WA Nos. 48/2020; 1562/2019; 2/2020; 314/2020; 323/2020; 324/2020; 328/2020; 332/2020; 333/2020; 339/2020; 342/2020; 343/2020; 361/2020; 365/2020; 379/2020; 383/2020; 385/2020; 394/2020; 398/2020; 399/2020; 400/2020; 402/2020; 412/2020; 431/2020; 437/2020; 447/2020; 448/2020; 449/2020; 451/2020; 459/2020; 463/2020; 467/2020; 475/2020; 477/2020; 480/2020; 481/2020; 487/2020; 490/2020; 497/2020; 512/2020; 514/2020; 516/2020; 518/2020; 520/2020; 539/2020; 540/2020; 541/2020; 542/2020; 551/2020; 562/2020; 567/2020; 568/2020; 569/2020; 571/2020; 574/2020; 580/2020; 587/2020; 589/2020; 591/2020; 596/2020; 606/2020; 607/2020; 611/2020; 615/2020; 617/2020; 621/2020; 628/2020; 629/2020; 630/2020; 643/2020; 652/2020; 662/2020; 669/2020; 703/2020; 722/2020; 742/2020; 785/2020; 877/2020; 892/2020; 912/2020; 986/2020; 1019/2020; 1528/2020; 1558/2020; 3/2021; 7/2021; 8/2021; 10/2021 This is a batch judgment of the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) delivered on 22 August 2022, arising from WA Nos. 48/2020 and a batch of connected writ appeals challenging amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) introduced by the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018. The petitions questioned the validity and retrospective effect of amendments to Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act (relating to the period within which reassessments can be reopened) and the third proviso thereto, as well as the law’s compatibility with the Constitution (notably the 101st Amendment and Article 246A) and the transition to GST via KGST Act. The appellants (State authorities) defended the amendments, including the substitution of “five years” with “six years” and the extended reopening window via the third proviso, while the respondents (assessees/dealers) contended that these changes were either retrospective, unconstitutional after the KVAT repeal, or contrary to the constitutional framework post-CAA. The Court undertook a thorough analysis of commencement versus operation, the saving provisions under KGST, and the State’s legislative competence post-CAA; it affirms Baiju A.A.’s line of reasoning, holds the 2017 amendment prospective, and finds the 2018 amendment to the third proviso unconstitutional. Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed with the State’s challenges rejected and the respondents’ positions upheld, delivering a clear instruction on retrospective interpretation of KVAT amendments in the GST era.
MACA No. 1291 of 2012; MACA No. 1292 of 2012 Two Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 1291 and 1292 of 2012) arise from awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, in O.P.(M.V.) Nos. 679 of 2008 and 758 of 2008. The petitions were filed by legal heirs of two deceased young riders who perished after a KSRTC bus (Registration KL 10 4615) allegedly dashed into their motorcycle on 26.12.2007. In MACT, the Tribunal held the KSRTC driver negligent and awarded Rs. 2,07,000 and Rs. 2,91,000 as compensation for the two cases. The appellants argued for higher compensation, contending the deceased were 22 years old and that the tribunal should apply higher multipliers (18 instead of 13 and 9) and adjust the income, future prospects, and deductions as per prevailing jurisprudence. They urged for a higher monthly income (Rs. 6,000) and a 40% enhancement for future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, with 50% deduction for personal expenses, and enhanced heads for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of love/consortium. The High Court accepted some arguments and recalculated compensation, applying a higher multiplier and future-prospects enhancement, arriving at increased sums (Rs. 7,26,200 for MACA 1291 and Rs. 8,10,200 for MACA 1292). The Court directed deposit of the enhanced amounts along with the original awards, with interest at 7.5% per annum, within two months.
This appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in O.P.(M.V) No.1807/2009 for injuries sustained by Eldho Mathew, a 19-year-old student, in a motor-vehicle collision on 27.03.2009 when riding as a pillion on a scooter. The Tribunal awarded Rs.63,600 with 8% interest, holding the insurer liable. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending that the award undervalued several heads, especially medical expenses (claimed Rs.61,799.75; Tribunal awarded Rs.38,000) and other heads such as nourishment, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The court, after examining Exts. A1–A10 and the accompanying bills, found that some bills were advance payments and that Rs.28,949.64 of the medical bills should be added to the awarded amount. Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., the court reaffirmed the two‑part damages principle—pecuniary (special) and non‑pecuniary (general)—and the objective to restore the claimant to the pre‑accident position. Considering the claimant’s student status, the court increased nourishment to Rs.3,000, bystander’s expenses to Rs.400, pain and suffering by Rs.5,000, and loss of amenities by Rs.10,000, resulting in a total enhanced sum of Rs.46,350. It directed payment of the enhanced compensation with 7.5% interest from the petition date within two months, after accounting for any court fee deductions, and in line with Circular No.3/2019 and Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016.
BA Nos. 4531/2025 and 4535/2025 These connected bail applications arise under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan. The petitioners are accused in Crime Nos. 30/2025 and 31/2025 of the Chittoor Excise Range Office, Palakkad, under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution alleges that samples from the petitioners' toddy shop contained Benadryl, and thus an offence has been committed. The petitioners contend that, even if the allegations are accepted, custodial interrogation is not necessary, and the prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. They are ready to abide by reasonable conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing the offences are serious. The court notes that the maximum punishment is five years, and that an analyst report has been received; it holds that no further investigation is necessary as evidence can be adduced through non-custodial means. The court cites Supreme Court decisions on bail—Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v State of UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez—to reaffirm that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, and that personal liberty is protected. On that basis, bail is granted subject to conditions: two-week appearance before the IO for interrogation; if arrest, release on bond Rs 50,000 with two sureties; compliance with conditions; no leaving the country; non-commission of similar offences; jurisdiction to cancel bail if violated. Order dated 08-04-2025.
Petitioners, K.K. Abdulla, K.M. Shaji, and P.B. Mohammed Sageer, claim to be beneficiaries of Ala Panangad Sahibinte Palli, a historic mosque located in Sreenarayanapuram Village, Kodungalloor, administered by a Mahal Committee. In 1999, the Ala Panangad Sahibinte Palli Mahallu Committee (Respondent No.3) filed a petition before the Kerala State Wakf Board (Respondents 1 and 2) seeking an enquiry and action to recover Wakf properties allegedly lost due to mal-administration, including transfers made without Wakf Board sanction. The Wakf Board issued proceedings (Exhibit P2, 16.02.2001) but no concrete action followed. Additional complaints claimed encroachment and illegal transfers affecting lands totaling approximately 2 acres 18 cents across several Survey Numbers, and the petition pressed sections under the Wakf Act to recover properties and remove encroachments. The Board and District Collector submitted counter accounts asserting that certain lands were transferred in 1980 (before the 1995 Wakf Act) for the establishment of a school, and that other lands were already under public or government control or used for public purposes. The court noted that while the petitioners’ bona fides were not established, the Wakf Board should act under the Wakf Act to recover encroached lands and pursue possession through lawful channels (Sections 54-55 and related provisions). The judgment disposed of the writ petition “in terms of the observations,” directing expeditious action by the Wakf Board and District Collector, consistent with law and the survey outcomes. The Court also cites Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur regarding adverse possession and prescription as permissible in appropriate cases.
