This MACA is an appeal by E.K. Jomon against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising from a 25.11.2007 road accident. The Tribunal held the auto-rickshaw driver liable and awarded Rs 4,16,335 along with 7.5% interest. The appellant argues the Tribunal grossly under-valued his future prospects and income. He testified as a carpenter with an income of Rs 7,500 per month, but the Tribunal fixed Rs 3,000 per month, a figure contested as too low. On disability, the Medical Board certified 72% permanent disability and loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal, however, adopted 38.8%. The insurer argued lack of conclusive proof of occupation and income and supported the Tribunal’s findings. The High Court cites Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to affirm the approach that income can be notionally estimated for unorganized workers and that tribunals may resort to reasonable basis in determining earnings. It also discusses loss of future earnings, and relies on Raj Kumar and Pappu Deo Yadav to permit enhancement for future prospects (40% in the cited decision), following the Pranay Sethi principle. The Court increases the compensation to Rs 10,80,596 with 7.5% interest and directs payment within two months, with compliance conditions about bank details.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4384 OF 2025 This is a bail application (Bail Appeal No. 4384 of 2025) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS 2023) concerning Crime No. 558/2024 of Edachery Police Station, Kozhikode. The petitioner, Santosh, is accused of offences under sections 336(2) and 336(3) of the BNS for allegedly submitting forged documents and misrepresenting land status (garden land vs. paddy land) to obtain a building permit. The High Court, single-judge, considers whether custodial interrogation is necessary to complete the investigation. The petitioner’s counsel submits readiness to comply with conditions and argues that the investigation can progress through non-custodial means; arrest should not be routine, as per established principles of bail and personal liberty. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the alleged offences. The judge references Supreme Court principles: bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty is fundamental; arrest should be justified, not routine; and even grave economic offences do not automatically deny bail. The court ultimately allows the bail application with explicit directions: the petitioner must appear before the IO within two weeks, undergo interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, bail on ₹50,000 bond with two sureties; cooperate with investigation; refrain from leaving the country; avoid further offences; and the IO may continue investigations and effect recoveries even on bail. The order also clarifies that failure to comply can result in cancellation of bail.
W.P.(C) Nos. 35286/2022, 42242/2022 and 6147/2023 These three writ petitions concern the legality of Government Order dated 29.10.2022 approving appointments to the post of UPST in MTUP School, Alayamon, Anchal. The petitions challenge the GO for exempting a Rule 51B candidate from K-TET and contend that the exemption undermines statutory requirements. The 6th respondent’s appointment was made in 2021 without K-TET; later, the AEO declined approval and, despite withdrawal of the 6th respondent’s proposal, the Manager appointed the petitioner. The court notes that NCTE guidelines made K-TET mandatory for appointments from 2012-2013; it accepts that exemptions existed only for a limited period (2012-2013) and held that the power to grant exemptions lies with the Central Government, with Beena K. and Mehaboob guiding the interpretation. The court also cites Anand Kumar Yadav to emphasize the object of TET, and Bhinumol to limit one-time exemptions, while Mohanan, Raj Kumar, and other authorities are invoked to interpret the scope of Rule 51B and due process in compassionate appointments. In light of these principles, Ext.P9 is quashed. The court directs the authorities to approve Ext.P1 petitioner’s appointment as UPST, with orders to be issued within a month. W.P.(C) Nos.35286/2022 and 42242/2022 are disposed of accordingly, and W.P.(C) No.6147/2023 is dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4342 OF 2025 This Bail Application, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, concerns three petitioners—Afsal N A, Ashique N A and Abdul Azeez N A—in Crime No. 615/2025 of Aluva East Police Station, registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 351(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petition seeks bail, arguing that the incident as alleged did not occur and that the 2nd petitioner sustained injuries; Annexure-A2 was pressed to support injury claims. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail. The Court notes that only non-bailable provision is 118(1) BNS and that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is up to three years. Relying on Supreme Court principles in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail the exception, emphasizing protection of personal liberty. After evaluating the facts, the Court grants bail with stringent conditions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation; after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; they must not leave the country; must cooperate with the investigation; and bail can be canceled for violation of conditions. The order also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable precedent.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4163 OF 2025 This is a bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in respect of Crime No.1143/2024 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, involving the accused Vijayan, aged 59, charged with offences including IPC sections 376(2)(n), 376AB, 354 and 354A(1)(i), and POCSO Act sections 4, 3(b), 6, 51, 5m, 8, 7, 10, 91 and 9m. The prosecution contends that a minor girl of six years was lured to the petitioner's residence, where he allegedly inserted fingers into her vagina and exposed himself, threatening disclosure, with repeated acts alleged on several occasions. The victim’s parents were served notice but did not appear on record. The petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2024 and the final report has been filed. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The court noted absence of appearance by the victim and observed that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted, relying on established bail jurisprudence. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The order grants bail on specific conditions, including bond and two solvent sureties, with conditions geared to prevent interference with the investigation and ensure cooperation, subject to cancelation on breach.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from the MACT, Kottayam case OPMV 549/2009. The claimant (appellant) sought compensation for injuries suffered on 26.07.2008 when his bicycle was struck by a Maruti van (KL-2L-2492) driven by the 2nd respondent, alleged to have been rash and negligent. The vehicle reportedly had no insurance at the relevant time; the first respondent was the vehicle owner. The Tribunal held the 2nd respondent vicariously liable and, due to lack of insurance, both respondents were jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant. The claim petition sought Rs. 2,32,000. The appellant was hospitalized for 95 days with serious injuries (Type III open fracture of the right leg, fibula fracture, mandible fracture, eyelid laceration). Relying on Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and Anr., Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq Etc., the High Court examined notional income and the heads of damages (pecuniary and non-pecuniary). It held a notional monthly income of Rs. 4,000 for a daily labourer in 2008, awarded deductions for six months of loss of earnings (Rs. 9,000), bystander expenses (Rs. 22,250 after adjustments), pain and suffering (Rs. 10,000), and loss of amenities (Rs. 10,000), totaling enhanced compensation of Rs. 51,250 with 7.5% interest from 06.05.2009. The appeal was allowed in part, directing payment within two months and specifying disbursement procedures; costs to be borne by the respective parties.
This Land Acquisition Appeal (Pauper) challenges the 1996 judgment and decree in LAR No.33/1994 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which apportioned Rs.3,32,669.45 deposited as award among four original claimants (A–D) with a dispute between claimant D and claimant E (the appellant) about entitlement to the award amount. Appellant E sought to challenge the Sub Court’s apportionment with additional appellants 2–5 (legal heirs of the original appellant who died during proceedings). The court records that the dispute concerns who among the claimants is entitled to the amount lying in deposit; the Sub Court allowed the respondent to withdraw the entire deposit after hearing. The appellants argue that the Sub Court erred in appreciating evidence, and that Ext.X2 and Annexure A1 undermine the title claims, relying on earlier civil suits (OS 231/1967) and revenue documents to contend title in the appellant or his heirs. The respondents contend that the Sub Court rightly concluded the respondent’s title through patta/thandapper, tax records, and municipal approvals; they argue the appellant failed to prove title with independent documents. The High Court ultimately dismisses the LAA, upholding the Sub Court, and closes all interlocutory filings. The decision emphasizes that title to property must be independently proved by reliable documents, and that admissions or mutations do not substitute for title.
This is a Matrimonial Appeal (Mat.Appeal No. 608 of 2015) filed by Anitha B.V. challenging the Family Court, Thiruvalla’s dismissal of her petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage, solemnized on 27 January 2010, ended in prolonged separation from 2010 onward, with the wife alleging grave cruelty, including concealment of health issues, impotence, pursuit of unnatural sexual acts, and emotional abuse. She contended that the husband ignored calls, forced her to leave the matrimonial home, and recorded conversations without consent, all indicating a breakdown of trust. The husband denied cruelty, claiming a normal conjugal relationship and concealment of her hypertension and skin disease by the wife. The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding the evidence insufficient to prove cruelty or grant a divorce. On appeal, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) held that while some cruelty evidence existed, the overall facts—over 15 years of separation, irretrievable breakdown, and lack of cohabitation—justified dissolution. Precedents cited include Bini T. John v. Saji Kuruvila (cruelty can include unnatural sex), Sujeeth Thomson v. M.P. Devassy (emotional cruelty via recording), Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (irretrievable breakdown warrants dissolution), and Rajib Kumar v. Sushmita Saha (cruelty in maintaining couple despite breakdown). The appeal is allowed; the Family Court’s decree is set aside and a divorce decree is granted with no costs.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 739 OF 2022 Ratheesh Mohanan, the accused, challenges the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000 dated 23.10.2014 that dishonoured for want of funds. The complainant prosecuted the matter in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly (ST No. 2591/2014), which after trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with the fine payable as compensation to the complainant; in default, imprisonment for two months. The conviction was upheld by the Third Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha (Crl. Appeal No. 45/2018) on 30.08.2022, which maintained the conviction while modifying substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court and directing Rs. 1 lakh compensation, with a stricter default sentence. The High Court, in revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., held that revisional power is supervisory and not a broad re-appreciation of evidence, relying on leading precedents such as State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, Kishan Rao, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex, and Krishna Janardhan Bhat. The court dismissed the revision petition, but granted one month to pay the compensation and deferred execution until 20.12.2022, with appearance fixed for 21.12.2022.