Anilkumar, the appellant-petitioner, challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam’s award dated 04.08.2022 in O.P.(M.V.) No.178/2019 arising from a motor accident on 16.06.2018 involving a KSRTC bus that left him severely injured with brain injury and hemiparesis. The Tribunal assessed the petitioner’s monthly income at ₹12,000 on a notional basis, calculated loss of earnings for 10 months, and awarded head-specific sums for extra nourishment, bystander expenses, and transportation. The petitioner claimed the Tribunal erred by underestimating earnings, failing to recognize loss of future prospects, and inadequately compensating permanent disability and medical needs, urging enhancement of income, treating the disability as 100% occupational, and awarding higher bystander and transportation allowances. The Medical Board Ext.X1 records a 62% disability but notes lifelong assistance is required, guiding the argument that 100% occupational disability is appropriate given hemiparesis. The respondents urged adherence to the Tribunal’s findings and opposed a 100% disability. The High Court ultimately holds 100% occupational disability is justified, applies the multiplier method (15) to re-fix compensation, awards additional sums for transportation and nourishment, and grants ₹1,00,000 for future treatment. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within two months, and disbursement shall be in accordance with Circular No.03/2019. MACA stands allowed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 646 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 646 OF 2023) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No. 55/2022 of the Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range. The Petitioner/Accused No.2, Arun Gopal M.S., is challenging denial of bail in a NDPS case in which MDMA contraband totaling 22.085 grams was recovered from a courier, following a secret information lead. Accused Nos. 1–3 were alleged to have jointly possessed the contraband and the items were seized, with a mahazar describing a sequential transfer of the contraband among the accused before it was recovered from Accused No.1. The prosecution argues that the contraband is a ‘commercial quantity’ and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars bail unless two stringent conditions are satisfied: (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The defence contends there is no evidence of conscious possession by the petitioner, and that the narration in the mahazar renders the sequence improbable; the petitioner’s background and family circumstances warrant bail, especially since custody would affect his dependents. The court reviews established bail jurisprudence, including the meaning of ‘reasonable grounds,’ the conjunctive reading of Section 37(1)(b), and the need not to pronounce a judgment of acquittal at bail stage; after weighing the materials, the court concludes that the two conditions are not satisfied and refuses bail.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 607 OF 2022 This is a criminal revision petition filed under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Shenil Kumar challenging the concurrent conviction and sentence in a cheque-bounce case under section 138 NI Act, arising from C.C. No. 453/2011 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Thrissur) and the appeal in Crl.A. No. 99/2020 (Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur). The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 2,33,475, dated 25.09.2010, to discharge a liability of Rs. 2,10,000 with interest, which was dishonoured. The trial court convicted the accused under NI Act s.138 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,70,000, with default imprisonment of six months. The Sessions Court, in appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision argues for leniency and, piecemeal, seeks time to pay the amount, contending the original liability was Rs. 2,10,000 and the fine should be Rs. 2,70,000. The High Court recalls that revision is supervisory and not a due re-evaluation of evidence, citing several Supreme Court precedents (e.g., State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri; Sanjaysinh Chavan; Kishan Rao; Rangappa; Bir Singh; Kalamani Tex; Krishna Janardhan Bhat) to emphasize limits of revisional interference and the presumption framework under NI Act. Ultimately, the court grants two months to pay the fine and defers the sentence, while indicating the revision’s limited success on merits.
Petitioner M.S. Sree Lakshmi Cashew Company, a Kerala KVAT registered dealer engaged in import and export of cashews, challenged Ext.P7, an order rejecting its application for revision of returns for June 2016, December 2016, and the 2016-17 annual return. After discovery of omissions during internal audit, the firm voluntarily sought revision under the KVAT Act, 2003. Following this court’s directions in a prior writ (Ext.P2), the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7, which found the revision request untenable and faulted the petitioners for non-maintenance of true books and for alleged collusion with a purchasing dealer. The petitioner contended the omissions were clerical and bonafide, arising from a voluntary disclosure with forms and export declarations; no notice under Section 25(1) or Section 67(1) was issued. The respondents defended the order, arguing misstatements in accounts and suppression of taxable sale. The court noted the absence of notice, but relied on the decision in Commercial Tax Officer v. Varghese to permit a reconsideration, emphasizing bonafides and a practical approach. It held that Ext.P7 could not stand and disposed of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the request, in light of Varghese and Ext.P8, within one month, with due notice and opportunity for hearing. The judgment thus enables a pragmatic reassessment rather than automatic denial of revised returns.