ITA Nos. 2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 7/2019, 8/2019 This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court consolidates ITA Nos. 2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 7/2019, and 8/2019 concerning assessments under Section 153C arising from searches at the premises of E. Shamsudeen and related materials seized during the 2006-07 period. The assessee, a Karunagapally-based vegetable trader, contends that the initiating notice under Section 153C is illegal for want of proper satisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) who conducted the search, specifically that the seized materials belong to a person other than the searched person. The proceedings trace the sequence: search under 132, survey under 133A, issuance of notices under 153C, and annexures including Annexure-C dated 30.11.2010 purporting to record satisfaction, with Annexure-D/Tribunal outcomes and a common order of disposal. The Court underscores the mandatory nature of satisfaction under 153C (and the dual prerequisites under 132(4A) and 153C), and that mere use of the word “satisfied” without detailed reasoning or proper nexus cannot sustain a 153C assessment. Relying on Calcutta Knitwears, Pepsi Foods, Nikki Drugs, and other precedents, the Court holds that the satisfaction must be explicit, reasoned, and connected to the material seized, and if not, the assessment is void. The judgment remands the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of binding precedents, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
This is a Kerala High Court bail application (B.A.No.4451 of 2025) filed by Shahina, Shehina and Shalu, accused in Crime No.220/2025 of Vidura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences under Section 7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. The petition contends that no offence has been committed and the petitioners are willing to comply with conditions if bail is granted; it is highlighted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is two years. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegation. The judge acknowledges the seriousness but notes, guided by precedents, that the maximum penalty here is two years. Relying on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and subsequent Supreme Court/Judicial pronouncements, the court reasons that bail should be considered with leniency when the offence carries a relatively short potential sentence. The court also cites Chidambaram and Siddharth, along with Manish Sisodia, Joginder Kumar, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez, to underscore that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, and that arrest must be justified and narrowly tailored to investigative needs. The order finds custodial interrogation unnecessary and grants bail with stringent conditions: the Petitioners must appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated post-interrogation, they shall be released on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties; they must not leave India and must not commit similar offences. The order also permits investigation and recoveries during bail and clarifies that non-compliance may result in cancellation of bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025 This is a bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by Ramesh Swami, accused in Crime No.120/2025 of Kalikavu Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 318, 316(1) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The prosecution alleges a fraudulent debt arrangement in which the first accused allegedly enticed the complainant into lending Rs. One crore for a charitable project, mortgaging the complainant and his wife’s properties with accused Nos. 2 and 3, transferring large sums, and conspiring to retain assets worth around Rs. 2.25 crore. The case involves complex financial transactions, coercion, and transfer of title to relatives to shield assets. The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, presided by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, heard the matter on 4 April 2025. The court examined the well-settled bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram and Siddharth, and noted the need to balance personal liberty with the state’s interest in a fair investigation. After considering submissions and prior directions, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, emphasising appearance before the IO, strict compliance, and safeguards against retaliation, while allowing the investigation to proceed. Anzar Azeez’s principle was also noted as applicable.
The writ petition by K Premjith, an ex-serviceman, seeks a Non-Involvement in Offences (NIO) certificate to facilitate employment after facing an FIR under IPC Section 498A. The petitioner’s application for an NIO certificate was rejected (Ext.P3) on the ground of pendency of the FIR, though the investigation was complete and the case had progressed to CC 178/2024. The Kerala High Court holds that Section 59 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 empowers the District Police Chief or SHOs to issue a certificate stating non-involvement after proper enquiry and fixed charges. The court cites Sasikumar v. State of Kerala (2023 KHC 254), which held that a clearance certificate need not be refused merely due to pendency of a criminal case, given delays and the presumption of innocence. It also cites Rajendraprasad. T.V v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep (2023 KHC OnLine 10443), recognizing that a certificate showing involvement in only one crime can be issued. Additionally, a Circular No.3/2025/PHQ dated 9.1.2025, issued by the State Police Chief, is placed before the Court. The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No. 636/2023, is entitled to an NIO certificate in Annexure-II format including the details of the crime. The petition is disposed with directions to quash Ext.P3, allow Annexure-I filing within a week, and issue Annexure-II within two weeks of receipt of the application.
