WP(C) Nos.25515 of 2021, 191 of 2022 and 276 of 2022 These writ petitions challenge Cochin Devaswom Board's approval of renovation and subsequent maintenance of Vadakkechira (Asokeswaram temple pond) with leisure boating facilities and a cafeteria. The petitioners, devotees and temple-protection groups, contend the pond is integral to the temple and sacred, and cannot be used for leisure or commercial purposes. The Board granted permission on 13 October 2021 (Ext. P7) to the 4th respondent to maintain the pond for three years, including pedal boats and a cafeteria, allegedly to uphold the pond under expert guidance. The petitioners argue this action is arbitrary and illegal, seeking mandamus to stop such leisure boating and to declare the temple premises and pond as properties of the deity, not alienable by the Board. The Board contends the boating facility was intended to maintain the pond, with inputs from Kerala Agricultural University scientists, and that the relaxation was valid. The court bases its analysis on the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, notably sections 73A and 76A, and cites Chandran v. Travancore Devaswom Board to emphasize temple sanctity. However, it finds the 2021 procedure arbitrary, sets aside Ext. P7, and directs the Board to reconsider maintaining Vadakkechira after obtaining Tantri and scientific opinions, within two months, while ensuring proper upkeep in the interim.
W.P.(C). No. 15287 of 2021 This writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, concerns disbursement of funds relating to BM Hospital, Nilambur, purportedly for free treatment of COVID-19 patients. The petitioner seeks mandamus to release the withheld amount into the official BM Hospital account in South Indian Bank (Nilambur), and to bar transfers to other accounts (e.g., Catholic Syrian Bank). He also seeks access to the hospital portal and timely consideration of his Exhibit P17 request, along with quashing Exhibit P20 and related permissions for operating the hospital’s official account. The petitioner relies on a purported settlement evidenced by Ext.R5(a) and contends that funds should be disbursed to the account identified by the parties. Respondents 5 and 6 contend ongoing disputes about disbursement to the requested account. The learned Judge notes a lack of a conclusive order and states that the court cannot pass orders in the given circumstances; the petitioner should settle with the contesting respondents and approach the authority. If such settlement is reported before the authority, it will act in accordance with law.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, on 28.03.2012 in OP(MV) No.1189/2008, awarding compensation to the claimant against the insurer. The appellant insurer challenges the award, contending that the driver of the goods autorickshaw KL-10-Q 4200 did not hold a valid badge at the relevant time, and that such absence should exonerate the insurer or permit recourse against the vehicle’s owner. The Division Bench referred questions to a Full Bench after doubts were raised about the insurer’s liability in cases of missing badge endorsements, and how the absence of badge interacts with license endorsements. The Full Bench and later the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan clarified that a licence to drive a light motor vehicle provides authorization to drive transport vehicles within that class, and that absence of a specific endorsement is not automatically fatal to the insurer’s liability. The case at hand holds that the driver-owner was authorized to drive both non-transport and transport vehicles at the time of the accident. Relying on the Mukund Dewangan guidance and the Shaji decision, the Kerala High Court held that no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive the vehicle in question; the tribunal’s liability finding against the insurer was justified, and the appeal was dismissed, with the award maintained.
MACA Nos. 1031 of 2015 and 1509 of 2015 This is a consolidated Motor Accident Claims Appeal before the Kerala High Court arising from an award of Rs. 2,95,500/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP MV No. 1806/2008 (deceased Eldho) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants in MACA No. 1509/2015 are Mariyamma (mother of the deceased) and her siblings, who appeal against the quantum; the 1st respondent in MACA No. 1031/2015 is the driver, with the owner and insurer as subsequent respondents. Conversely, the 1st respondent in MACA No. 1031/2015 (Joseph) appeals against the Tribunal’s quantum, joined by the insurer. The High Court undertakes a re-appraisal of the evidence, including the deceased’s income and the notional income doctrine, reliance on Ramachandrappa for notional income, and application of Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Somwati precedents to determine future prospects, multiplier, and deductions. It fixes notional income at Rs. 8,000 for loss of dependency, applies 40% future prospects, and uses a 17-multiplier with 1/2 deduction for living expenses, accordingly recalculating the loss of dependency and other heads. The result is a consolidated award of Rs. 12,54,100/-, with 8% interest, to be deposited within two months and disbursed per Tribunal’s ratio to petitioners. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
This Original Petition (OP(Crl.) No. 295 of 2021) challenges the order in CMP 1542/2021 that restored M.C.184/2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottappalam, which had been dismissed for default on 25 February 2021 (Ext.P3). M.C.184/2020 was filed by the respondents, wife and daughter, of the first petitioner seeking reliefs under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The petitioners, who are the respondents in M.C.184/2020, contended that M.C.184/2020 was posted on several dates (16.12.2020; 2.1.2021; 17.2.2021; 25.2.2021) with no representation on hearing dates, leading to dismissal for default. They argued that once a case is dismissed for default, the Magistrate has no inherent jurisdiction to restore it and there is no Cr.P.C provision permitting restoration of such a dismissal; Section 362 Cr.P.C prohibits alteration except for clerical errors. The Magistrate, relying on Preeju David v. Minor Mebel, held that there is implied authority to restore the matter in appropriate cases. The High Court noted the benevolent nature of the DV Act and purposive interpretation but ultimately found no illegality warranting interference, dismissing the petition while upholding the restoration to file for merits. The judgment reinforces judicial discretion to restore in appropriate circumstances but closes the petition as meritless.
