WP(C).No. 38414 of 2015 (B) This writ petition challenges a RTI information request lodged by the fifth respondent seeking information from the petitioner, Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited (the Society). The fifth respondent filed Exhibit P1 under the Right to Information Act. The second respondent forwarded the request to the Bank (Exhibit P2 and P3 responses), which refused to divulge information on the ground that the Society falls outside the RTI framework. Subsequently, Exhibit P4, invoking Section 66(1), (4), (11) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, was issued to conduct an enquiry into the Society’s affairs. The petition contends that the initial handling and the P4 inquiry are illegal and that the Public Information Officer at the second respondent’s office should have determined whether the Society is amenable to RTI after hearing both sides. The State contends that RTI obligation extends to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as a public authority, citing Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala. The court finds Exhibit P4 unsustainable and directs the second respondent to decide the RTI amenability of the Society, guiding the parties to a determination in light of the Thalappalam decision. The case is disposed with no costs and a direction to adjudicate promptly, within a month.
S.T.Rev Nos. 86 & 100 of 2012 This is a Kerala High Court combined revision under S.T.Rev.Nos.86 and 100 of 2012, heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Ashok Menon. The petitioner, Kochi Refineries Ltd. (now amalgamated with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.), challenged the Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, order in TA No.249/2010 for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The core issues involve tax treatment of hire charges for furniture supplied to employees for residential quarters, the option to purchase after seven years, and whether such hire constitutes transfer of a right to use or a second sale upon exercise of the purchase option. The Tribunal’s stance also covered whether Form-18 declarations and SRO forms should support exemptions, and the correct tax rate for bitumen and SBPS, along with the computation of interest. The court reframed the questions to assess (i) whether hire charges for furniture amount to transfer of right to use, (ii) whether the employee purchase constitutes a second sale, (iii) the validity of the equipment charges treated as hire from contractors, (iv) the propriety of relying on Form-18/SRO forms, and (v) tax rates and interest. The court considered water cess turnover inclusion under the Water Cess Act, and the proof of inter-state movement via F-Forms. Ultimately, the revisions are dismissed with directions to the AO to verify rate/interest while preserving costs to parties.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kottayam, and seeks mandamus to appoint an administrative committee of three persons from the petitioners’ current managing committee to manage Brahmamangalam Gramaswaraj Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioners, being the bank’s President and members of its Managing Committee, invoke this Court’s earlier decisions (Ext.P7, W.A.No.1410/2017) and interim directions to facilitate timely elections. They point to Ext.P7 and subsequent orders in other writ petitions that directed the Election Commission to decide on elections and allow the bank to complete steps such as remittance of enhanced share value, with monitoring by the Assistant Registrar. The respondent counters that the members who acted against the Act, Rules, and bye-laws should not be entrusted with administration, and that placing such persons in an administrative body could prejudice the democratic electoral process. The Court analyzes the broad discretion under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to appoint an administrator or an administrative committee, up to three persons, for a limited period. It notes the factual context where elections are pending and term of current MC ends shortly, and ultimately directs the Registrar to appoint a three-member administrative committee drawn from the existing committee, eligible members, or Department officers, with hearing for the Bank’s President on 05.04.2018 and orders to be passed that day, while preserving day-to-day governance.
This appeal arises from a conviction under Sections 376 and 493 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act (old Act) by the Special Court for SC/ST cases, Kottayam, in SC No.211/2008. The complainant, a 24-year-old woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, and the accused cohabited for years and conceived a child after entering into a marriage agreement that was later registered, though they never had a valid marriage. After delivery, the accused vanished, and the woman lodged a police complaint alleging rape and related offences. The trial court convicted the appellant on all counts and imposed sentences. On appeal, the High Court found that the evidence does not sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC or for the offence under Section 493 IPC, noting that the couple had lived as husband and wife and that the registered marriage agreement had no legal validity. However, the court held that the prosecution established exploitation of a protected caste member by coercing abortion via the marriage arrangement, satisfying Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act. The court set aside the 376 and 493 convictions and sentences but upheld the SC/ST Act conviction, granting the trial-set off benefits. The judgement clarifies that consent for long-term cohabitation cannot be equated with consent for rape or for misrepresentation of marriage. The appellate court therefore partially allows the appeal and maintains the serious consequence of the SC/ST Act charge.