This writ appeal arises from a challenge by the National Testing Agency (NTA) to a learned single Judge’s order in W.P.(C) No. 20982 of 2019 directing revision of marks in the UGC NET examination conducted in June 2019. Petitioners Mamatha Sudheendran and Sarath K.S., both post-graduate history candidates, had challenged the accuracy of two questions, including question ID 64635010128 and 64635010156, contending that the answer key was wrong; they argued that the removal of such erroneous questions would have raised their marks, potentially altering their eligibility status for posts such as Assistant Professor or Junior Research Fellow. The single Judge held that only the challenge to question ID 64635010128, filed within the Information Bulletin’s timeline, was permissible and considered, while the rest were not entertained. The NTA, relying on the Information Bulletin, the final keys uploaded after expert review on 12.07.2019, and jurisprudence limiting judicial intervention in academic matters, urged that the challenge must be addressed by experts and that reopening/re-evaluating the entire result would derail an All-India examination process. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the single Judge’s order, and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Information Bulletin procedures and expert determinations must prevail, and that judicial interference is limited in such matters.
This writ petition concerns the construction of the Chalakudy underpass for which the petitioner, M/S EKK Infrastructure Limited, had been issued mining and quarrying permits (Exs. P2–P4) and transit passes (Ex. P4). The 2nd respondent Panchayat issued Exhibit P6 on 12.01.2023 banning heavy vehicles on Peelarmoozhi Kottamuri Road, allegedly to prevent potential damage to a culvert. The petitioner challenges this interdictory order, arguing that the Panchayat has no power to restrict heavy vehicle movement on a road under state control and that the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Motor Vehicles Act vest the authority to regulate such movement with the relevant authorities. The respondent counters that there is a risk of culvert collapse due to heavy vehicle plying and that road safety has to be safeguarded; the matter raised questions about the proper locus of road regulation power. The court ultimately relies on an existing Kerala High Court decision, Jimmichan Mathew v. State of Kerala and others, to hold that the Panchayat cannot issue a ban-like order restricting heavy vehicles on a Panchayat road, and accordingly quashes Exhibit P6, directing the petitioner to ply vehicles on the public road with due safety precautions. The decision balances infrastructure development interests with statutory road-use powers.
RP No. 59 of 2021; RP No. 63 of 2021 This is a joint review petition challenging a common judgment dated 23 July 2020 in W.P.(C) Nos. 38902 of 2017 and 41711 of 2017. The petitioners, scientific faculty of ISST, sought pro rata pension liability for service rendered in government/aided colleges prior to joining ISST, and offered to bear the liability. The High Court’s order (23.07.2020) was interpreted as directing reconsideration by the Government with remittance of pro rata liability once payment was made by petitioners, and later Annexures suggested a substantial liability. In the present order, the learned Judge, after hearing counsel for petitioners and the Government Pleader, found that the petitioners’ willingness to bear the pension liability formed the basis for setting aside Ext.P15 and directing reconsideration after receiving payment. However, after judgment the Government issued Annexure-A; the petitioners cannot be heard to argue that their willingness was not based on an informed decision. Relying on Lily Thomas v. Union of India and Ananda Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuriya, the Court held that review jurisdiction is very limited and no error apparent on the face of the record justifies interference. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed and the judgments affirmed.
