This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants who are the claimants in a fatal accident involving an autorickshaw and a lorry in Malappuram district. The claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, sought compensation for the death of Fathimakutty, aged about 56, who died on the spot after the collision on 04.04.2007. The Tribunal held both drivers negligent in a 50:50 composite negligence finding and awarded a total of Rs. 2,08,000, later limited to Rs. 2,50,000 for court fee, with the claimant-share reduced to Rs. 1,04,000. The insurer contested the quantum and the age, income, and other particulars of the deceased. The appellants challenged the quantum and the composite negligence finding, arguing for enhanced compensation and liability primarily on the lorry driver. The High Court relied on established jurisprudence, including Pazhaniammal’s rule on charge sheets as evidence of negligence, and expounded the modern framework for determining just compensation, incorporating standardised notional income, future prospects, deductions for personal living expenses, and the multiplier. It revises the quantum using Pranay Sethi’s principles and Magma doctrine on consortium, ultimately enhancing various heads of compensation and directing the insurer to pay within two months.
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020(B) This writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenges the Kannur University’s refusal to condone the petitioner’s shortage of attendance and to permit her to appear for the 4th semester examinations in the B.Ed course affiliated to Kannur University. The petitioner, a 4th-semester B.Ed student at Kannur Salafi B.Ed College, contends that pregnancy-related medical issues and the COVID-19 lockdown prevented her from attending classes during the relevant period. She submitted Exhibit P5 (request letter) to the Principal, forwarded by the college to the Controller of Examinations, seeking condonation of attendance; Exhibits P5 and P6 were allegedly forwarded to the University, but the university did not grant relief. The University’s stance is that a minimum of 80% attendance per semester is required and up to 10% may be condoned by the Vice Chancellor on genuine grounds, with re-admission in some cases. The attendance certificate (Exhibit R1(a)) reportedly shows about 43%, with the petitioner claiming 51% and arguing that the lockdown period should be counted, which would raise attendance to around 71.5% (within condonable range). The court notes that the regulatory framework governs condonation and cites Ajith Chandran v University of Kerala (2013 (4) KHC 392) for the proper procedure and VC discretion, while also acknowledging Jasmine V.G. v Kannur University (2016 (3) KHC 183) as a cited authority. The court ultimately refuses to interfere, finding no malice or arbitrariness in the decision to reject Exhibits P5 and P6, and dismisses the petition.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from a Tribunal award granting compensation for the death of Gopinathan, a 45-year-old driver who died in a motor accident on 27-04-2004. The appellants (mother, wife, and children) sought Rs.9,94,500 but the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,01,000. The High Court, hearing the appeal, re-evaluates the quantum using well‑established precedents on income, future prospects, and dependency. In the absence of direct evidence of the deceased’s earnings, the Court adopts a monthly income of Rs.4,500 (citing Ramachandrappa) for 2004, with four dependants and a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses; 25% addition for future prospects due to age (45 years) and a multiplier of 14. This yields Rs.7,08,750 for loss of dependency, with the Tribunal’s Rs.3,60,000 awarded being increased by Rs.3,48,750. Conventional heads receive uplift: pain and suffering from Rs.6,000 to Rs.10,000 (plus Rs.4,000 as additional); loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses total Rs.60,000 (wife Rs.35,000; Rs.12,500 each to estate and funeral); loss of love and affection allocated Rs.1,15,000 (mother Rs.35,000; each child Rs.40,000; additional Rs.1,05,000); transport and clothing Rs.2,000. Overall enhanced compensation = Rs.4,94,750 with 7.5% interest, and directions issued for deposit/disbursal. The appeal is allowed in part.
John M. Kuriakose, the appellant, challenges WA No. 902 of 2020 before the Kerala High Court, appealing a learned Single Judge’s order in W.P. (C) No.4476 of 2020 which declined to direct further investigation in Crime No. 1373/2016 (Kottayam East Police Station). The underlying dispute arises from a wife’s statement that the accused trespassed onto the car porch attached to the petitioner’s house and damaged his car, leading to cognizance in CC No. 1464/2016 on a variety of IPC offences (448, 427, 143, 144, 294(b), 147, 506(i) r/w 149). The learned Judge held that there was no house trespass under IPC 452 because the car porch could not be treated as a dwelling, and accordingly there was no basis to order further investigation; he also left room for the trial court to alter the charge if, during trial, an offence under 452 becomes attracted. The appellant contends that the car porch is part of the dwelling or used for custody of property, and that entry there should invoke 452; he sought to stay the trial until further investigation via Exhibit-P3. The respondents rely on Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya’s decision (AIR 2019 SC 5233) to argue that a protest petition rather than a writ petition is the proper remedy and that 173(3) CrPC is not applicable here. The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the trial court’s approach. No costs.