BAIL APPL. NO.4629 OF 2025 This High Court of Kerala bail petition, BAIL APPL. NO.4629 OF 2025, arises out of Crime No.173/2025 of Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station. The petitioner, Abdullakunju U, stands accused of offences including rape (376(2)(n)) along with IPC offences 323, 324 and 506 read with 34, and the petition is under Section 482 BNSS. The FIS/defacto complainant alleges repeated sexual intercourse with the petitioner under various circumstances, including hotels and lodges in multiple cities. The petitioner contends that even if the allegations are accepted, the core offence of rape is not made out and that the relationship may have involved consensual intercourse; he is willing to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail. The Court reviews established jurisprudence on bail, reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and later decisions such as Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, and Joginder Kumar. The Court accepts that bail can be granted even in serious or economic offences, depending on facts and safeguards, and issues detailed conditions. Accordingly, the application is allowed with stringent conditions to secure fair trial while safeguarding the accused’s personal liberty and integrity of investigation.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4884 OF 2025 This bail application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), concerns Crime No.335/2024 of Kanjirapally Police Station. The petitioner, Kiran Joy, is accused of offences under BNSS Sections 332(C), 74, 75(2) and under the POCSO Act (Sections 7, 8, 9(m) & 10). The prosecution alleges that on 11 January 2025 the accused entered the victim’s residence, kissed the victim and touched her neck through her shirt, and on 15 February 2025 engaged in a sexually intended contact. The petitioner has been in custody since 28 February 2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing seriousness and potential intimidation of the victim, though investigation is complete and the final report filed. The Court acknowledged the gravity but emphasized bail as a general rule, not an exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala decisions that emphasize the right to a fair trial and the principle that bail should be granted where possible with appropriate conditions. The Court considered restricting the petitioner from entering the Kanjirappally jurisdiction during trial. Ultimately, the bail application is allowed with defined conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two Rs.50,000 sureties, appearance before the IO, non-leave of India without permission, not committing similar offences, and a jurisdictional entry restriction until trial. Anzar Azeez and other precedents are cited to reaffirm the bail principle.
This bail application BA No.4590 of 2025 concerns Shyamal Roy and Kanika Roy, accused in Crime No.421/2025 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, for alleged offences under section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, 1985. The contraband seizures comprised 2.310 kg of ganja from the first petitioner and 1.466 kg from the second petitioner, allegedly seized on 28.02.2025. The petitioners have been in custody since 28.02.2025 and seek bail, offering to comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail while noting lack of criminal antecedents, but argues the petitioners are from West Bengal and may not appear for trial if released; the petitioners propose local Thrissur District sureties, a submission recorded as voluntary. The court notes that the seized contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act and that Section 37 is not attracted; considering detention and circumstances, bail can be granted with stringent conditions. Relying on established bail jurisprudence that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the court references Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, among others. It also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable. The order imposes conditions: release on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, appearance before IO, non-leave without permission, no commission of a similar offense, and allows cancellation of bail for violations. The judgment ends with the judge’s signature.
W.P.(C) Nos. 82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021, 318/2021 The batch of writ petitions, all under W.P.(C) Nos. 82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021 and 318/2021, challenge a common order dated 19.11.2020 of the Labour Court, Kollam. The Labour Court had quashed the domestic enquiries conducted against several workers employed by Trivandrum Club on grounds that the enquiry was defective, arbitrary and not properly supported by evidence; it set aside the enquiry report and permitted the management to prove the charges again. The Labour Court’s approach—that a single enquiry officer was used to adjudicate multiple workers’ charges and that the charges were not individually addressed—was criticized by the petitioners as unlawful and prejudicial. The High Court, presided by a Single Judge, notes Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala (2022) for the proposition that writ petitions challenging preliminary Labour Court orders can cause delays and should ordinarily be relegated to the Labour Court, with liberty to challenge the prelim order along with the final award. The court acknowledges the petitioners’ contentions about misframing and vagueness of charges but ultimately finds no perversity in the Labour Court’s award. It disposes of the writ petitions but leaves open the possibility to challenge the preliminary order together with the final order as observed in Chelamattom. The decision sustains the Labour Court’s approach while guiding future conduct of such preliminary challenges.