This MACA arises from an appeal by the claimant, K.C. Titus, challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.1263/2005 (dated 25 November 2009) for injuries sustained in a road accident on 24 December 2004. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,63,750 against a claim of Rs. 8,00,000, prompting the appeal. The appellant contends that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal was too low and that the medical evidence shows greater disability, pain, loss of amenities, and disfigurement than recognised. He asserts his occupation as a mason with earnings around Rs. 6,000 per month and seeks higher compensation, arguing that the figure for disability and the heads of damages are inadequate. The respondents, represented by the Insurance Company, contend that the Tribunal’s computations in 2004 were correct and urge dismissal of the appeal. The learned Judge scrutinises the evidence, noting the lack of explicit proof of income but relies on Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to justify a higher notional income and a higher percentage of permanent disability. The judge refuses to uphold the Tribunal’s 12% disability finding, adopting 20% disability instead, and partially allows the appeal by substantially enhancing several heads of compensation and ordering interest at 7.5% with directions to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges the faceless assessment regime adopted under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner, a partner in a Kannur-based jewellery business, seeks quashing of Ext. P10 assessment order dated 28.09.2021 and the penalties under Sections 274 read with 271(1)(c) and 271F (Exts. P11 and P11(a)). The petitioner contends that the 2019 Faceless Assessment Scheme (Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B)) was intended to reduce human interface and increase transparency, but glitches in the new IT portal (cited by Ext. P12) obstructed due process. He asserts that he did not receive the draft assessment order (Ext. P11(b)) and the notice dated 23.09.2021 within a reasonable time, alleging violations of natural justice. The petitioner argues that, due to portal failures and limited time to respond, the proceedings should be set aside and a fresh assessment conducted after issuing proper notices and allowing objections. The respondents contend that the glitches referred to were portal-related only and that all notices and the draft order were available to the petitioner electronically; the petitioner did not respond to the draft order or request more time, and an appeal lies under Section 246A. The court ultimately dismisses the petition, noting service of notices, rejects the natural justice challenge, and permits the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks.”
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerns the management and protection of Mullaneri Pond in Kozhinjampara Grama Panchayat, Palakkad district, and the ownership rights of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioners, agricultural landowners and members of the Padasekhara Committee, challenge Ext.P3 dated 22.04.2017, a no objection certificate issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner allowing the Kozhinjampara Grama Panchayat to renovate the pond under Navakerala Mission-Haritha Keralam. The petitioners allege that the renovation involved excavation of sand and ordinary clay from a pond that is the property of the Cochin Devaswom Board, with ownership to remain in trust and not vest in the Panchayat. They seek quashing of Ext.P3 and mandamus restraint against further removal, an enquiry by the 4th respondent, and recovery of amounts collected from the highest bidder for excavated material. The court restrained the 8th respondent from any renovation work and directed counter affidavits, while considering Ext.R1(g) – an application to rectify revenue entries. The judgment discusses protective principles for Devaswom properties (citing A.A. Gopalakrishnan; Travancore Devaswom Board) and the doctrine of parents patriae, reinforcing the Board’s fiduciary duty. Ultimately, the court disposes of the petition by directing the Tahsildar to decide Ext.R1(g) within three months, keeps an interim order in force, and leaves specific reliefs on removal open pending Ext.R1(g) outcome.
This is a revision petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging an eviction order on grounds of bonafide need for landlord’s own occupation. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Mananthavady, allowed eviction under Section 11(3) and rejected the plea under Section 11(4)(v). The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta, confirmed the eviction. The revision petition was admitted and stayed for three weeks (extended). The landlord's son (PW2) sought to start a grocery/stationery business in the petition schedule shop room; the tenant had earlier run a hotel and later a jewellery business from the same premises. The landlord died during pendency of the appeal; the room in question devolved on the respondents in common. The court examined whether the need was bonafide, and whether the second proviso to Section 11(3) (occupant’s livelihood from trade and lack of any other suitable space) was satisfied. Relying on well-established precedents, the courts below found the need to occupy natural, real, sincere and honest, not a mere pretext. The High Court upheld concurrent findings, reiterated the tenant-burden for the second proviso, and dismissed the revision petition, granting the landlord seven months to surrender with conditions and time to vacate.
The petitioner, P S Sasikumar, sought a change of management and ownership of Karuna Upper Primary School, Thennilapuram, Alathur, Palakkad, by transferring management rights from the previous manager (the 5th respondent) to the petitioner pursuant to registration documents dated 5 March 2020. The 4th respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, rejected the application on the ground that staff consent was not assumed to be required; this issue had earlier been examined in W.P.(C) No.23759/2020, where the court held staff consent was not a prerequisite for transfer and directed reconsideration. The matter then traversed through several proceedings and Government actions. The government issued Ext.P8 circular on 24 November 2021, regularizing transfers made before that date if an undertaking on stamp paper worth at least Rs.200 was produced, while clarifying that transfers post-24 November 2021 require prior Director approval. A liability of Rs.1,46,390 was alleged against the transferred manager for treating suspension of two teachers as duty in 2012, with further intimations about recovery. Ext.P12 demanded remittance of this amount before transfer could be effected. The petitioner challenged Ext.P12 as illegal. The court, invoking Vijeesh C.V. and Beevi Umma S., held that the liability for such losses lay with the transferor manager and that the successor cannot be held liable for the predecessor’s misconduct. Ext.P12 was set aside and the application was to be considered without insisting on the Rs.1,46,390 payment, with liberty to proceed against the previous manager under the Revenue Recovery Act.