This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Ramesh Babu, sole accused in Crime No.259/2025 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The case relates to offences alleged under Section 354A IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9P, 9l and 10 of the POCSO Act, with the prosecution alleging that the petitioner, while acting as the victim’s tuition teacher, kissed and touched the victim on her chest on multiple occasions in 2021–2022 with sexual intent. The petitioner contends the accusation is false and points to his custody since 19.02.2025, arguing there is no other student grievance and suggesting potential motive linked to the victim’s relationship with another boy. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasising the seriousness of the allegations. The Court weighs the gravity of the offences against the fact of prolonged custody and reiterates the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Manish Sisodia v. DOE, the Court adopts a bail-friendly approach, while referencing Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. Ultimately, the Court grants bail with stringent conditions: a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no travel abroad, no commission of analogous offences, and compliance with statutory conditions, noting the observations are limited to this bail petition.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 This Bail Application before the High Court of Kerala arises from Crime No. 806/2024 of Anchal Police Station. The petitioner, Gokul Krishnan alias Monu, is alleged to have participated in an incident on 12 July 2024 in which he and others restrained the complainant, brandished a sword stick, threatened murder, and caused injuries with a helmet and a sword; charges include sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b), 3(5), 35(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner had previously sought anticipatory bail (BA No.10100/2024), which the Court declined, directing surrender; the petitioner surrendered on 25.03.2025 and has been in custody since. Counsel for the petitioner submits willingness to comply with stringent conditions and relies on the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing that he is ready to cooperate with investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting seriousness of the offences and risk to investigation. The Court notes binding authorities including Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870), Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) to reaffirm the bail principle. Ultimately, the Court allows the bail application with stringent conditions, balancing fair trial rights with public interest.
This Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerns three accused (Nos. 1 to 3) in Crime No. 253/2025 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, alleged to have abducted a defacto complainant on 23.02.2025 in a Wagener car, abducting him to murder with threats, chilli powder, and injuries inflicted by all accused. Accused 1 allegedly caused hurt and the others assaulted various body parts. The matter was argued by counsel for the petitioners (advocates CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL, MINTU CHERIYAN, JUANITA ROCH, ANAMIKA P S) and the Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor highlighted serious allegations and criminal antecedents of Accused 1, opposing bail, while counsel for petitioners contended the case is a false case foisted and that the petitioners are ready to comply with any conditions. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations and the arrest of all petitioners on 25.02.2025, but concluded that Accused 1 cannot be released on bail at this stage. However, in a careful assessment of facts and circumstances, the court allowed bail for Petitioners 2 and 3 under stringent conditions, balancing public interest and individual liberty. The order also cites the principle from Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala for guidance and clarifies that non-compliance with conditions can lead to cancellation of bail.
