The petitioners, two 15-year-old students of Chemmanthoor High School, Punalur, participated in the Punalur Sub District Schools Sasthrolsavam 2022-23 with a Still Model on Urban Development, Waste Disposal and Sustainable Development (Social Science). Their display was on 22.10.2022 and the results were announced at 7:00 p.m. on the same day, wherein they were awarded a ‘C’ grade and relegated to the 3rd position. They preferred an appeal before the Appeal Committee, but the Committee dismissed the appeal by Exhibit P6 without addressing the merits. The petition seeks to quash Exhibit P6 and direct the 4th respondent to reconsider the petitioners’ appeal and to permit participation in the Kollam Revenue District Schools Expo 2022-23 at Kottarakkara on 03.11.2022. The petition was argued by Adv. Manoj Ramaswamy for the petitioners and SMT. Mary Beena Joseph, S.R. G.P., for the respondents. The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ commendable effort but held that evaluation of academic presentations lies within professional expertise and is not ordinarily revisable by a writ court under Article 226. Citing the need to defer to educational authorities, the Court declined to interfere, though it praised the petitioners’ environmental vision. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, acknowledging the petitioners’ perseverance for future success.
WP(C).No.11599 of 2018 (Y) Ashok B.S., a retired Finance Manager of KSBC (BEVCO), filed WP(C) 11599 of 2018 seeking release of retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia, and ARrears, along with provident fund, alleging illegal retention by BEVCO. The BEVCO contended that, post-retirement, the petitioner remained liable for a substantial liability arising from non-remittance of differential excise duty during his tenure as Finance Manager, which allegedly led to interest and penalties. It relied on statutory provisions in the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1986 (KSR), particularly Rule 78 (recovery from gratuity) and Rule 76, along with Rule 3 of Part III and its Note 2, to justify deduction from retirement benefits. The Respondents argued that the government did not waive the interest and that the liability stemmed from the petitioner’s acts in office, and so recovery from gratuity was permissible under Rule 78. The Court, however, held that BEVCO cannot retain any amount from the petitioner’s retiral benefits without a proper enquiry and established liability; Ext.P8 (W.P.(C) No. 20268/2018) and the decision in Prakash Chandran v. Kerala Gramin Bank were cited to emphasize that no liability can be imposed on a retired employee without due process. The Court ordered the immediate release of all retiral benefits, after adjusting amounts already paid, within one month from the judgment date.
Mat.Appeal Nos. 948 of 2016; 949 of 2016 These matrimonial appeals arise from two Family Court decrees in Thrissur (OP No.659 of 2013 and OP No.444 of 2014) involving Praseen K.V. and Ambilik A. The marriage was solemnised on 07.05.2012, with the couple living in Kerala and later in Abu Dhabi. The wife filed OP 659/2013 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging cruelty, desertion, and ill-treatment, while the husband countered that the wife’s conduct—insults, defamation to his employer, and other acts—constituted cruelty and a lack of bonafides, justifying a decree for divorce. The Family Court held that the husband was not entitled to a divorce, while granting restitution of conjugal rights to the wife. Both parties appealed to the Kerala High Court. The High Court noted that Ext. B12, an email to the husband’s employer seeking help to patch up the relationship and describing concerns about his behaviour, did not establish cruelty, and the email itself did not warrant dissolution. The court relied on Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu and Uthara v. Sivapriyan to discuss the balance between incompatibility and legal grounds for ending a marriage. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeals and decreed restitution of conjugal rights, preserving the status quo and denying the divorce sought by the husband.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed in BA No.4447 of 2025 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioners—Surendran Pillai (63), Rama Bhai (60), and Akash Pillai (32)—are accused in Crime No.160/2025 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging offences under Sections 85, 74 and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The defacto complainant is the wife of the third petitioner, and the case concerns alleged mental and physical harassment within a marital relationship, with matrimonial disputes typically handled by the Family Court. The petitioners contend that the allegations are not correct and express willingness to abide by any conditions the Court may impose. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing serious allegations, but the Court notes the case is essentially a matrimonial dispute and emphasizes the presumption of liberty. Relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It grants bail with stringent conditions: appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; cooperation with investigation; no inducement or threats; no travel outside India without permission; no similar offences; and a provision for cancellation of bail if conditions are violated. The decision aligns with Sushila Aggarwal and related jurisprudence on conditional bail and safeguarding personal liberty.