CO No. 179 of 2022 (with MACA Nos. 58/2017, 74/2017, 22/2020) This judgment, delivered by Justice Devan Ramachandran on 17 March 2023, consolidates four Motor Accident Claims Appeals and Cross Objections arising from a single accident in which two minors were involved. Depu John Philip (death) and Aswin Emerson Mathews (injury) were the victims. The tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and disability. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance challenged the awards (MACA 58/2017 and CO 179/2022), while the claimants (the parents of Depu John Philip) and the injured claimant challenged on grounds of inadequacy (MACA 74/2017 and CO 22/2020). The court undertook a detailed re-evaluation of notional income for a minor, held that 50% contributory negligence imposed on the minor was untenable, and revised multiple heads of compensation. Relying on leading Supreme Court precedents (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Mallikarjun, Vinod v. Suresh Kumar, Mohammed Siddique, Mohammed Noufal, Kurvan Ansari, Meena Devi, etc.), the judge increased dependency awards, adjusted funeral and estate amounts, and clarified disability awards. The judgment also fixes interest at 8.5% and directs deposit of enhanced sums within two months, disposing of the cross-appeals and cross-objections in part with detailed directions for re-payment by the insurer.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 27 of 2005) before the Kerala High Court challenges a trial court decree in O.S. No. 37/1997 for damages arising from alleged injurious falsehood in the fish-export business. The first plaintiff-firm, a recognized exporter of fish products, alleged that the defendants wrongly claimed the plaintiff processed and packed their goods, leading to a US FDA revocation of the plaintiff’s “A” status and a resulting loss of reputation and profits. The trial court partly decreed the suit, awarding nominal/general damages of ₹25,000 with 6% interest from the date of suit and costs. The appellants argued that costs should be proportional to the extent of success, contending that the decree of ₹25,000 reflected only partial relief; they relied on precedents supporting proportionate costs. The respondents argued that normally costs follow the event and requested full costs, citing several authorities that endorse the default rule. The Kerala High Court examined these authorities, distinguishing Precious Blood Missionaries and noting that proportional costs are warranted where success is partial. Ultimately, the court held that, given the suit’s partial success, the plaintiffs are entitled only to proportionate costs, while upholding the ₹25,000 damages decree with 6% interest. The appeal is partly allowed; interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
MACA No. 307/2018; CO 45/2023 Geetha Varma, a banking trainer, was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident on 05.10.2013, leading to cognitive impairment and permanent loss of employment. She filed OP(MV) No. 760/2014 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, seeking Rs. 1,05,23,000 (capped at Rs. 75 lakh); the Tribunal awarded Rs. 56,63,200. The New India Assurance Company challenged the award, arguing the Tribunal erred in notional income and multiplier, and in heads such as future treatment expenses and loss of amenities. Geetha Varma, arguing permanent disability, urged higher compensation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s evidence-based finding that the claimant’s monthly income around the time of the accident was Rs. 41,000-48,000, but fixed notional income at Rs. 35,000 with 25% future prospects and a multiplier of 30, applying Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. The court held that the Tribunal could not grant both disability and loss of earnings separately; it revised several heads: loss of earnings to Rs. 51,18,750; pain and suffering to Rs. 1,50,000; loss of amenities to Rs. 2,00,000; hospital attendant charges to Rs. 20,000; while deleting the award for disability (Rs. 12,60,000) and short life expectancy (Rs. 25,000). Other heads remained. The appeal and cross-objection were allowed in part, reflecting a balanced application of precedents.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from the Kerala High Court, challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, award in OP(MV) 3339/2004 for the death of P.K. Sunny in a motorcycle accident on 19 July 2004. The appellants—Mary Sunny (widow) and her children Soni P. Sunny and Sona P. Sunny, with Mariamma as mother—sought enhancement of compensation, contending that the Tribunal fixed the dependency loss too low. The Tribunal held the 2nd respondent’s motorcycle negligent and the 3rd respondent insurer liable, awarding Rs. 3,18,000 as total compensation. The appellants argued that the monthly income should be higher than Rs. 2,500, citing Ramachandrappa for higher earnings in 2004, noting the deceased’s skilled marble-work; requested Rs. 5,000 per month plus 10% future prospects (Pranay Sethi). They also sought enhanced amounts for funeral expenses (Rs. 10,000), loss of estate (Rs. 5,000), and loss of consortium (Rs. 40,000 per dependent, totaling Rs. 1,60,000). Respondents argued for maintaining the Tribunal’s quantum, subject to liability. The High Court allowed the appeal, reworking the computation with Rs. 5,000 monthly income and 10% future prospects, and granted additional sums for funeral, estate, and loss of consortium, including offset considerations from Satinder Kaur/United India principles. It awarded an additional Rs. 4,79,500 on top of the Tribunal’s award, to be deposited within three months with interest and costs.