This writ petition concerns five technicians employed as Demonstrator/Workshop Instructors (Electronics) seeking promotion to the post of Lecturer in Engineering/Technology in polytechnic colleges run by the IHRD. The petitioners contend that under the Special Rules in force since 2001, promotion to lecturer required specific qualifications (a degree in Engineering Technology with 60% marks or a pass in Section A and B of AMIE) with three years of regular service; they argue that vacancies arose before the 2011 amendment to these rules, and even though they acquired the necessary qualifications only after 7 February 2011, those vacancies should be filled under the erstwhile Rules or at least through transitional arrangements. The respondents, IHRD, counter that amended Special Rules 2014 govern recruitment and that promotions were deferred due to financial constraints; an internal 35% quota for those in service as of 07.02.2011 is preserved. The High Court dismissed the petitions in 2021, holding that petitioners could not be promoted under the amended regime. On review, the court recalls its earlier decision, holds that petitioners qualified under the amended Rules may be considered for internal selection under the 2014 Rules, and directions are issued to complete the selection within three months. The judgment balances old and new rules, financial constraints, and the statutory framework governing appointments to lecturer posts in IHRD institutions.
This Kerala High Court revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C challenges the Family Court, Thrissur’s order in MC 298/2014. The 1st petitioner, Jayasree, wife and mother of two, sought maintenance for herself and her two minor children; the Family Court granted Rs. 2,000 per month to each child but declined maintenance to the wife, on the ground that she refused to live with the respondent without a reasonable cause. The respondent, Shivaprasad, employed abroad with substantial earnings, contested claims of neglect and urged that the petitioner had no inability to maintain herself and that she left the matrimonial home without valid cause. The revision contends that under Section 125 Cr.P.C the court must assess three preconditions: neglect to maintain by the husband, the wife’s inability to maintain herself, and the husband’s sufficiency to maintain her; it asserts the Family Court misapplied Section 125(4) and relied on grounds meant for cancellation after an order, not for denial at the initial stage. Citing Sunitha Kachwaha (2014 KHC 4690), the court emphasizes the need to plead and prove the three factors. Moideen v. Nabeesha (2007 (1) KHC 44) is distinguished as inapplicable to the facts here. The High Court allows the revision, reverses the denial of maintenance to the wife, and remands MC for quantum fixation within two months.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4822 OF 2021 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns Aysha Sultana, a film director and public figure, who sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 21/2021 of the Kavaratti Police Station, Lakshadweep. The FIR accuses her of sedition under Section 124-A IPC and for making imputations prejudicial to national integration under Section 153-B IPC, arising from remarks made during a Malayalam TV discussion on Media One about the Union Territory’s revised Covid-19 quarantine SOPs. The applicant allegedly stated that the Central Government was using a “bio weapon” against Lakshadweep residents, a remark the prosecution contends tends to create disharmony and attract sedition as well as offences under 153-B. The applicant contends the remarks were critical commentary on public policy, not an attempt to subvert the government or to incite violence, and she promptly apologized after the controversy. The Lakshadweep Administration counters that such statements could undermine national integration and public order; it relies on sedition jurisprudence and 153-B to argue a potential offence even absent violence. The court, noting that bail is not a trial and that the offences require a prima facie case and proper mens rea, finds that prima facie the charges may not be attracted, and grants interim anticipatory bail, making it absolute with conditions and bonds. The decision demonstrates a careful balancing of free speech and public order, grounded in Supreme Court precedents, while preserving the applicant’s liberty during investigation.
CRL.MC No. 2845 of 2023; CRL.MC No. 2850 of 2023 Two Criminal Misc. petitions under Section 482 CrPC challenge orders of the Sessions Court at Alappuzha, which cancelled bail previously granted to the petitioner in NDPS/IPC offences (Crime Nos. 1930/2018 and 1574/2017) on account of involvement in a later case (460/2021). The petitions were heard together due to common questions of law. The petitioner contends that mere registration of a subsequent crime cannot by itself justify cancellation of bail and that there must be a live link or substantial factors connecting the earlier bail grant to the later offence; reliance is placed on Godson v. State of Kerala and Renjith v. State of Kerala to oppose automatic cancellation. The Public Prosecutor argues that the Supreme Court in P. v. Madhya Pradesh and Another has enumerated criteria under which bail can be revoked, including misuse of liberty by involvement in further crimes; reliance is also placed on Edwin Thomas and Dolat Ram and on precedents such as Gurcharan Singh and Puran to justify the State’s action. The High Court holds that the accused did violate a bail condition by participating in a crime (460/2021) and that supervening circumstances justify cancellation of bail. It also clarifies the distinction between setting aside an unjustified order and cancelling bail, and cites several authorities. The petitions are dismissed, but the Court notes that surrender and reapplication for regular bail could be considered under applicable NDPS rules.