This is an appeal under A.S.No.220 of 2002 filed by the appellants, the Kerala Water Authority and its Superintending Engineer, challenging a Sub Court decree in O.S.523/1995. The trial court had awarded the plaintiff, P.A. Raju, and the third and fourth respondents (The Federal Bank Ltd. and The State of Kerala) certain sums in respect of a terminated contract related to work No.42/84-85. The operative portion of the judgment awarded the plaintiff Rs. 2,73,400 as enhanced value of works, Rs. 17,040 as unpaid final bill, and Rs. 20,686 as compensation for deprived gains with future interest at 18% per annum from 5.9.1991. The contract termination order Ext.A59 dated 20.9.1990 is central, with subsequent arrangements to close accounts and arrange balance work. On appeal, the court held that the claims for enhanced value and compensation were barred by limitation since the suit was filed on 21.10.1993, beyond three years from termination, and the contract included a clause prohibiting any enhanced rate for extended time unless Mathai conditions apply. The appellate court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence (Sarvesh Chopra and Mathai) to limit relief. It allowed the unpaid final bill of Rs.17,040 with 18% interest, modified the decree accordingly, and held that the court fee would be recovered from the indigent plaintiff. The appeal was thus allowed in part, with no costs.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment dated 19 March 2009 of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc) II, Kollam, in SC No. 699/2008, convicting the first and sixth accused under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act and sentencing them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,00,000 each with a default term. The prosecution alleged the storage of rectified spirit in House No. 78, Surabhi Nagar, Kollam, with 22 cans later found buried on the premises. On appeal, the appellants attack the trial court’s reasoning, highlighting serious evidentiary and procedural deficiencies: inconsistent arrest details and dates (exts P1, P3, P4), incomplete custody memo Ext. P3, non‑examination of attesting seizure witnesses, unexplained delays in forwarding contraband and samples to court, and the absence of a forwarding note to corroborate seal integrity. They also challenge the characterization of the contraband as “rectified spirit” rather than “arrack,” arguing the charge under 8(1) and the corresponding 8(2) punishment is misapplied. The State counters that the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found pervasive inconsistencies in the prosecution case, defects in documentary evidence, and delays that undermined the chain of custody, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s conviction and releasing the appellants.
These are arbitration appeals under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 challenging an order of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(Arb) No.172 of 1994 (dated 16-12-2009) arising from a contract for works under the Kallada Irrigation Project and KI & TCDP for formation of the Vilangara Distributory (Ch. 0M to 3385 M). The arbitral award addressed 11 claims, with the Arbitrator granting some heads and rejecting others. The Sub Court partly set aside the award (excluding claims a and j) and directed payment of Rs.5,50,648 with certain retention. The State of Kerala and the Superintending Engineer, KIP Circle, challenged, while Yohannan Abraham, the claimant, defended the award. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, reaffirmed the narrow scope of S.30/33 review (no re-appreciation of evidence; only grounds in statute), considered the extension-of-time mechanics under Clause 50 of the Local Competitive Bidding (LCB) conditions, and held that the court below misapplied the law by attributing delay to the claimant and misinterpreting Clause 50. The Court restored the arbitral award for Arbitration Appeal No. 20 of 2011 ( Rs.6,55,648 plus retention and 9% interest from 6.9.1988) and, for Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2011, partly allowed, fixing 9% interest instead of 18% and dismissing other challenges. The decision underscores limited appellate intervention in arbitral awards and clarifies time-extension issues under LCB conditions.