Remony, the appellant in CRL.A. No. 1021 of 2006, challenges a conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara, for alleged illicit arrack possession following a 22 January 1999 seizure. The prosecution’s case rests on seizure of 8 litres of arrack in a jerrycan and 600 ml in a bottle, with a glass tumbler, during a patrolling operation by the Sub Inspector CW8 and a Women Head Constable at Poonkulam Oleev Vila. The trial court convicted after evaluating PW1–PW5 and Exts P1–P7 and MO1–MO3; the defense contended delays in producing the contraband, lack of independent witnesses, and that conviction rested on official witnesses alone, with no proven authenticity of the sample. On appeal, the High Court scrutinised whether the contraband was produced before the court in time, whether tampering could be presumed due to delay, whether MO1–MO3 were the same articles produced, and whether proper custody and sealing were established. Citing Alex, Narayani and Rajendran, the court found no reliable custody or sealing proof and noted delays, concluding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted Remony, set aside the judgment, and ordered her liberty.
These writ petitions challenge recruitment to non-teaching posts at the University of Calicut, focusing on two competing rank lists: one prepared by the University prior to the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) Act 2015 and another prepared by the PSC under Act 18 of 2015. Act 18, which came into force on 29 September 2015, seeks to vest PSC with direct recruitment authority and to modify the University’s power to select and recruit. The petitions challenge whether University processes started before the Act can continue, and whether vacancies that arose after 29 September 2015 can be filled by University lists or only by PSC/Rules. The court notes that the University extended the validity of its rank list (initially published 30 January 2016) and that, in some petitions, the University pending further orders granted appointments, including for Peon/Watchman posts. The central legal question is whether any recruitment after 29 September 2015 can be validly made by the University, given the non-obstante clause in Act 18/2015 and the vesting of selection powers in PSC. The judgment cites various legal principles and precedents on vested rights and the temporality of recruitment powers, and ultimately dismisses WP(C).No.17639/2017 while disposing of the others with directions aimed at ensuring no post–29 September 2015 appointments are continued and that PSC is engaged for vetting vacancies arising after that date.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 772 of 2017 This Kerala High Court Criminal Revision Petition concerns a cheque-bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, C. Rajagopal, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam, on the basis of Ext.P2 dishonored cheque for Rs.1,03,769, and the conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Court with a modified sentence. The appellate court reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and increased the default term, while maintaining the fine and compensation direction. The High Court, however, upheld the conviction and the substantive sentence, but recalibrated the penalty: the fine is reduced from Rs.1,70,000 to Rs.1,65,000, and the default sentence from six months to three months. It further directs that the petitioner be given six months from 01.10.2017 to pay the outstanding amount directly to the complainant and that Rs.1,65,000 as compensation be realized under Cr.P.C. Sec.335(1)(b) and Sec.357(3). The judgment engages with the scope of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act as applied to cooperative societies, noting that cooperative societies fall within the exclusion under Sec.2(7)(a). It discusses SRO 255/2005’s interest ceiling and relies on Basheer v. Wheels Auto Finance, Sundaram Finance Ltd., and Baby v. Vijayan to frame its reasoning, distinguishing NBFC-related considerations from cooperative societies. The petition is disposed of with the above directions and orders.
Prasad s/o Mohanan, the sole accused, challenges a conviction recorded by the Thrissur Sessions Court in SC No. 687/2006 arising from Crime No. 111/2006 of Vellikulangara Police Station. The appellant was found guilty under IPC sections 450 (robbery with aggravation), 302 (murder), 392 (robbery) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fines, the sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence: the victim, Suseela (about 74), lived alone and was murdered in her Ombathunkal residence; the accused, who had prior acquaintance with the deceased, allegedly entered with permission, strangled her, looted two gold bangles and ear studs, and scattered chilli powder to destroy evidence. The ornaments recovered at the appellant’s disclosed location, together with medical, forensic, and fingerprint evidence, and the presence of a Hero Honda motorcycle used by the appellant, form a chain of circumstances connecting him to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The defense contends innocence, misidentification, planted recovery, and fabrication of forensic material, arguing that the evidence is circumstantial and insufficient. The Kerala High Court, after thorough appraisal of motive, opportunity, and corroborative scientific evidence, upheld the trial court’s verdict and dismissed the appeal, keeping the conviction and sentences intact.