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC concerns four accused in Crime No. 863/2022 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram. The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute; the final report has been filed charging offences under sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners' counsel relies on the victim’s affidavit showing consent to settlement and requests quashing, while the victim's counsel concurs with the settlement. The Public Prosecutor, though expressing reservations about quashing merely on the basis of settlement, concedes that there is a settlement between the parties. The court consulted leading precedents, including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and noted the test for invoking the power under S.482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private, primarily civil in character, and the parties have resolved it. The court also cited Gian Singh and Narinder Singh as background authorities. It held that the offences in question are private in nature, with settled disputes, and that the High Court may quash the prosecution in such circumstances, subject to evaluating antecedents and the nature of the offences. Accordingly, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed all further proceedings in Crime No. 863/2022.
WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 & connected cases The judgment consolidates WP(C) Nos. 10612/2024 and connected cases involving bank account freezes under cybercrime investigations across multiple states. The Kerala High Court notes the practice of freezing bank accounts on police notices and recalls a guiding principle from a prior decision (Dr. Sajeer v RBI) that freezes must be proportional and limited to the amount in dispute. The court extracts directions from a previous judgment (including W.P.(C) No. 28155/2023) and issues interim, and then final, directions directing respondent banks to confine the freeze to the disputed amount, allowing petitioners to transact beyond that limit, and to coordinate with police to specify the extent of freezes. The decision emphasizes transparency and proportionality, requiring the police to inform banks about the permissible freeze and enabling petitioners to approach the court if information or freezes extend beyond what is justified. The matter is disposed of with these directions, applying the precedents mentioned and shaping future handling of cybercrime-related freezes across the jurisdiction.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1012 of 2013) before the Kerala High Court arising from the MACT award in OPMV No.111/2008, Muvattupuzha, dated 08.01.2013, which awarded the claimant Rs. 2,22,105 with 7% interest. Siju Thomas, the appellant, was injured on 19.06.2007 while standing on the Rajakkadu–Mullakkanam public road when a goods auto-rickshaw (KL-7/AV 6984) allegedly driven by the first respondent hit him. The Tribunal held the accident partly due to the claimant’s contributory negligence (15%), chiefly relying on Ext. A2 scene mahazar. The Insurance Company opposed liability and challenged the compensation. The High Court, after hearing the appellant and the respondents’ counsel, examined Exts. A1–A11 and Ext. C1 medical records, and found that the scene mahazar and the charge-sheet could not sustain 15% contributory negligence, and held the accident to be the sole fault of the first respondent. The Court also reevaluated compensation: fixing monthly income at Rs. 4,000 (per Ramachandrappa), increasing disability to 30%, and recalculating loss of earnings, disability income, loss of amenities, and pain and suffering. The Court allowed the appeal, directing a total compensation of Rs. 4,34,600 with 7% interest, payable by respondents jointly and severally, and authorized the Insurance Company to recover the enhanced amount while depositing it within two months. The decision also observes absence of a valid driving license for the first respondent and enforces recovery rights accordingly.
This High Court of Kerala appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, in OP(MV) No.535/2009, seeking compensation for the death of Anwarsadath (husband of the 1st appellant, father of the 2nd and 3rd appellants). The deceased, a 28-year-old coolie-cum-driver, was said to have earned Rs 6,500 per month, but the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs 3,000/month. The Tribunal held the accident attributable to rash driving by the 1st respondent and awarded Rs 4,36,000 in total under various heads with 9% interest. On appeal, the appellants argued for higher income and enhanced compensation under the principles of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, citing Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify a higher notional income, future prospects, and proper deductions. The court, applying the 40% future prospects (with a 17 multiplier per Pranay Sethi) and 1/4 personal expenses deduction (per Sarla Verma), fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 6,500, resulting in an annual dependency of Rs 18,56,400, reduced by deductions to Rs 9,84,300 after accounting for Tribunal-awarded sums. Conventional heads were enhanced (loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses) following Magma and Pranay Sethi lines, leading to an overall enhanced compensation of Rs 11,65,300. Interest at 6% p.a. is payable from the petition date, with distribution among claimants in a 50:25:25 ratio. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced amount within two months. Additional appellants 5–7 were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased.