This is an Article 227 petition filed in the High Court of Kerala by Varghese @ Kunju, the judgment debtor in EP No. 41/2015 in OS No. 399 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Kottayam. The respondent/plaintiff, Tony Zacharia, sought realization of Rs. 19.08 lakh with interest on Rs. 18 lakh alleged to have been paid as advance for a sale of plaint schedule property. The suit record shows that the petitioner and respondent entered into a sale agreement dated 6.6.2013, under which Rs. 18 lakh was paid as advance and the sale deed was to be executed within six months, but the petitioner did not perform. It later emerged that the petitioner allegedly sold part of the property. The case was referred to Lok Adalat, which produced Ext. P-3 compromise petition dated 19.12.2014 and Ext. P-4 Lok Adalat award. The compromise provided for a total settlement of Rs. 8.2 lakh, of which Rs. 7 lakh was paid on 19.12.2014 and the balance Rs. 1.2 lakh was to be paid within two months. Clause 3 of Ext. P-3 provides that if the balance is not paid, the respondent may realize the original amount (Rs. 18 lakh) less Rs. 7 lakh already paid, with interest. The petitioner argued that this penalty-like clause is unenforceable and that the compromise could not bind him as a decree. The court upheld the Lok Adalat award as a deemed civil court decree under Sec. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act and held that the clause is enforceable. It rejected the petition and dismissed it, vacating any interim stay. The decision relied on a Supreme Court rendering in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C. D. Shaji to affirm the decree status of the award. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by Chandran challenging a conviction under section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possessing five litres of arrack on 26 January 2000. The trial court sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 with a default term. The prosecution’s case rests on the seizure and laboratory analysis of the sample. The appellant contends that the investigation was unduly delayed—nearly five years before a final report was filed—and that the unexplained delay undermines the integrity of the evidence. He relies on Krishnan H. v. State to argue that such delay is fatal to the prosecution. The court scrutinizes the chain of custody surrounding the sample, noting defects in Ext. P5 (the forwarding note) that failed to record the excise guard’s name, the date of dispatch, or the initial’s date; no thondy clerk or excise guard was examined to prove tamper-proof despatch. Citing Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala, the court held that such omissions jeopardize the reliability of the laboratory result. In light of these defects and the five-year gap, the court concludes there is no guarantee the laboratory analysis pertained to the seized contraband. The appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction and sentence are set aside, with acquittal and discharge of bail.
The sole accused Narayana, an employee of a fishing boat operating from Azhikkal Harbour, was convicted by the Sessions Court under section 302 IPC for the murder of Sankara between 9 p.m. on 18.4.2001 and 2 a.m. on 19.4.2001. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW7 and PW9 etc. supported that a knife (MO1) and torn shirt (MO2) were found near the body, with other objects (MO3–MO5) also recovered, linking the scene to the accused. The post‑mortem (Ext.P4) concluded death was due to a stab wound to the heart, with multiple injuries; the doctor testified that injuries could be caused by a weapon like MO1 and that death occurred within the stated window. The Trial Court relied on circumstantial evidence to convict, though the defense offered no evidence. On appeal, the High Court scrutinised the circumstantial chain, noting that the only solid link was that the accused was last seen with the deceased; other circumstantial pieces were either doubtful or not definitively attributable to him (e.g., MO1’s ownership, blood on the weapon). It held that the circumstances did not exclude reasonable hypotheses other than guilt, and that last‑seen‑with‑the‑deceased cannot, by itself, sustain a conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and Narayana acquitted, with release ordered notwithstanding any other case requirements.
Mat.Appeal No. 1246 of 2015 This Mat. Appeal arises from an order of the Family Court, Thodupuzha (Idukki), dated 10 September 2015, in O.P. No. 320 of 2014. The appellant-husband, Arthur Zacharia, sought a declaration of exclusive ownership over the petition schedule property (A schedule) and other ancillary reliefs, alleging that he had paid the entire sale consideration and that the registration of the sale deed in the respondent’s name was a benami transaction undertaken to evade legal ceilings under the Thottam Act. The sale deed (Ext. A1/A2) traceable to an agreement of sale (1989) and a registered deed (2003) forms the evidentiary core, with the defense that the respondent and her family provided funds for the purchase. The respondent asserted exclusive ownership with possession and highlighted prior litigation and family funds used toward the purchase. The lower court held that the respondent was the absolute owner in possession, dismissing the petition. Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 were invoked, and the court applied the Jaydayal Poddar framework to weigh probative factors such as the source of funds, possession, motive, relationship, custody of title deeds, and conduct. The High Court, after review, found the petitioner failed to establish benami purchase and confirmed the lower court’s findings. The appeal is dismissed with costs to be borne by both sides.
