 2017) decided by Justice Sophy Thomas on 26 July 2023. The petition challenges an order of cognizance in CC No.1259 of 2015, arising from a protest petition filed by the 2nd respondent, alleging forgery and cheating under sections 420, 464 and 120B read with 34 IPC in connection with a will of Kamalamma who died in 2012. Kamalamma had 27 cents of land; the Will dated 31.05.2011 purported to dispose of the property, with the 2nd respondent and other heirs as legatees. The police, after investigation following a 156(3) Cr.P.C. referral, filed a final report concluding the Will was genuine; however, the 2nd respondent filed a protest complaint, and cognizance under 420, 464, 120B r/w 34 IPC was taken in CC 1259/2015, with summons issued to accused. The petitioners argued that cognizance was taken mechanically, that relevant documents (including the identity certificate and the read number 22GL/11 vs 2242/11) were not properly scrutinized, and that the protest complaint is an abuse of process aimed at harassing them, particularly since a civil suit for partition is already pending. They invoked Mehmood Ul Rehman, Pepsi Foods and Fakhruddin Ahmad, among others, to urge that cognizance requires a mind-satisfied determination. The High Court held that the order lacks indication of applied mind, that a protest complaint cannot be used to circumvent the police report, and that civil remedy exists; the proceedings were quashed. The civil suit will proceed in the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, within six months.
The petitioner challenges an order withholding his admission to the MBA program at Girideepam Institute of Advanced Learning (affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University). Admission for 2021-22 was governed by MG University’s eligibility notification of 16 October 2021, which required either at least 50% marks in the aggregate of a Bachelor's degree or a Master’s degree (with optional KMAT/CMAT/CAT qualifications) and, under the grading system, a C grade with at least 50% in aggregate. The petitioner had 1987/3900 marks in B.Com (CA), which exceeds 50% in aggregate, and was admitted by the 3rd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent sought to apply a different criterion—the CCPA grade-conversion method—to convert credits into percentage, yielding 49.77%, and the admission was withheld via Ext. P4. The University later argued that CBCS system requires credit-based assessment and hence conventional total marks cannot determine eligibility. The court notes that eligibility criteria cannot be altered retroactively mid-process and that Ext. P4 cannot stand. Relying on Tej Prakash Pathak, the court holds that the rules governing admission must be stable during recruitment. The writ petition is allowed; Ext. P4 is quashed and the 4th respondent is directed to regularise the petitioner’s admission and permit him to pursue the MBA course in the 3rd respondent college.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears OP (DRT) No.212 of 2023, arising from orders Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, in SA No.20/2020. The petitioner, Sakeer Hussain, challenged the Tribunal’s dismissal of his stay applications and the decision to continue recovery proceedings against secured assets mortgaged to South Indian Bank, including agricultural and residential properties. The borrower and his wife had mortgaged multiple properties to secure CCCL, housing, and KCC loans, with his wife as guarantor. After demand notices and failed sales, the bank obtained possession actions, and the Tribunal initially stayed proceedings, later denying the stay and dismissing requests to close the housing loan and release title deeds. Following Covid-19, one property was sold; the petitioner amended his pleadings, challenging the Advocate Commissioner’s notices (under Section 14) and seeking to stay recovery proceedings again (Ext.P9). The bank asserted the remedy lies with the OTS (One Time Settlement) scheme and that the court cannot interfere with the bank’s discretionary decisions or with measures under Section 14. The High Court held that there was no illegality in Exts.P10 and P11, reaffirmed the non-interference principle under SARFAESI citing recent Supreme Court authority, and ultimately dismissed the petition as meritless.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order of the Family Court, Palakkad in O.P.No.976 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022, which directed interim custody of the elder daughter Ivana Jithu to the mother and laid down visiting and custody arrangements. The petitioner, represented by counsel, sought to modify/interim custody by filing I.A.No.13 of 2022, contending new materials, including allegations of sexual abuse against the father, and prayed for cancellation of the respondent’s visitation rights. The Family Court had earlier issued a series of interim custody orders on 01.11.2022 and subsequent directions, including weekend custody and interaction schedules, with the father required to deposit travel expenses and ensure appropriate arrangements for the child’s welfare. I.A.No.13 of 2022 was dismissed on the basis that Ext.P1’s clause (vi) contemplated modifications rather than deletion of any custody stipulation. The respondent’s side argued the allegations were not proven and that mere registration under POCSO is not a dispositive basis to deny custody, citing Suhara v. Muhammed Jaleel. The petitioner argued changed circumstances necessitating reevaluation of custody for the child’s welfare. The Kerala High Court, invoking Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, held custody orders are temporary and can be varied with changing circumstances, allowed the petition, set aside Ext.P6, and directed the Family Court to reconsider I.A.13 afresh in light of new materials and in accordance with law.