Leelamma Joseph, the petitioner/additional second respondent in O.P.897/2019 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, has invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge a December 21, 2021 order (Ext. P7) in I.A. No. 3797 of 2019, which allowed the respondent to implead her as an additional respondent in the underlying petition seeking money and gold ornaments. The present petition contends that the Family Court’s order is cryptic and inadequately reasoned, failing to disclose the basis for allowing the interim application and thereby frustrating the ability of the parties to assess and challenge the decision. The High Court frames the issue as whether Ext. P7 can be sustained in law. While the parties debated substantive merits of O.P. 897/2019, the court confines its examination to the legality of Ext. P7, citing well-known authorities on the necessity of reasons in public or quasi-public orders. The court references Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and Alexander Machinery to underscore that reasons and transparency are essential to fair administration. It also relies on Gordhandas Bhanji, Mohinder Singh Gill, and United Commercial Bank to emphasize objectivity, public faith, and the unacceptability of post hoc rationalizations. Concluding that Ext. P7 is cryptic and defeats judicial scrutiny, the court sets aside the order and directs the Family Court to proceed with fresh orders on Ext. P2 within three weeks.
CRL.M.C. 146 of 2022; CRL.M.C. 1930 of 2022 This is a combined criminal miscellaneous petition under Cr.P.C. 482 seeking quashing of FIR No.1830/2021 registered at Vidura Police Station, initially under IPC 354A(1)(ii) and later amended to 354B read with 34 IPC. The petitioners, accused in Crime No.1830/2021, contend that they have amicably settled the dispute with the defacto complainant (respondent No.2), who, with assistance of counsel, appeared and stated she does not intend to proceed and has filed an affidavit to that effect. The Respondent No.2’s statements, as placed before the Court, corroborate the settlement, and the Public Prosecutor on instructions confirmed that the victim’s statement supports the amicable resolution. The High Court notes the dispute is purely personal, with no public interest compromised and the offences are not of a serious or heinous nature; moreover, the offences are not categorised as those prohibited for compounding under law. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, and Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court accepts that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences where settlement exists to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and FIR No.1830/2021 and all proceedings are quashed. The matter is brought to an end by the order of the single judge.
BAIL APPL. NO. 266 OF 2023 This is an anticipatory bail application by the sole accused in Crime No. 18/2023 of the Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode. The petition, filed under Bail Application No. 266 of 2023 before the Kerala High Court, Nishaneers alleges offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 326 (causing grievous hurt) and 308 (attempt to murder) in connection with a stabbing near AMPM Supermarket on 05-01-2023. The petitioner contends the facts show joint consumption of liquor with the defacto complainant, followed by sudden provocation at the rear of the AMPM premises, resulting in a stab injury; he submits that if any offense arises, it would be under Section 335 IPC (grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation), a bail-able offense, and seeks anticipatory bail with willingness to cooperate in investigation. He also argues that custodial interrogation should be limited and that the case may be resolved without prolonged detention. The State controverts, stressing serious injuries and the overt act pointing to an intentional, not provoked, assault; custodial interrogation and weapon recovery are essential for meaningful investigation. The Court perused the case diary and noted the prosecution’s prima facie case but found the law on custodial necessity and provocation to be nuanced. It relied on Sumitha Pradeep to caution that custodial interrogation is a factor but not a sole basis for bail, and on Sushila Aggarwal to limit its applicability. Ultimately, the court dismissed the bail application, holding that anticipatory bail is not warranted given the prima facie case and the need to preserve the investigation.