This High Court of Kerala, in OP(C) No. 3538 of 2017 arising from O.S. No. 90 of 2015 (Munsiff Court, Perambra), confronts whether the plaintiff can amend the plaint schedule and reopen evidence after the evidence had been closed. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint schedule (Ext. P4, IA 826/2017) to reflect that the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property is the boundary described in the title deed, but the actual boundary is the portion previously sold to Sabira (22 cents) which places Sabira’s possession along the northern boundary. The trial court rejected the amendment and the reopening of evidence, relying on the bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which prohibits amendments after trial unless due diligence or other exceptional circumstances are shown. The petitioner argued that the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy and that due diligence was exercised, citing several precedents (including J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh & Others and Vidyabai v. Padmalatha) to justify post-trial amendments. The High Court agreed with the petitioner’s reasoning, but the court below ultimately dismissed the petition. The present judgment reconsiders the matter in light of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 and the due diligence requirement, concluding that the amendments and reopening were rightly refused, as the plaintiff knew of the boundary issue before filing suit and the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondent. The original petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
CRL.A.NO.1368 OF 2004 (B) Rati, the appellant, was convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possessing one litre of arrack on 20 May 2000. The trial court sentenced her to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 with a six-month default. The appeal challenges the prosecution’s chain of evidence, particularly the sampling of the contraband. The record shows no independent evidence of drawing the sample from the can, no examination of the thondi clerk who handled the sample, and no proof of tamper-proof dispatch to the laboratory. The forwarding note lacked the sample seal, a fact relied upon by the appellant to argue breakdown of the chain. The court relied on precedents emphasizing the necessity of link evidence and tamper-proof custody (Sasidharan (2007) KLT 720; Ravi (2011) KLT 353; Krishnan H. (2015) KHC 822), and noted that the absence of sampling link undermines proof beyond reasonable doubt. It also relied on Subrahmaniyan (2010) KHC 552 and Sasidharan (2012) KLT 392 to highlight that Assistant Excise Inspectors were not empowered to act under the Abkari Act prior to 8 May 2009. Since the incident occurred in 2000, the accused’ s arrest and seizure were unauthorized, and the prosecution failed to prove the chain of evidence. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and released.
WP(C).No. 36514 of 2016 (L) The petition is a Writ Petition (C) filed by 25 autorickshaw operators in Kasaragod district seeking variation of the halting place mentioned in their permit conditions. The petitioners filed Exts.P51 to P75 applications with the second respondent (Regional Transport Officer) for changing halting points to suit their operations. They rely on the court’s earlier decision in Rajesh v. Secretary, R.T.A., 2014 (3) KLT 341, which addressed a similar grievance and directed authorities to consider comparable pleas. The matter was heard with the petitioners’ counsel and the Government Pleader present. The Court notes Rajesh as a precedent addressing the same grievance and ultimately disposes of the petition by directing the second respondent to dispose of Exts.P51–P75 in light of Rajesh. The court emphasizes timely action by the authority, directing completion within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The decision reflects the court’s approach of applying existing precedents to ensure administrative relief in permit-related disputes and reinforces supervisory oversight to secure prompt consideration of applications affecting livelihood. The outcome provides interim relief by mandating proactive review rather than ad hoc denial of the applications.
WP(C).No. 39054 of 2015 (F) This writ petition challenges the notification under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and the subsequent steps for acquiring the right of user in land for laying a gas pipeline (Kochi–Koottanad–Mangalore–Bangalore). The petitioners, co-owners of land in Thekkumkara Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District, contend that the competent authority has not passed a valid order under Section 5(2) and that any such order must be communicated to the affected person to be effective. They highlight that the 3rd respondent conducted hearing on 01.03.2013 but did not communicate any order, and they argued that the Central Government’s declaration under Section 6 and the scope of Section 7 (exemption for residential land or land appurtenant to a dwelling) require due process and a proper ruling on exemptions. The respondents counter that Section 5(3) makes the order final and that communication is not a mandatory prerequisite for efficacy, as the right of user, not ownership, is acquired. The court reviews Sections 5(2), 5(3), 6, and 7, along with constitutional guarantees, and ultimately directs a hearing, issuance of a reasoned order, and communication to the petitioners within a set timeframe while maintaining status quo until final orders are issued.
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, recorded by the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-III, Thalassery on 19 January 2007, sentencing the appellant to one year rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 1,00,000 fine with six months’ default imprisonment for possession of five litres of illicit arrack. The appellant challenges the trial process, contending that an officer not empowered as an abkari officer conducted the investigation, creating prejudice and vitiating cognizance. He also points to procedural inconsistencies in the seizure record, including Exts. P1–P4, and the arrest memo Ext. P2, arguing tampering and post-registration document fabrication, evidenced by discrepancies such as a sealed bottle described inconsistently and the presence of a crime number on the arrest memo. The State defends the process, arguing that investigation by non-abkari officers is permissible to avoid bias, and that the core evidence remains credible, with the abkari officer (PW3) filing the final report. The Kerala High Court ultimately relies on the principle laid down in Hamsa Koya v. State of Kerala to hold that an investigation by an incompetent officer invalidates cognizance, and thus allows the appeal, directing acquittal and release of the appellant. The judgment underscores the essential link between a competent investigation and valid cognizance.