This MACA arises from an award under the Motor Vehicles Act in a fatal accident involving a motorcycle in which the deceased, an 18-year-old pillion rider, died from head injuries. The accident occurred on 28-09-2011 near Nedumbassery; the driver of the other vehicle was Rash driving. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,72,000 to the dependents (paternal and maternal relatives of the deceased). The appellants (the dependents) challenged the award as inadequate, contending that the deceased’s income (Ext. A11 shows Rs.7,000 per month) and the losses to his family warranted higher compensation. The lower court relied on Sarla Verma guidelines for computing compensation but did not adequately factor in future prospects and conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The appellants invoked Pranay Sethi (SC) jurisprudence to seek enhanced compensation including future prospects and maintenance heads, and Magma’s case to support loss of consortium and other heads. The High Court, after analyzing the two-judge bench decisions and recent Supreme Court guidance, held that just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act requires a broader consideration of heads including loss of consortium (spousal, parental, filial), loss of estate, and funeral expenses. It awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.5,20,544 with 9% interest and costs, directing the insurer to pay within 30 days, failing which 12% interest would apply from default date. The judgment clarifies the application of Pranay Sethi guidelines, future prospects, and the inclusion of conventional heads in death-claims under the Act.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 436 of 2005) arises from a suit to declare Exts. A2 (gift deed) and A3 (sale deed) void and to recover possession of 3 cents of property originally belonging to the father of the 7th defendant, the husband of the 1st plaintiff, and father of the remaining plaintiffs. Ext. A2, dated 25-05-1986, is a gift deed by the father in favour of his daughter (the 7th defendant). He died on 30-10-1986, after Ext. A2 and before Ext. A3, a sale deed dated 11-06-1986 by the 7th defendant to the 1st defendant and his mother. The suit was dismissed in the trial court, but reversed by the First Appellate Court which decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants challenge the appellate judgment contending that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires attesting witnesses to prove execution only where attestation is mandated and that a gift deed need not be proved by attesting witnesses unless its execution is specifically denied. The respondents rely on Laxmanan K. v. Thekkayil Padmini to argue the attestation requirement. The High Court notes that Section 68 applies to documents that require attestation, such as wills, and that gift deeds do not mandatorily require attesting witnesses unless execution is denied. The court also finds the suit time-barred by limitation, and that there is no sustainable tenancy claim. Ultimately, the appeal is allowed, the First Appellate Court’s decree set aside, the trial court’s decree restored (suit dismissed), and costs awarded to the parties.
The petitioner Kalpana Davis, claimed owner of 18.72 ares in Sy.No.153/23 of Karumalloor, Parur Taluk, sought under Article 226 a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6, which imposed compliance with Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2017, and to direct the revenue records be altered to classify the property as garden land, contending it does not come within the Act’s purview. The petition also sought mandamus to effect corrections in revenue entries and a declaration that the property is not regulated by the 2008 Act as amended. On admission, interim suspension of the financial implication under 27A(3) was extended for three months and later renewed. The Kerala Government argued that the land is subject to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 as amended, and the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967; provisions governing change of land use (Clause 6) and its provisos, and the 27A–27C framework apply, including water conservancy measures and fees. The court relied on Renji K. Paul’s reasoning and local decisions, and ultimately quashed Ext.P6 to the extent it imposed 27A conditions, directing a correction in the Basic Tax Register, and ordered expeditious compliance within a month, while leaving other aspects for further consideration.
This batch of writ appeals challenges the recruitment framework for non-teaching posts in universities, centering on Calicut University and the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). The core issue is whether direct recruitment by a university for non-teaching staff could continue after the enactment of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as Respects the Services under the Universities) Act, 2015 (Act 18/2015), which vests such recruitment in the PSC. The court traces a chronology: the initial notification for posts was issued in 2010, followed by rank lists (notably 2016) and interim government orders authorizing continued university recruitment; PSC issued its own list from 2016, and the government issued prescriptions under Act 18/2015. The Division Bench emphasizes the non-obstante effect of Act 18/2015 and its supremacy over existing university statutes, ordinances and rules, while also surveying precedents on retrospective effect and the non-creation of a right merely by inclusion in a rank list. The judgment affirms that vacancies arising after 29.09.2015 must be filled by the PSC, while earlier vacancies may be held by university lists, subject to regulatory scrutiny. Provisional appointments made under interim orders are cancelled; future appointments must follow PSC advice, with vacancies to be reported and filled accordingly. The order directs that the university report substantive vacancies and that the PSC appoint to those vacancies, with other related writ petitions disposed of as stated.
This petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash proceedings in S.C. No. 471/2018 pending before the Additional District & Sessions Court (Special Court) Ernakulam. Maneesh, the petitioner, is charged under IPC Sections 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(n) and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 5(1) and 6). The crime was registered on 3 February 2018 on a complaint by the first respondent, who alleged a relationship, subsequent coercion and repeated acts of penetrative sexual intercourse at a pilgrim center, with the accused inducing marriage. Cognizance was taken and the case is at trial stage. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of proceedings the parties have married on 29 June 2018 and are living as husband and wife, with a child born thereafter; Annexure III is a marriage certificate; Annexure V is a sworn affidavit by the first respondent stating no grievance. The Public Prosecutor sought instructions; The victim’s appearance confirms the situation; The learned judge notes the well-settled legal position that the High Court’s power under Section 482 is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC and depends on facts. While rape is generally non‑compoundable, in the peculiar facts of this case the court finds no extreme depravity or public harm and, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, quashes the proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No.2087/2018; Crl.M.C. No.2098/2018; Crl.M.C. No.2102/2018 This is a consolidated Kerala High Court decision (Annie John, J.) disposing of three Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 2087/2018, 2098/2018, 2102/2018) challenging cognizance in ST No. 3/2017, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from a defamatory news item about the legal community. Petitioners—N. Ram (25th accused), Rajiv Chellappan Lochan (24th accused), and Kasturi & Sons Ltd. (23rd accused)—contend that the publication of a news item titled The Hindu piece “Sebastian Paul flays lawyers” was a per se non-defamatory reproduction of a speech and that they bore no responsibility for its publication. They argue that the first respondent, a practising lawyer, cannot be treated as an aggrieved person under Section 199 Cr.P.C. to sustain a private defamation complaint, and that cognizance under Chapter XXI IPC is barred unless there is an aggrieved party. The court examines whether the complainant represents a legally identifiable group of lawyers and whether the alleged defamatory statements target such a defined class. Relying on decisions like M.S. Jayaraj, Ananda Bazar Patrika, G. Narasimhan, and Asha Parekh, the court holds that an identifiable aggrieved person is essential and that Advocates as a class cannot be defamed. It concludes the complainant lacks locus standi; consequently, cognizance is barred and the petitions are allowed, quashing further proceedings.
Joseph P.U., the registered owner of jeep KL-73/A-3663, challenges Ext.P3, a 10 January 2019 order of the Deputy Excise Commissioner directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,00,000 as the market value of the vehicle to obtain interim custody during confiscation proceedings under the Abkari Act. The vehicle was seized on a charge under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash Ext.P3 and instead obtain interim custody on bond. The record shows the petition relied on misquoting Ext.P2, and that a notice under Section 67B of the Abkari Act had already been issued for confiscation. The court notes Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996, allowing temporary release on payment of market value fixed by a Mechanical Engineer, with the vehicle to be produced when the final order of confiscation is passed. It also cites Nikhil v. Deputy Excise Commissioner (2016 (4) KLT 372), where a Division Bench held the power to release interim custody lies with the Authorised Officer and the deposit is mandatory. The High Court repels the challenge to Ext.P3’s deposit order and grants two weeks to pay, while allowing interim custody during pending confiscation proceedings.
Through this writ petition under the SARFAESI Act, Sam Varghese and Susan Sam challenge the recovery actions initiated by the South Indian Bank. The High Court immediately flags its jurisdictional constraint: it cannot adjudicate the legality or merits of the impugned orders because SARFAESI and binding Supreme Court precedents govern the matter, in particular Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and its Kerala follow-up in Mathew. Consequently, the court declines to rule on the petitioner's legal contentions on merits. Nevertheless, balancing equity and recovery objectives, the judge considers allowing a lenient payment arrangement to prevent asset sale and protracted litigation. The bank confirms two housing loans with an overall overdue as on 31.01.2019 of Rs. 8,13,497, which could be recovered if the loan accounts are settled. It proposes eight equal monthly installments totaling Rs. 8,13,497, beginning 05.03.2019, so that the first loan can be regularised and the second loan closed; the petitioners agree. The court directs timely payment of the installments and continued EMI on the regularised loan from February 2019, warning that any default will vacate the relief. The writ petition is disposed accordingly, with the bank preserving its right to proceed further under SARFAESI if compliance fails.