CRL.M.C Nos. 1691/2021, 5860/2021, 5890/2021, 5891/2021, 5896/2021 This is a set of connected Criminal Miscellaneous cases in the Kerala High Court challenging the final reports filed by VACB in five Calender Cases (CC Nos. 11/2019, 12/2019, 13/2019 and 14/2019) in the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur. The petitioners include the Guruvayur Devaswom administrator, the managing committee members, and one former executive engineer, who are accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (notably Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)) and IPC Section 120B. The core allegations concern the illicit creation of three new posts (notably Foreman Grade-I) and the appointment of an apparently unqualified System Analyst, allegedly to secure promotions and pecuniary gains. The Special Court’s investigation led to final reports against these petitioners, which the petitioners seek to quash. The Court examines whether procedural irregularities and alleged conspiracies amount to criminal misconduct, considering prior judgments and ratifications related to the temporary/System Analyst appointment, departmental regulations, and pay protections granted in subsequent orders. The Court ultimately holds that the prosecutions lack a factual basis for criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) and quashes the final reports against the petitioners, closing further proceedings against them.
This writ petition (WPC 8812/2022) filed by Ashraf, an auction purchaser, challenges SARFAESI-based sale proceedings conducted by Kerala Gramin Bank against the properties belonging to Addl. R5 Hammed and Addl. R6 Mariyumma. The petitioner seeks (i) delivery of actual possession of the auctioned property with police assistance, (ii) compensation for a claimed shortage of about 10 cents compared to the extent stated in sale documents, and (iii) the return of purchase money with interest and damages if there is delay in handing over possession. The petition emphasizes that the borrower allegedly trespassed into the property after sale and argues for police-assisted eviction, drawing support from Kumaran A.A. v. Superintendent of Police, Thrissur and Others (2022 (3) KHC 616), which the court cites to justify writ-based redressal for illegal actions by borrowers on sale properties. The court notes that damages cannot be adjudicated within a writ petition under Article 226 without proper pleadings and evidence, and accordingly disposes the petition by directing the respondents to hand over possession to the petitioner with the help of the Advocate Commissioner or police within two weeks. The outcome leaves open the petitioner’s rights to pursue damages under applicable law. The matter also involves impleaded respondents 5 and 6 as per order dated 26-07-2022.
WA Nos.1957, 1962, 1975, 1977 & 2114 of 2023 This batch of intra-court appeals challenges a common judgment of a Kerala High Court Single Judge upholding constitutional validity of key amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (notably Sections 14A and 74H(1)(a)) and the Registrar’s order for amalgamation of Malappuram District Co-operative Bank with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. The petitions contested: (i) the 2019–2020 amendments relaxing the majority for amalgamation (from ¾ to simple majority) and later the 2020 amendments introducing Registrar-ordered amalgamation with RBI consultation; (ii) the delegation of banking-related merger powers to the Registrar; and (iii) the scope of central banking legislation vis-à-vis cooperative societies. The appellants argued that the change disrupts decentralised democratic governance of co‑operative societies, intrudes into the RBI-regulated banking field, and conflicts with Entries in List I/II of the Seventh Schedule, as well as the Banking Regulation Act’s regime (Section 44A, 56). The High Court rejected these contentions, held that the amendments are constitutionally valid, that the banking-regulation framework does not automatically override co‑operative law, and that RBI need not be consulted in every instance where Union‑state powers intersect. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals, keeping in place the Registrar’s amalgamation order and the broader de-layering objective.
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 This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court challenges amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and related constitutional changes that governed the power to reopen assessment, especially under Section 25(1) and its third proviso, following the transition to GST. The petitions questioned reassessment notices issued for escaped turnover for years 2010-11 and 2011-12, arguing that amendments enacted by Kerala Finance Act 2017 (and Finance Act 2018) were either retrospective in nature or ultra vires post-CAA 2016 repeal of KVAT, and therefore cannot legalize reopenings beyond the pre-amendment time limits. The court undertook a detailed discussion of the commencement versus operation of the amendments, the distinction between substantive and procedural changes, and the impact of the 101st Constitution Amendment (CAA 2016) which introduced concurrent taxing powers, dissolving residual State power to tax on sale/purchase of goods. It held that the substitution of ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ in Section 25(1) is prospective, and that the 2018 proviso extending reassessment to 31 March 2019 lacked legislative competence post-repeal of KVAT, leading to dismissal of the appeals.