WP(C).No. 38725 of 2015 (M) This batch of writ petitions challenges the enforcement of interim orders issued by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended by Act 3 of 2016). The petitioners are vehicle loan borrowers who faced actions to repossess their vehicles pursuant to those interim orders. The court explains that the Arbitral Tribunal, created by contract, does not possess sovereign power and cannot be treated as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, nor can its orders be judicially reviewed as if they were decisions of a civil court. While the 2016 amendments empower the arbitral body to pass interim measures, the court reiterates that enforcement of such orders is not execution by the arbitral body; rather, enforcement is to be through civil court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment distinguishes interim measures (Section 17(2)) from the execution of final awards (Section 36) or foreign awards (Section 48). It holds that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot itself enforce its orders by appointing an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess assets; such repossession must occur via civil court. Several cases are discussed, and directions are issued to prevent enforcement without civil process, including police circulars and restoration of possession where already affected. The decision emphasizes safeguarding constitutional rights (Article 21) and warns against the Tribunal encroaching on public law powers in private-law disputes.
WP(Crl.) No.143 of 2016 (S) Chandrika M., the detenu, was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA) by a detention order dated 29 January 2016 (Ext. P1) and arrested on 1 February 2016. The petitioner, classified as a “known rowdy,” challenges both the detention and its continued validity, arguing denial of liberty and due process. The detaining authority relied on four reports furnished by the District Police Chief (Exts. P3–P5), dated 18 December 2015, 30 December 2015, 23 January 2016, and 25 January 2016, to form the subjective satisfaction. Crucially, the report dated 23 January 2016 was not supplied to the detenu, which the petitioner contends violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 7(2) KAAPA, undermining the detenu’s ability to make an effective representation. The respondents contend that the last report merely described the status of several cases and was not essential to the detention decision, and that the other grounds were properly furnished. The court discusses Sulaiman P.A. v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government as a comparative reference but ultimately finds that the non‑furnishing of the 23 January 2016 report affected the detenu’s right to effective representation. The writ petition is allowed; the continued detention is illegal, and the detenu must be released forthwith unless lawfully detained in another case, with the registry directed to communicate the judgment’s gist to prison authorities for compliance.
WP(C).No. 38489 of 2016 (I) The petitioner, PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited, challenges Ext.P14 Assessment Order under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for the assessment year 2010-2011. The central issue is whether Ext.P12, dated 19.09.2016, issued under Section 25, falls within the five-year limitation prescribed by the statute, and whether objections raised earlier (Exts.P4 and P11) were duly considered. The petitioner contends that the initial notice Ext.P1 of 28.10.2013 sought to include sale of fixed assets in turnover and that subsequent notices and adjournments indicate ongoing proceedings within the period; they argue Ext.P12 is beyond the permissible window and that Books of Accounts were not produced despite repeated requests. The State Respondents contend that the sequence of notices demonstrates invocation of Section 25 within time, and that there is no mandate to conclude the assessment within the limitation period, citing Cholayil Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) - 2015 (4) KLT 516 (FB). The Court examines Exts.P1, P4, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11 and P12, noting that objections were addressed and substantial deductions were made within the period, and that Ext.P12 is a continuation of earlier proceedings rather than a new initiation. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving factual contentions for the Appellate Authority, and no costs are awarded. The matter ends with no interference in the assessment order, but with a clear route to challenge before the Appellate Authority.
This is an arbitration petition under Sections 6 and 8 of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Noel Villas and Apartments seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes arising from disputed PRI line bills issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL). The applicant claimed non-use of the PRI facility during several periods and contended that the billings (ranging from 15,000 to over 20,00,000 rupees) were erroneous or due to unauthorized use. The writ petition (10670/2015-G) before the Kerala High Court directed BSNL to initiate arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, and the court stayed further demands until arbitration, prompting BSNL to appoint an arbitrator. The applicant demanded an independent, impartial arbitrator, preferably a retired judge, rather than a BSNL officer, arguing concerns about independence and impartiality under Section 12 of the Act, 1996. Central Government counters that an arbitrator with technical know-how is necessary, and the organization’s officer could be unavailable as arbitrator due to perceived conflicts. The court discusses Francis Mukkanical v. General Manager, BSNL and clarifies that provisions of the Arbitration Act may apply to Section 7B arbitration where consistent with the Indian Telegraph Act, ultimately allowing appointment of a retired judge as sole arbitrator. The order appoints Justice T.V. Ramakrishnan (retired) as arbitrator under Section 7B, directing commencement of proceedings with notice to the parties.