This writ petition challenges SARFAESI proceedings initiated after the account was classified as NPA, in the wake of a proposed settlement under the bank’s Amrit Mahotsav One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. The petitioner, a business entity, was offered OTS terms that substantially reduced the total liability from about Rs. 5.5 crores to a few crores, with Ext.P1 (dated 31.10.2022) proposing Rs.1,26,26,070 to be paid by 31.01.2023 and the balance by 31.03.2023, and Ext.P2 offering an alternative: Rs.13,46,780.80 due by 31.12.2022 and Rs.1,21,21,027.20 by 31.03.2023. The petitioner, however, paid only Rs.1,00,000 and did not meet upfront payment deadlines. Through Ext.P3 (dated 31.12.2022) the petitioner sought permission for partial payment, sale of mortgaged property to vetted buyers, deposit of advances in a no-lien account, and release of property upon payment of the balance; requested a personal hearing and stay of coercive action until final settlement. The bank contends Ext.P3 cannot be entertained per policy, emphasizing the substantial concessions already granted under the OTS. It relies on a Supreme Court ruling (State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics) to reject judicial modification of OTS terms. The court agrees with the bank, finding merit in the policy-based stance and dismisses the writ petition, upholding the OTS terms.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 7676 of 2022) filed to quash an Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 831/2021 of Eloor Police Station. The petitioner, an accused, and the 2nd respondent, alleged victim, are both lawyers. The FIR alleges offences under sections 376 and 506 IPC, section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, and section 66E IT Act, arising from alleged sexual activity following a promise of marriage and alleged non-consensual capture of the victim’s private image. The defence contends that even if the allegations are accepted, there is no basis for rape or the IT Act offence; the relationship was four years long and consensual; there was no false promise to marry with malafide intent. The prosecution argues that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court carefully reviews the FIR and relevant precedents, including Deepak Gulati, Dhruvaram Sonar, Sonu alias Subhash Kumar, and Shambhu Karwar, to examine the role of consent and the effect of a false promise to marry. It concludes that the consent was voluntary, there is no substantiated basis for rape or 66E, and the matter is settled with the 2nd respondent’s affidavit stating no objection to quashing. Consequently, the FIR is quashed and the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed.
The original petition OP(C) No.81 of 2023 filed by the Kottayam Municipality challenges Exts.P9 and P11, arbitral orders in Arbitration Proceedings No.2/2017, which deferred the respondent’s limitation claim for consideration as a preliminary issue to the final arguments. The concession agreement (Ext.P1) for a waste disposal project with Ramky Energy and Environment Limited became the dispute’s backdrop, and the Supreme Court had appointed the Arbitral Tribunal (Ext.P2). The petitioner contends that the respondent’s claim is hopelessly time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, and seeks to treat this as a preliminary objection (Ext.P3, Ext.P4). The Arbitral Tribunal, noting absence of oral evidence, held in Ext.P9 that the limitation issue could be treated as a preliminary matter at the time of final arguments and, despite Ext.P10, Ext.P11 orders maintaining Ext.P9, declined to hear it earlier. The High Court expresses reservations about treating limitation as a Section 16 matter but refrains from ruling on inherent jurisdiction, noting that if deferment persists, the petitioner may await the final award under Section 34. Relying on Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd., Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., and other precedents, the court upholds the arbitration scheme as a self-contained code and refuses to intervene under Article 227, dismissing the petition and directing the registry to forward a certified copy to the Arbitral Tribunal.