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 batch judgment of a Full/Division Bench of the Kerala High Court deals with the legality and retrospective effect of amendments to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT) introduced through Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018, and their impact on reassessment/reopening of escaped turnover under Section 25(1). The petitions challenge notices issued to reopen assessments for years prior to GST (KVAT regime) after the KVAT Act was repealed and replaced by KGST, set against the backdrop of the Constitution (101st Amendment) and Article 246A. The court examines whether substituting the words ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ in Section 25(1) and the third proviso’s extension (31 March 2017 to 31 March 2018, later up to 31 March 2019) can operate retrospectively or prospectively, and whether the State Legislature had competence to amend KVAT post-repeal. It relies on precedents like Baiju A A, Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Jyoti Traders, Calcutta Discount Co., and Mohit Minerals to interpret retrospective operation and legislative competence. The bench ultimately dismisses the batch appeals, upholding the impugned judgment that the 2017 substitution is prospective and the 2018 proviso is unconstitutional in the post-CAA constitutional framework.
WA.No.173 of 2019 & connected cases This batch of writ appeals arising from the Kerala High Court proceedings relates to the recognition/affiliation of CBSE/other board schools under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and allied Kerala rules. The core question is whether educational need (local demand) can be used as a ground to deny recognition of a CBSE/other-board school, and how that interacts with minority institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court/Constitutional Bench precedents (Mythri Vidya Bhavan E.M.S., Society for Un‑aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v Union of India, Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, Sidhrajbhai, TMA Pai) have been cited to navigate the balance between ensuring universal elementary education and preserving minority institutions’ rights. The Kerala Government’s stance, including GO Ms No.22/2019 dated 01.03.2019 and GO Ms No.45/2019 dated 22.05.2019, contends that recognition under the RTE Act must be anchored to the norms and standards in the Schedule and the affiliation norms of the Boards, with educational need as a legitimate, but not sole, consideration. The Division Bench holds that educational need cannot be the sole ground to reject recognition; but it affirms government power to require compliance with CBSE/ICSE/State Board norms and outlines that minority institutions may be exempt from RTE Act, yet must still secure affiliation from a recognized board. It leaves open the challenge to certain Government Orders. Interlocutory orders are disposed of along with the main judgments.
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 batch judgment in the Kerala High Court deals with a cluster of writ appeals challenging amendments to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT) and related saving provisions in the GST regime. Central to the dispute is whether the Kerala State Legislature could amend KVAT Section 25(1) and its third proviso to extend the period for reopening escaped assessments after the introduction of the GST regime, and whether such amendments have retrospective effect. The court traces a line of authorities from retroactivity in tax statutes, constitutional amendments (CAA 2016), and the repeal of KVAT with savings under KGST, to the power of the State to legislate post-repeal. It discusses key decisions like Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Calcutta Discount Co., Jyoti Traders, Baiju A. A., and Mohit Minerals, and contrasts Kerala’s position with Gujarat and Telangana high courts. The judgment ultimately holds that the 2017 amendment to six-year limit is prospective and that the 2018 amendment to the third proviso lacks legislative competence, but the batch appeals are dismissed on the grounds discussed, affirming the need for a cautious interpretation of retrospective legislative changes in the transition to GST.
CRL.A Nos. 1575/2013; 1574/2013; 1567/2013; 1576/2013; 1577/2013; 1578/2013; 1638/2013; 474/2014; 873/2014 (connected cases) This judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, consolidates multiple criminal appeals arising from the Special Court for Trial of NIA cases. The core issue is the legality of convictions and the propriety of sentences in a large Conspiracy/terrorism case involving a Kerala-based cadre allegedly radicalized through Thareeqath (a spiritual movement) and allegedly recruited to wage war against India. The prosecution contends a meticulously planned conspiracy spanning Kerala, Hyderabad, and Kashmir, with A3 (the Kerala Commander, alias Ummar Haji/Usthad) as the pivotal figure and A23 (the Dubai-based financier) sustaining the operation. It relies on extensive call data records, bank transfers via Western Union from Oman, digital evidence, and accompanying witnesses including PW1 (the star witness) and others who testified about Thareeqath meetings, travel to Hyderabad for Chilla gatherings, and the Kashmir camp where five Kerala youths were killed. The Trial Court convicted most of the accused under the UA(P)A and IPC provisions (notably 121, 121A, 122, 124A, 120B, 465, 471), while acquitting some. The High Court examines the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of extra-judicial/confessional material, sanctions for prosecution, and the legal doctrines governing conspiracy. It ultimately upholds most convictions, but acquits a few accused and corrects some sentencing issues, including life sentences being run concurrently rather than consecutively.