This is OP(C) No.2400 of 2021, a Kerala High Court original petition challenging the maintainability of an election petition filed in the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam, concerning Division No.29/Willington Island North of the Kochi Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, Padmakumari T., challenges Exhibit P3, an order by the Munsiff dismissing the interlocutory application to dismiss the election petition, arguing multiple procedural defects in the petition under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and related rules. The respondents include N. Venugopal, C. D. Nandakumar, Josephine Juliet Raju, and Stanley Poulose. The petition canvasses issues such as non-attestation of pages under Section 165(2), improper verification under Section 167(1)(c), lack of an affidavit in support of corrupt-practice allegations, defective copies, and non-identical copies served on respondents. The petition’s arguments stress the sacrosanct nature of the electorate’s verdict and question the trial court’s handling of preliminary objections. The court undertakes a rigorous statutory reading, tracing authorities from Arikala Narasa Reddy to several Supreme Court precedents to emphasize strict adherence to statutory requirements in election matters. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, holding that the objections do affect the root maintainability and that the petition cannot be sustained. The decision underscores the judiciary’s duty to enforce procedural exactness in election petitions within the four corners of the statute.
Being aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur, refusing to condone delay in filing appeal and dismissing I.A.No.225 of 2013 in A.A.No.79 of 2013 arising from OA 4304/1976, the petitioner C. Ramadasan challenges the order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The first respondent in OA 4304/1976 had his claim upheld and a Purchase Certificate issued, while the petitioner, not a party to OA proceedings, contends that he was a sharer in the property and therefore entitled to be heard before any purchase certificate was issued. The petitioner sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal on grounds that he learned of the purchase certificate only when it was produced in OS 53/2012; however, Ext.P6 (the appellate order) condoned the delay, a decision vehemently opposed by the petitioner as lacking reason and evidence. The learned court notes that the appellate authority did not conduct any inquiry or collect evidence on disputed facts and merely accepted the swearing on record, which is improper. Relying on liberal principles advocated in Thayyil Muhammed v. Koorimannil Pattiyil Showkath Ali and Others, the High Court holds that the order requires interference and remand for fresh inquiry with opportunities for both sides to adduce evidence, so that a merits-based decision can be made. The court sets aside Ext.P6 and directs fresh inquiry and decision, with a three-month window to dispose of IA 225/2013, and makes clear that it expresses no view on the merits of the case.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard Bail Application No. 4532 of 2025 filed by the second accused, Alex V. George, in Crime No. 760/2024 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam, for offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner contends that the allegations are unfounded; he is only the 2nd accused while the 1st accused is already arrested. It is argued that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, whose case arises from a failed visa-sponsorship scheme in which the complainant claims to have paid Rs 1,47,700 and did not receive the promised visa or refund. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but reports no antecedents against the petitioner. The court recognized the broad jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, among others, and emphasized that arrest should not occur routinely; the existence of power to arrest does not require its exercise. It also cited Manish Sisodia on bail for grave economic offences. After balancing the facts—seriousness of the offence versus lack of antecedents and the co-accused on bail—the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks, bond Rs 50,000 with two sureties, cooperation, not leaving India, restrictions on similar offences, and potential for further investigation and recovery. The order also notes Anzar Azeez principles as applicable to this case.
This is a motor vehicle accident compensation appeal under MACA No.952/2015 arising from O.P.(M.V) No.954/2012 before the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The deceased Vijil died from injuries sustained in a road collision on 15.09.2010 when a bus, driven by the 2nd respondent and owned by the 1st respondent, was hit by an oncoming lorry owned by the 4th respondent and insured by the 6th respondent. The tribunal apportioned liability equally between the two insurers, and awarded Rs.4,30,000 as compensation with interest and costs. The appellants (parents and siblings of the deceased) challenge the quantum, particularly under the head of loss of dependency. The High Court scrutinizes the evidence, applies established Supreme Court precedents to re-evaluate income, future prospects, and dependents, and rectifies several heads of compensation. Notably, the court fixes the monthly income at Rs.7,500 for the year 2010, grants 40% future prospects, and holds that siblings cannot be treated as dependents in the absence of evidence. It also reconsiders loss of estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering, aligning with recent precedents (e.g., Pranay Sethi, Satinder Kaur, Somwati) to determine a revised sum. The appeal is allowed, enhancing the overall compensation by Rs.8,26,000 and directing deposit by the insurers, with a two-month deadline and no interest on delayed amounts.