ITA Nos.62/2018 and 65/2018 The Kerala High Court heard ITA Nos. 62/2018 and 65/2018 together, challenging a common ITAT order on depreciation under Section 32 r/w Section 43(1) and its Explanation 10, including proviso, in the context of ASIDE subsidies granted to the appellant, a subsidiary of Kinfra, for developing an Export Promotion Industrial Park at Kakkanad, Kochi. The core issue concerns whether subsidies received from the Government of India under ASIDE (and related schemes) should be reduced from the actual cost of assets for calculating depreciation, and if so, in what manner. The appellant argued that ASIDE funds are general, non-asset-specific grants aimed at capacity-building infrastructure, not asset purchases; therefore, these subsidies should not reduce asset cost. The Revenue contended that, post-1999 Explanation 10 and proviso to Section 43(1), subsidies are to be apportioned and deducted from the cost of assets to determine actual cost. The Court relies on PJ Chemicals and subsequent judgments to discuss the pre- and post-amendment landscape, emphasizing that Explanation 10 and its proviso operate prospectively and are to be read with due regard to the asset-specificity of subsidies. It ultimately holds that the ASIDE grant, being non-asset-specific, is subject to apportionment via the proviso; pre-1999 subsidies cannot be adjusted for 2009-10, while post-1999 subsidies require careful apportionment. The result is partial relief for the Revenue on common questions, with certain questions in ITA 65 resolved in the assessee’s favor and remanded to the AO. Appeals partly allowed; remittal to Assessing Officer; no costs.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, K.M. Sathidevi, challenges orders and the alleged inaction of the 2nd respondent with respect to change of land use classification for approximately 0.0607 hectares (0.15 acres) of land comprising Resurvey Block No.46, Nos. 3/22 & 23, Kodumbu Village, Palakkad Taluk. The petitioner asserts that a Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) order under Clause 6(2) was issued in 1986, converting the property to garden land and that this order, acted upon by predecessors in interest, should permit changes in the basic tax register without requiring compliance with Section 27A(3) of the 2008 Act. The petitioner filed Form A under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for reclassification and reassessment of tax; the Respondents refused, insisting on a further payment under Section 27A(3) of the 2008 Act and certain transfer restrictions. The court references earlier opinions including W.A No.489 of 2011, distinguishing the factual scenario where the KLU order had not been acted upon. Citing District Collector Ernakulam v. Fr.Jose Uppani (2020 (4) KLT 612), the court holds that where the KLU order has been acted upon, a further Section 27A order is not a prerequisite, and directs the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P3 on merits after verifying property conversion and nature, within two months. The petition is allowed.
O.P.(FC) Nos.558 & 559 of 2022 These Original Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge Ext.P8, dated 03.08.2022, in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.P.No.711 of 2021, and related I.A.5/2022 in O.P.No.546/2021, before the High Court of Kerala, Madras? No, Kerala, at Ernakulam, arising from custody/interim custody disputes in the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The petitioners are Hasanul Banna (father) and his minor son Ishaan; the respondent is Bincy Rani. The Family Court had earlier issued Ext.P3 on 27.08.2021 in the interlinked O.Ps, setting out interim custody arrangements between the parents pending final adjudication. Ext.P8 (03.08.2022) modified those arrangements, and the petitions challenge that order as erroneous and unjust, especially in depriving the father of meaningful contact with his child. The respondent contends safety concerns because the petitioner resides with another woman and justifies restrictive custody/interactions under Ext.P8. The Court engages with the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, citing Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and other Supreme Court precedents to emphasize that custody decisions must be guided by the child’s best interests and that visitation rights are essential when custody changes. It notes the elder sibling Hajira and the need to maintain sibling bonds. Ultimately, the court sets aside the common order and, while confirming Ext.P8, modifies it to allow the petitioner to interact with the child freely within the time frame of the Family Court order and to take the child outside the court premises within the local limits of Mavelikkara city, subject to safeguards.
This is a consolidated Kerala High Court decision by Justice Amit Rawal, delivered on 23 January 2023, addressing whether the six-month limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended by the 2019 MV Act) bars compensation claims and whether the Limitation Act can be invoked to entertain petitions beyond six months. Seven related petitions (OP MAC Nos. 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 of 2023) arise from road accidents resulting in injuries to petitioners or their minor wards, represented by guardians. The MACT/North Paravur had dismissed the petitions as barred by limitation, citing six months as absolute. The court delves into Section 166(4), which treats DAR as a claim petition, and Annexure XIII (Rule 17) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, allowing extension for IAR/DAR filings. It analyses Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and the ongoing relevance of Section 14 of the Limitation Act per Consolidated Engineering and Enterprises v. Irrigation Dept., and Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, distinguishing and partly overruling to the extent necessary. The judgment holds that limitation provisions are not a blanket bar and that MACTs must entertain petitions beyond six months where extensions under Annexure XIII are applicable. Original petitions are allowed with directions to proceed under law.