MACA No. 3892 of 2017; MACA No. 258 of 2018 These two motor accident claims appeals, heard together with consent, arise from the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in OPMV 386/2014 (dated 15.07.2017) concerning the death of Mathew K. George on 01.02.2014 due to a vehicle accident driven by Satheesh. The legal heirs claimed Rs.42,15,000 (capped at Rs.40,00,000) as compensation, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.28,49,328. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenged the quantum on multiple heads, while the appellants in MACA 258/2018 (the legal heirs) sought higher compensation on several heads, particularly for loss of dependency and love and affection. The Court examines the applicability of Pranay Sethi’s cap on funeral expenses and loss of estate (Rs.15,000 each) and Sarla Verma’s notional income with 10% future prospects and a multiplier (13). It notes that Ext. A23 (Form-16) shows a higher income, and thus computes Rs.28,92,240 for dependency, applying the Sarla Verma framework. The judgment ultimately partially allows both appeals: (a) for MACA 3892/2017, reducing funeral and loss of life to Rs.15,000 each and deleting pain/suffering and love & affection; (b) for MACA 258/2018, increasing loss of consortium to Rs.1,60,000 and loss of dependency to Rs.28,92,240; all other heads remain, with 9% interest on enhanced sums from the petition date.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 15 OF 2018 This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. by two accused challenging Annexure-VII charges framed by the Special Judge (Principal Sessions Court), Kottayam, under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in SC No. 321 of 2016. The petitioners—V.T. JINU, Head Clerk, Ettumanoor Block Panchayath, and MS. VIJAYAN, General Extension Officer—are alleged to have insulted a de facto complainant from the Scheduled Caste by using caste-based abuse and to have engaged in forgery and misappropriation related to nine CB Bills, with charges under IPC sections 294(b), 465, 466, 474 (read with 34) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST PO Act. A central issue is whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required to prosecute a public servant for offences alleged while discharging official duties. The petition cites Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy (2023 KHC 6628) and Indira Devi v. State (2021 KHC Online 6319) to discuss the scope of official duties and sanction, while the Public Prosecutor opposes quashing. The High Court discusses the framing of charges and the prima facie test laid down in Sandeep G v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC Online 586), ultimately holding no interference with Annexure-VII and dismissing the revision, with interim stay vacated.
This is a batch of writ appeals (WA Nos. 48/2020 and numerous connected numbers) before the Kerala High Court, arising from W.P.(C) Nos. 9963/2019 and related petitions challenging assessments/recourse under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT) and its amendments. The core issue is the validity and retrospective/ prospective operation of amendments to Section 25(1) KVAT introduced by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 (11 of 2017) and 2018 (5 of 2018), altering the period for reopening escaped turnover (the six-year window) and extending the earlier five-year limit, including the third proviso and related provisions (Section 25B). The petitions navigate the constitutional framework post-CAA 2016 (Constitution (101st) Amendment) which introduced GST and the concurrent taxation regime under Article 246A, with savings under KGST/CGST acts. The High Court, in a Division Bench led by Justice S. V. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji, ultimately held that the amendments to Section 25(1) KVAT Act and the third proviso were not constitutionally tenable, particularly given the repeal of KVAT and the interplay with the GST regime, and that the reassessment notices issued under the amended provisions could not be sustained. The appeals were dismissed, effectively upholding the view that the amendments lack competence/retrospective validity. The judgment emphasizes the distinction between commencement and operation of amendments, the vesting of rights, and the presumption against retrospection, while citing Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., Jyoti Traders, Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Baiju A.A., Mohit Minerals, and Reliance among others to frame its reasoning.
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 batch of writ appeals arises from challenges to amendments introduced to Kerala’s local VAT regime to align with GST, notably Kerala’s KVAT Act, 2003, and its amendments via Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018. The core dispute concerns Section 25(1) of KVAT and the third proviso, governing the time limit to reopen escaped turnover. The 2017 amendments substitute ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ for reopening and thus aim to provide extended breathing room for assessments. The 2018 amendments to the third proviso sought to extend the reopening window further (to 31 March 2019) for cases subject to Section 25B, among others. After the 2016 Constitution (Ninety‑ninth/One Hundred and First) Amendment, which introduced GST and Article 246A, states’ competence to amend pre-GST VAT regimes became a contested issue. The Kerala High Court undertakes a detailed statutory construction exercise to determine whether the amendments have prospective or retrospective effect, whether they validly operate after the KVAT Act’s repeal and the GST regime’s commencement, and how savings clauses interact with a concurrent taxation framework. The bench discusses seminal cases on retroactivity, including Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Baiju A.A., Jyoti Traders, Calcutta Discount Co., and Mohit Minerals, among others, and ultimately dismisses the appeals, upholding the notices and the earlier writ decisions. The judgment thus endorses a nuanced, largely prospective interpretation of the 2017 amendment and rejects the later 2018 extension as constitutionally unsound in the given constitutional milieu.