Crl.A Nos. 526 & 573 of 2010 These are two criminal appeals (Crl.A. Nos. 526 and 573 of 2010) from Kozhikode challenging a 2010 conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against two village officers for demanding and accepting a bribe to issue an Adangal Certificate. The prosecution alleged that on 18 April 2002 the accused, abusing their official positions, demanded ₹200 from the decoy PW1 and accepted ₹100 each on 19 April 2002 at the village office after a pre-trap, facilitated by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) with trap witness PW11. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to one year’s rigorous imprisonment plus fines. The High Court examined whether proof of demand had been established beyond reasonable doubt and found that although the notes were recovered and the phenolphthalein test was positive, there was insufficient legal evidence of a demand. The court relied on constitutional decisions (Neeraj Dutta and Jagtar Singh) that a demand by the public servant is sine qua non and may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence; in this case, the sole witness PW1 turned hostile, and PW4 also did not corroborate the demand. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants and remitted proceedings against PW1 under Section 340/195(1) Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasizes the rigorous requirement to prove demand and clarifies the evidentiary standards for PC Act prosecutions.
O.T.Rev.No.91/2021 & O.T.Rev.No.97/2021 This court consolidated two IV/OT revision petitions arising from Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) matters where petitioners had initially withdrawn their second appeals under an Amnesty Scheme, only to later file restoration petitions before the KVAT Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the restoration petitions on the ground that appeals dismissed as withdrawn could not be restored under the KVAT Appellate Tribunal Regulations. The petitioners argued that the substantive issue in the appeals had already been resolved by judgments of this Court in their favor and that all impediments to restoring the appeals should be addressed so the merits could be decided. The High Court, recognizing a broader jurisdictional question, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider restoration and merits, noting that the High Courts possess plenary powers and that jurisdiction should not bar restoration where justice requires. The bench relied on M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala (2000) 1 SCC 666 to affirm the High Court’s supervisory role to restore and decide the appeals on merits, subject to a reasonable outer time limit. The result is a remand directive directing the KVAT Appellate Tribunal to treat the appeals as restored and to dispose of them on merits within three months of receiving a copy of the order.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2711 of 2012) from the Kerala High Court concerning compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OP(MV) No. 1229/2007 for the death of Sathyapalan in a road accident on 27.06.2007. The appellants, wife and children of the deceased, challenged an award of Rs. 2,04,000, contending it was inadequate. They argued that the Tribunal erred in not adopting a realistic notional income for the deceased (a manual labourer) and in not applying 10% future prospects; they also contended that the Tribunal undervalued heads of Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, and Loss of Consortium, and that Pain and Suffering should be compensated separately. Respondents KSRTC and others defended the Tribunal’s award as correct. The High Court, applying principles from Ramachandrappa and Minu Rout, held that the notional income should be Rs. 6,000 per month with 10% future prospects and that one-third of the income should be deducted for personal expenses. It increased Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate to Rs. 15,000 each and Loss of Consortium to Rs. 1,20,000, while deleting Pain and Suffering as a separate head, following United India Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur. It enhanced Loss of Dependency to Rs. 5,80,800 and directed payment with 7.5% interest, deposit within two months, and costs on the enhanced amount.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2014; MAT.APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2014 These matrimonial appeals arise from a common judgment of the Family Court, Chavara in O.P. Nos. 2 of 2013 and O.P.(HMA) No.1 of 2013, concerning recovery of gold ornaments and patrimony, and a plea for divorce. The wife, Bindhu, represented with her children, alleged cruelty, dowry demands, and misappropriation of ornaments and ₹2.5 lakh patrimony; she claimed 41 sovereigns of gold (the court ultimately references 31 sovereigns) and funds were misappropriated by the husband. The husband, Rajendran, denied dowry demands, asserted the ornaments were in the wife’s custody, and said renovations were funded by loans; he denied misappropriation. The Family Court dismissed the HMA petition and partly allowed the divorce petition, granting recovery of 26 sovereigns and ordering maintenance of ₹1,000 to the wife and ₹1,500 to each child, with past maintenance. On appeal, the Kerala High Court found cruelty as a ground for divorce despite absence of physical violence, held that there was irretrievable breakdown, and granted the divorce in Mat.Appeal No.1159/2014. It also examined the ornaments’ evidence and held that the wife was entitled to 31 sovereigns or their value, directing return within one month. Mat.Appeal No.1146/2014 was partly allowed, maintaining the rest of the Family Court’s orders. No costs were awarded.