This is MACA No. 1386 of 2017 before the High Court of Kerala (Single Judge). The petitioners, Stella, George and Jincy, filed OP(MV) No.312/2008 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging the death of Jijo George in a motor-vehicle collision on 07-01-2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of a lorry. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mavelikkara, held negligence and awarded Rs.7,37,000 as compensation. The appellants challenged the quantum, contending that the deceased’s notional income was under-assessed (they claimed Rs.6,000/month from wood carving; Tribunal fixed Rs.3,000) and urged adoption of the income figure of Rs.6,500/month as per Ramachandrappa (2011) to reflect a coolie’s notional income for 2008. The court relied on Ramachandrappa, National Insurance Co. v Pranay Sethi for future prospects (40%), and Sarla Verma for the 18-multiplier and 1/2 deduction, to recompute the dependency loss and other heads. Adjustments include Rs.18,150 toward loss of estate and funeral each, Rs.96,800 toward loss of consortium, and Rs.25,000 for pain and suffering (enhanced from Rs.10,000). The tribunal’s “love and affection” award was deleted in light of Somwati. The result is an enhanced total of Rs.11,46,900, with interest at 8% on the excess amount, payable within two months, and disbursement to petitioners per Tribunal ratios.
BA No.4695/2025 (with connected Bail Applications 4496/2025, 4719/2025, 4761/2025, 4779/2025, 4797/2025, 4818/2025, 4857/2025, 4908/2025, 4919/2025, 5097/2025, 5116/2025, 5122/2025, 5153/2025, 5156/2025, 5158/2025, 5161/2025, 5164/2025, 5167/2025, 5197/2025, 5268/2025, 5278/2025, 5283/2025) These bail applications (BA Nos. 4695/2025 and connected cases) arise in respect of Gangadhararan, aged 72 years, accused in multiple crimes registered at Vadanappally and Changaramkulam Police Stations. The Kerala High Court, through a common order by Hon. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, disposes of the batch of petitions under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The prosecution alleges involvement in a scheme wherein Pravasi Syndicate Chits Private Limited promised 12% interest on deposits and failed to repay principal or interest. The Court notes the petitioner is already released on bail in several other cases arising from similar facts and emphasizes the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala authorities. Authorities cited include Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, to underscore that bail should be granted where warranted by law and facts. The court, applying these principles, allows bail with conditions. It directs appearance before the Investigating Officer (IO) within four weeks for interrogation, and if arrest is contemplated, to release on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties. The petitioner must cooperate, not leave India without permission, and refrain from committing similar offences; the IO may continue to investigate and recoveries may be effected if necessary. The order clarifies that these directions are for the purpose of deciding the bail applications. The decision is a common disposal of the batch, with bail granted subject to specified conditions.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases The Kerala High Court, in a batch of writ petitions filed by managers of private aided higher secondary schools challenging Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022 (dated 07.07.2022) and the related admission prospectus for Plus One courses, examines the policy to fix management quota at 20% and reserve 10% of seats for the community to which the management belongs. The Court traces the historical evolution of management quotas since 1991, including 1991 GOes, the 2003 division bench judgment quashing community quotas, and subsequent policy shifts culminating in 2005 and 2022 GO orders. The Court holds that the 20% management quota is a valid policy decision (not to be interfered with via judicial review), but the 10% community quota, and the rider that failed management declarations would convert such seats to merit seats, are arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and hence unconstitutional. The judgment directs that the 10% community quota be treated as open merit seats and filled through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). Admissions already made on declared community basis stand, but no further 10% quota is to be enforced. The petitions are disposed of with these directions, aligning with the Court’s long-standing view against reservation by community in private aided institutions and endorsing merit-based admission within a clarified policy framework.
RFA No. 399/2014; CO No. 123/2014 This Kerala High Court judgment relates to RFA No. 399 of 2014 and CO No. 123 of 2014 arising from OS 504 of 2007 before the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale of plaint B schedule property (a portion of plaint A schedule property) and related reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the Ext. A2 agreement for sale not proved as a genuine bargain and emphasizing the defendant’s denial of the agreement and interlinked claims of fraud. The appellant-plaintiff challenged the dismissal, arguing that the court should exercise discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, especially since equity, clean hands, and hardship considerations were favorable to her claim. The High Court, after examining issues, evidence, and various authorities, found fault with the trial court’s approach, notably its treatment of hardship and the sufficiency of Ext.A2’s authenticity. It held that Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act obliges the court to consider refund of earnest money, even if not expressly claimed, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and that hardship claims require proper framing and evidence. The appeal and cross-objection were allowed, with directions to remand for framing a new issue on comparative hardships, permit fresh evidence, and dispose of the original suit within four months.