WP(C).No. 40760 of 2018; WP(C).No. 2460 of 2019 This joint judgment disposes of two writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 40760 of 2018 and 2460 of 2019) filed in the Kerala High Court by Thekkumbhagom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and by a prospective candidate, Sunny Michael, challenging and defending the process of appointing Peons/Attenders in the bank. The central issue is compliance with Section 80(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act) before filling vacancies, particularly in relation to reservation for physically handicapped persons. The bank contends that it had reserved a vacancy in the category of Junior Clerk and issued notifications for recruitment through the Cooperative Examination Board, arguing that this meets the statutory requirement; it cites Enathu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sachu (2018) to substantiate the position that reservation could satisfy Section 80(5). The official respondents oppose Ext.P5, an order of the Joint Registrar (General) that interdicted the bank’s attempt to fill posts without clear compliance with Section 80(5). The court, after hearing, directs the Joint Registrar to reconsider Ext.P5, affording hearing to all parties and determine whether the alleged reservation of a Junior Clerk post achieves compliance under Section 80(5). The exercise must be completed promptly, within one month. The judgment thus ensures a fresh reconsideration rather than an immediate substantive determination on the merits of the appointments.
W.P.(C).Nos. 38244 of 2016; 12879 of 2018; 20669 of 2018; 21569 of 2018; 1181 of 2019 The judgments concern appointments to Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers under the ICDS scheme in Kerala. A Government Order dated 30.04.2018 (Ext.P1) modified the prior promotion pattern, retaining a 25% promotion quota for Anganwadi Helpers but altering the priority order and providing that every fourth vacancy would be filled by promoting qualified Anganwadi Helpers until the 25% quota is reached. It also earmarked 10% of vacancies for dependants of persons who surrendered land for Anganwadi construction or for their dependents. Petitioners, including long-serving Anganwadi Helpers, challenged Ext.P1 on grounds of arbitrariness, lack of reasons, and dilution of their long-standing 25% priority, arguing the modification breached central directives and their vested expectations. The State and ICDS respondents defended the measure as a prudent, non-arbitrary adjustment to ensure broader equitable access, maintain 25% quota, and align with changing circumstances and central-state sharing. The court examined prior judgments (notably 16481/2011 and 5156/2016) and held that Government possesses the authority to amend appointment methods and priorities, so long as the 25% quota is preserved. It ultimately dismissed some petitions while directing others to be considered under the 2018 GO against vacancies arising after 30.04.2018.
Philip K.K., the petitioner, invoked the writ jurisdiction to challenge two interrelated issues arising from a SARFAESI-driven sale of a mortgaged property: (i) mutation and transfer of registry in his favor, and (ii) acceptance of basic land tax by the Village Officer despite encumbrances arising from attachment orders. The petitioner purchased the property at an auction conducted by the Union Bank of India under SARFAESI after the borrower defaulted on the loan; sale certificate Ext. P-1 was issued on 5.4.2017 and sale confirmed under SARFAESI. The grievance is that the Village Officer refused to accept basic land tax and to record mutation because encumbrances/attachments were noted in the encumbrance certificate due to prior creditors. The petitioner contends that the revenue functionaries are obliged to accept land tax and effect mutation so long as he qualifies as a 'land holder' under Sec. 3(3) of the relevant Act, and that attachments created after the mortgage should not continue to cloud title. The court relies on Kerala decisions that post-mortgage attachment orders lose efficacy once sale is confirmed, directing the Sub Registrar to delete such attachments and mandating the Village Officer to issue tax receipts and proceed with mutation. The judgment emphasizes that sale facilitates clear title and fiscal transfer, subject to proper compliance with registration records and encumbrance entries.
Philomina Saiman, mother of a girl named Miss Soni (18), filed WP(Crl) No. 31 of 2019 seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce her daughter and set her at liberty from alleged illegal detention by Visakh, the 3rd respondent. The petition asserts that Miss Soni had been living with Visakh after returning from Tamil Nadu and that a ceremony of marriage occurred near Visakh’s house on 02.01.2019; the petitioner contends there is no valid marriage and that the couple’s relationship is not legally sanctioned due to religious differences (the petitioner is Christian while the 3rd respondent is Hindu). The 3rd respondent claims the detenue left with him of her own free will, that they have been in a relationship for about a year, and that he plans to marry her only after he attains 21 years of age (in October 2019), possibly by converting her to Hinduism or under the Special Marriage Act. The court interacted with the detenue, who stated her willingness to live with Visakh and not to return to her parental home. Relying on Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (AIR 2018 SC 2254), the court observed that live‑in arrangements may be recognized and that liberty under the Constitution cannot be curtailed when the detenue freely chooses to live with the partner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the detenue was ordered to be set at liberty to accompany Visakh.