ST.Rev. Nos. 13, 14 & 15 of 2021 These Sales Tax Revision petitions (ST.Rev. Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 2021) are before the Kerala High Court in a common order by Justices S. V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji. The revisions challenge orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench, Kozhikode) arising from assessments of Hotel Veeyemmar International (P) Ltd. for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The core issue concerns whether the Annexure-A assessment order was barred by appeal/limitation and whether the Tribunal erred in relying on a judgment later reversed by this Court (Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd), a point stressed by the State. The State contends that the finding of limitation is a question of fact to be independently determined, and that the Tribunal’s reliance on the Breezeland ratio was misplaced. The Court, while agreeing with the State’s argument that remand is warranted, sets aside the Tribunal’s order and remits the matter for fresh consideration according to law, leaving merits open for adjudication by the Tribunal. The revisions are allowed, with annexures detailing assessment orders and appellate/trial tribunal orders. The dispute concerns the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and related revision proceedings.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1041 OF 2016 Jinto, the revision petitioner, faced conviction under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of 7 litres of illicit arrack recovered from his residential premises on 17.06.2006. The trial court sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh with default imprisonment; the appellate court affirmed the conviction. The High Court, in revision, allowed the petition, set aside both the trial and appellate judgments, and acquitted the petitioner under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The court found substantial defects in the prosecution’s chain of custody and seizure procedure: Ext. P1 seizure mahazar lacked a specimen impression of the seal; there was no forwarding note; the laboratory report referenced Ext. P12 without clear dates for the sample’s dispatch and arrival; the specimen impression of the seal was not exhibited; and the delay in investigation and filing of the final report raised serious doubts. The prosecution’s reliance on the sample’s chemical analysis did not overcome these gaps. The court referred to Sasidharan, Moothedath Sivadasan, Bhaskaran and Rajamma on the necessity of a foolproof chain of custody and the danger of convicting without establishing linkage from seizure to laboratory analysis. It emphasized that possession and storing are distinct offences and that the prosecution failed to prove dominion or control over the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, acquitting the accused and cancelling bail.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 71 of 2016) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, arises from OP(MV) No.349 of 2011 on the file of the Addl MACT, Alappuzha. The appellant insurer challenges the Tribunal’s award of Rs.11,57,000 (with 9% interest) in a death claim relating to Aneesh, who died in a road traffic accident on 11.11.2009 at Eramalloor Junction on the Alappuzha–Ernakulam National Highway. The insurer contends errors in income estimation, the application of future prospects, and the deduction for personal expenses, arguing that Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi dictate higher income and future-prospects adjustments; the insurer also seeks adjustments in various heads of compensation. The respondents are the parents and sister of the deceased. The court examines the evidence, notes that Exts. A1–A6 were marked, and scrutinizes the Tribunal’s computation. Applying the principles from Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi, the High Court revises certain heads (income, future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection) and, while disallowing pain and suffering, reduces the total compensation from Rs.11,57,000 to Rs.11,09,600, ruling that the appeal is allowed in part and the Tribunal’s other findings remain intact. The net effect is a Rs.45,400 downward revision. It concludes with a partial grant of relief to the appellant, while affirming most of the Tribunal’s conclusions.
R.C.Rev. No.253 of 2018 is a Kerala High Court revision petition filed by landladies challenging the Rent Control Court’s fixation of fair rent for a shop room in a commercial complex near Lalam junction, Meenachil taluk. The Rent Control Court had determined the area as 185.85 sq ft and fixed fair rent at Rs 13.52 per sq ft per month, based on evidence from landladies’ PW1–PW3 and DW1; the tenant disputed the area and the rate, contending the rent fixed reflects fair rent for the premises. The landladies argued Ext X1, a lease for a nearby 3155 sq ft premises at Rs 1,07,270 per month (about Rs 34 per sq ft) shows the subject premises in a more important commercial locality facing a State Highway and should command higher rent; they also noted that facilities enjoyed by the nearby tenant justify higher rent. The tenant argued that the rent already paid is fair and that Ext X1 is not comparable. The Appellate Authority affirmed the Rent Control Court’s decision. The High Court clarified that its power under Section 20 is to correct illegality, irregularity or impropriety, not to re‑weigh evidence, citing Hindustan Petroleum’s standard for erroneous or perverse findings. The court found no illegality in area measurement or rent fixation, but allowed partial relief by ordering a 12% per annum periodical increase in fair rent every three years from the filing date.