This High Court of Kerala (Single Judge) hears MACA No. 699 of 2015 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur’s award in O.P.(MV) No.601 of 2013 arising from a motor accident on 04.09.2005 involving an auto-rickshaw hit by a car owned by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent claimed compensation for injuries. The insurer contends that, although a policy was issued in favour of the insured, the premium cheque was dishonoured and the policy was cancelled, which should exonerate liability. The Tribunal held the accident due to the 2nd respondent’s negligence and rejected the insurer’s exoneration plea for lack of proof that cancellation notice was served before the accident. Exts. A1–A8 and B1–B6 were admitted; the appellants argued that cancellation particulars and the lease of evidence showed compliance with cancellation requirements. The respondents argued the insurer failed to prove proper service of cancellation before the accident and that the right of recovery was not properly established. The court invoked United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmamma to emphasize that cancellation must be intimated to the insured before the accident; lacking proof of service, the court upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal, confirming the award and the liability framework with a recoverable amount against the insurer.
This Bail Application (BA 4465 of 2025) arises from Crime No. 138/2025 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 324(4), 189(2) and 191(2) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS). Petitioners Adhithya Babu and Suhail J. Subhan (aged 20 and 22) are the accused nos. 1 and 2. They surrendered as directed by the court on 25.03.2025 following an earlier order dated 14.03.2025 in BA 3262/2025. The prosecution contends the incident caused grievous hurt and damage to a vehicle of about Rs. 35,000, though it reports no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The petitioners’ counsel submits readiness to abide stringent conditions if bail is granted; the Public Prosecutor asserts gravity of the allegations but concedes absence of antecedents. The High Court reiterates bail as the rule and jail as the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to justify relief. Given lack of antecedents and balancing factors, the court grants bail with conditions. The order imposes bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no leaving the country, no commission of offences, and other standard conditions, stating the decision applies to this petition only.
Sudheesh v. Reshmi is a matrimonial appeal arising from a petition for divorce by cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the husband in O.P. No. 885 of 2017 before the Family Court, Thrissur, which was dismissed on 26 November 2019. The appellant challenged the dismissal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. In pursuit of settlement, the High Court directed mediation and, on 19 October 2022, the parties participated in Ernakulam Mediation Centre. A memorandum of settlement dated 22 November 2022 was placed on record, with the parties seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and an order waiving the six‑month cooling period under Section 13B(2). By 30 January 2023 the parties stated they had genuinely settled their differences, had been living separately since 27 May 2015, and were ready for a mutual consent divorce. Relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746, which held that the 13B(2) cooling period is discretionary, this Court held that the six‑month waiting period could be waived. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2023 was allowed, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 was allowed, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B was granted, dissolving the marriage. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the settlement, which forms part of the judgment.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4427 OF 2025 Badal Mandal, accused in Crime No.101/2025 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam, moved the Kerala High Court for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (NDPS matter). The prosecution alleges possession of 9.998 kg of ganja, with arrest on 21.02.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting no criminal antecedents in the report and that the petitioner hails from West Bengal, while counsel for the petitioner offered to furnish local sureties from Kottayam. The court recorded the voluntary submission and proceeded to evaluate the case on the sufficiency of grounds for bail. It held the contraband quantity as an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act and found that the rigour of Sec. 37 is not attracted as there are no antecedents. After considering the custody period (since 21.02.2025) and the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, the court concluded that bail can be granted on conditions. It reinforced the broad principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, among others. The order directs release on bail with a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two solvent sureties, local Kottayam sureties, terms on appearance, and restrictions on travel and re-offending, with further conditions and a caveat regarding cancellation for breach."