BAIL APPL. NO. 251 OF 2023 In B.A. No. 251 of 2023, before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, the sole accused Saidali @ Shemi seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in Crime No. 1071/2022 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station. The matter was heard on 2 February 2023 and the order was delivered on 14 February 2023. The prosecution alleges that on 21 December 2022, the defacto complainant was travelling on a motorcycle along Mukkola road when the accused allegedly restrained him, shouted obscene words, and assaulted him on the face, after which he stabbed him with a knife causing injuries to the left hand and back. Offences under IPC 341 (wrongful restraint), 294(b) (obscene words), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 307 (attempt to murder) are invoked, with a further allegation under Section 201 IPC for concealing the weapon and thwarting investigation. The petitioner contends innocence and maintains he has no criminal antecedents; he has been in custody since 27 December 2022. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence, the use of a weapon, non-recovery of the weapon, and the accused’s alleged antecedents including crimes in 2012–2013. After considering the record, the judge grants regular bail subject to standard conditions: bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties, non-interference with witnesses, cooperation, appearance before the investigating officer, no inducement or new offences, and a provision for cancellation on violation.
MACA Nos. 2709/2012 and 2177/2013 Common Judgment in MACA Nos. 2709 of 2012 and 2177 of 2013 arises from an accident on 12 July 2007 when the appellant Joshy (claimant) sustained injuries in a motorcycle-van collision on a public road near Vellanchira, Irinjalakuda. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 1,18,642 with 7.5% interest. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 2,65,883, after re-calculating heads such as loss of earnings, loss of disability, pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The Court applied the ratio of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to justify fixing monthly income at Rs 6,000 for the year 2007, though in this case it increased the multiplier to 16 and 15.14% disability. The court found that the Tribunal’s fixation of monthly income at Rs 2,500 was on the lower side; it allowed additional amounts: Rs 27,500 as additional loss of earnings for a five-month period, Rs 8,000 under pain and suffering, and Rs 10,000 under loss of amenities. The court also confirmed a recovery right in favor of the insurer for want of Fitness Certificate and Permit, and provided that the insurer may recover the entire award amount from the insured upon deposit. The 2177/2013 appeal was dismissed, while 2709/2012 was allowed as indicated.
OT.Rev Nos. 84/2018; 75/2018; 78/2018; 77/2018; 79/2018; 80/2018; 82/2018; 81/2018; 86/2018; 91/2018; 92/2018; 94/2018 This judgment consolidates a batch of OT.Revision petitions (Nos. 84/2018 and connected cases) filed by the State of Kerala challenging orders of the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal dated 5 March 2018 in TA(VAT) Nos. 564–569/2014 and corresponding cross-objections. The core legal issue concerns the scope of reassessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003, in a context where dealers opted for a compounded rate of tax under Section 8. The Full Bench of this Court, after noting a division of opinion in C.C. Sebastian v State of Kerala and State of Kerala v Muhammed Ali A.M., concluded that Section 25 provides broad reassessment power in various scenarios such as escaped assessment, under‑assessment, improper rates, and impermissible deductions, and that compounding does not immunize a dealer from reassessment. The court rejected the proposition in A.M. Muhammed Ali and held that the powers under Sections 25, 56 and 66 are separate and independently exercisable to safeguard revenue. The decision also clarifies that deeming provisions (Section 21) and the compounding regime do not bar comprehensive scrutiny in cases of misrepresentation or fraud. Ultimately, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s common order and remitted the matters to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to dispose within four months."
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule items 1 to 4 (bulk of which are agricultural lands) and item 4 movables, filed by the plaintiffs, who are the sons and heirs of Lekshmikutty and Raman Kunjuraman; the trial court partitioned items 1 to 4 among plaintiffs 1–4 and defendants 1–2 by a preliminary decree, directing the parties to seek final decree for actual division. The first appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision only to the extent of plaint schedule item 1, holding that the Government land could not be partitioned and that the suit was not maintainable since the Government was not a party. The High Court (N. Anil Kumar, J.) held that possessory rights over Government land can be a substantive, partitionable interest among co-possessors in continuation of a family lineage, even where title is not with the plaintiffs. It relied on precedents holding that possessory title is heritable, divisible and transferable, and that the State need not be impleaded in every possessory partition action. The Court restored the trial court’s findings on item 1 and allowed the appeal, clarifying that possessory rights may be treated as a family asset for partition, with the Government retaining rights to restoration under law. The Government’s pe rshape remains subject to lawful restoration.