This bail petition, BA No.4589 of 2025, arises from Crime No.39/2025 of the Alappuzha Excise Range Office, alleging offences under NDPS Act sections 22(b), 20(b)(ii)A and 29. The petitioner, a 20-year-old, was arrested on 01.03.2025 after agents recovered 7.0886 grams of Methamphetamine and 6 grams of Ganja, forming an intermediate quantity. The applicant has been in custody since 01.03.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated, per the IO report, that there are no criminal antecedents. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations but observed that the contraband quantity is intermediate and, therefore, Section 37 NDPS would not automatically apply. The judge emphasized the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and later reinforcing authorities such as Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, while also referring to Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala for jurisdictional consistency. It held that, given the period of detention and other circumstances, bail could be granted under stringent conditions. The order warns that if the petitioner commits a similar offence in the future, the jurisdictional court may cancel bail. The decision aligns with the constitutional guarantee of fair trial and proportional use of pre-trial liberty, under BNSS 2023 and NDPS provisions, subject to conditions.
Muhammadali, the petitioner, challenges an order in O.S. No. 84 of 2007 of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi, which declared a sale deed executed in the defendant's name void and directed partition of the property in question. The core issue concerns the mental capacity of the respondent, SaidmuHAMMED, who was undergoing treatment for epilepsy and mental illness at the time of the sale deed. The respondent was examined as PW-3, but his cross-examination could not proceed rationally, leading to the trial court discarding his evidence and dismissing related suit O.S. No. 111 of 2007. On appeal, Exhibit P1 produced a common judgment remanding the matters and directing an enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC to assess the acceptance of PW-3’s evidence, with possible appointment of a next friend and continuation of the trial in accordance with law. After remand, the trial court appointed the respondent's wife as next friend, relying on pre-remand medical evidence and holding that a detailed enquiry under Rule 15 was unnecessary. The High Court, citing Kishore Samrite and C.L. Cleetus, held that the trial court disregarded appellate directions and conducted an enquiry improperly, and thus set aside Exhibit P4. It directed a fresh, open enquiry under Rule 15 in strict compliance with Exhibit P1’s directions.
RP.No.262 of 2021 in A.S.No.484 of 1998 This is a Kerala High Court single-judge decision in RP No. 262 of 2021, arising out of AS 484 of 1998. The review challenges the Court’s 16.11.2018 judgment which dismissed the suit for specific performance of Ext. A3 contract (dated 18.09.1993) executed by the plaintiff (and on behalf of her minor children) against the first defendant and her children. The original suit (O.S.164/1994 and related proceedings) culminated in a decree against the plaintiff in the injunction suit and a dismissal of the suit for specific performance; the appellate court had dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the trial court’s conclusions. The review petitioners argued that Virgo Industries and related precedents require a different approach under Order II Rule 2 CPC and that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court should bar or alter the effect of these earlier proceedings; they invoked the principle that a review is not an appeal and that there may be grounds to defeat res judicata. The respondents contended Virgo Industries is binding as a law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 and that the review petition is not maintainable; they argued that the court should not re-hear an erroneous decision. Ultimately, the court held that the review petition is not maintainable, that Virgo Industries and the other cited authorities are appropriately applied, and dismissed the RP. The bench emphasized the narrow scope of review and the binding nature of higher court precedents.
This High Court appeal challenges an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, dated 21 August 2013 in OP(MV) 78/2007, which dismissed a petition seeking compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Bijo Chacko in a motor accident on 6 August 2006. The deceased was riding a motorcycle KL-7/K 9339 when it collided with a Maruti car KL-5/L 1733 driven allegedly rashly and at excessive speed. The petitioners, as legal representatives of the deceased, claimed compensation under Section 163A MV Act and argued that fault on the part of the rider or driver need not be proved, since 163A provides for no‑fault compensation to the dependants of a person killed in a road accident. The respondents/insurers contested, raising issues including the vehicle involvement and license status, and contended that the Tribunal erred by treating negligence as a prerequisite to compensation. The Tribunal held the petition not maintainable under Section 163A and dismissed it. The High Court held that the no‑fault scheme of Section 163A excludes the necessity to prove negligence and relied on the dicta of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Joseph V.V. @ Johny and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Vanitha. The appeal is allowed; the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider evidence and pass a fresh award with opportunity for both sides to be heard.
Gilbert Thomas, the appellant, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda’s quantum of compensation awarded for injuries from a motorcycle accident on 9 December 2008. The Tribunal found negligence on the offending driver, but fixed the appellant’s monthly income at Rs. 3,500 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,10,700. The insurer admitted the accident and policy but contested negligence; the evidence consisted of PW1–PW2 and Exts. A1–A22 with no defence evidence. On appeal, the court examined whether the quantum was just and reasonable and whether the Tribunal properly valued disability, future prospects, and earnings. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Pranay Sethi, and Sarla Verma, the High Court re-evaluated the claim. It held that the petitioner’s notional income should reflect his nursing qualification, fixing it at Rs. 8,000 per month, and accepted 23.5% permanent disability (per Ext. A19) rather than the Tribunal’s 15%. It applied a 40% future prospects addition and an 18 multiplier, in line with Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, recomputing loss of earnings and other heads of damages. Heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, personal assistance, and extra nourishment were increased. The result: enhanced total compensation of Rs. 7,97,612, and directions for deposit with interest, within two months, with payment to the claimant thereafter.
This High Court of Kerala hears an appeal by five claimants (Sindhu, Jithin, Nithin, Vasu and Leela) seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of Ravi, a tailor, in a motor-vehicle accident on 23 February 2009. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, had awarded Rs 11,21,000 in total and held the driver negligent, with the Oriental Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount with interest. The appellants challenge the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs 5,000 instead of Rs 9,000 evidenced by Ext. A10; Ext. A10, together with the FI statement, indicates the deceased’s avocation as a tailor and the true earning capacity; the court should grant higher dependency, applying the principles in Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to set a more realistic base income. They contend future prospects should be increased by 25% (per Pranay Sethi) rather than 30%, given the deceased’s age group (40–50). They also challenge the Tribunal’s treatment of loss of consortium and love & affection head, urging consolidation under the Pranay Sethi framework and Somwati, with adjustments to funeral and estate heads. The High Court accepts the higher income, applies 25% for future prospects, recalibrates consortium, deletes the love & affection head, adjusts funeral/estate amounts, and awards an enhanced total of Rs 5,43,500, directing the insurer to deposit within three months along with costs.
OP (FC) Nos. 415/2021, 416/2021, 417/2021 This trio of original petitions were heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 13 August 2021 for expeditious disposal of matters pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The court anchors its approach on the guiding principles laid down by a Division Bench in Shiju Joy v. Nisha (2021 (2) KLT 607), which directed that litigants should approach the Family Court first for an advance hearing. The petitions—OP (FC) Nos. 415/2021, 416/2021 and 417/2021—concern Jyothsana G. Pradeep and her disputes with Syamlal J.C. and Chandra Kumari. The court notes that these original petitions could not have been entertained as ordinary High Court petitions, but the petitioner’s counsel states an intention to move the Family Court for advance hearing in terms of the Division Bench judgment. On that basis, the High Court disposes of the petitions with a direction that if any application for advance hearing is filed, the Family Court shall hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with the directions in the Shiju Joy v. Nisha judgment. The order underscores the court’s commitment to expedited handling of pending Family Court matters, channeling progress toward the Family Court rather than prolongation in the High Court proceedings.
This writ petition challenges the withholding of retirement benefits of Reema Paul, a retired secretary of the Kolazhy Service Co-operative Bank, on the ground of pending surcharge proceedings under Section 68 and alleged liabilities. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2022, but the bank withheld retirement benefits pending a liability of ₹20,75,220.77 and the absence of a non-liability certificate (Rule 198(8)). The bank contends Rule 198(7) is inapplicable since no disciplinary proceedings were pending at retirement, and Rule 198(8) requires a non-liability certificate within 30 days, which was not issued. The petitioner argues that no termination occurred under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and that mere pendency of Section 68 proceedings cannot justify withholding retiral benefits. The court recalls Division Bench precedents (Philip v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Mohanan Nair) holding that retirement benefits, including gratuity, cannot be unilaterally withheld and that relief under Section 69 is available for recovery, not via set-off from retiral dues. Consequently, the writ is allowed; the bank is directed to disburse full retirement benefits within two months from receipt of the judgment copy. The decision emphasizes that liability certificates must be handled through proper remedies, not unilateral withholding.
