This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 634 of 2013) in the Kerala High Court, heard by single judge Justice Mary Joseph, arising from an award of 04.10.2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OP(MV) No.1011/2008, concerning the death of Manoharan in a bus accident on 22.06.2007 (bus KL-8/G 5005) while he was a passenger. The appellants, widow Vijayalakshmi and daughter Thushara, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequately low and challenged the driver’s negligence findings. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and directed the insurer to pay Rs.3,07,780 with interest at 7.5% from the petition date. The insurer/ respondents argued the deceased’s income should be capped at Rs.5,500 per month, disputing the higher sum claimed, and that the evidence of salary could not be marked. The appellants argued, relying on Ramachandrappa, that the monthly income should be notionally raised to Rs.6,000 with 10% future prospects given age 54, and then properly calculated using the multiplier. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s figure, adopted Rs.6,000 as notional income with 10% future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and recalculated the dependency using multiplier 11, resulting in substantial enhancement. The Court also applied Pranay Sethi guidance for conventional heads, adjusted litigation claims, and ordered enhanced compensation with interest. The appeal was allowed; the insurer was required to deposit the enhanced amount within two months. The judgment also clarified the insurer’s liability for interest due to a delay.
MFA (Forest) No.58 of 2012 The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard MFA (Forest) No.58 of 2012, initiated by three appellants challenging the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, OA No.25/2008. The Tribunal had declined a declaration that the scheduled property was not a private forest and held that the appellants were not entitled to exemptions under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (the Vesting Act). The appellants raised two main issues: (i) the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (MPPFA) and the argument that the Vesting Act repealed that Act, thereby negating the need for sanction; and (ii) the fact that a portion of the property had been placed pendente lite with Kolakkadanmala Vanasamrakshana Samithi, which they claimed was not a legally permissible arrangement consistent with the Vesting Act. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the MPPFA would have applied to the property prior to Vesting, and that the sanction under Section 3 is mandatory, making alienation without sanction void per se. It also rejected the lis pendens justification for the partial transfer and noted that the Ext.A1 document (1967) was void for lack of sanction. The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish ownership or personal cultivation required for exemption, upheld the Tribunal’s findings, and dismissed the appeal.
This is Arbitration Appeal No. 4 of 2022 arising from OP(Arb.) No.160/2020 in the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, in which the appellants challenge an order dated 23.11.2021 rejecting their objections about the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The matter concerns inter-se disputes among partners in a partnership firm, including dissolution of the partnership and alleged fraud, and whether such disputes fall within the ambit of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral tribunal earlier rejected the jurisdictional objections in Arbitration Case No.2/2016, prompting the Section 34 petition by the appellants. The court below dismissed OP(Arb.)160/2020, holding that the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction objections were rightly rejected. The core issues involve whether the alleged dissolution of the partnership and related claims are arbitrable, the place of arbitration, and the validity of the underlying arbitration agreement. The High Court discusses Sections 16, 34, and 37 of the Act, clarifying that a tribunal’s ruling on lack of jurisdiction must be addressed after award, and that a Section 34 challenge to such a ruling may be improper. The Supreme Court’s decisions in SBP & Co., NTPC, Booz Allen, and others are cited to explain the scheme and permissible avenues for challenge. The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition at this stage, and OP(Arb.)160/2020 is dismissed as not maintainable, with directions to proceed with arbitration and complete the award.
This writ petition challenges an interim order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (KS HRC) in HRMP No. 5825/11/11/2020 KLM, dated 6 October 2021, which directed action against the petitioner, then Principal (Retd) of Sree Narayana College for Women, Kollam. The first respondent, Anil Kumar G., a Lab Assistant, had alleged that salary recoveries for various loans were not timely remitted by college authorities, causing financial loss and reputational harm. The KS HRC’s interim directive, based on a report from the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, noted that recoveries were made from the petitioner’s salary but remittances to the lenders were delayed, and even a € Rs. 10,000 deduction to Kollam District Co‑operative Bank was said to be unrelated to the loan. The petitioner contends the interim order infringes natural justice—arguing lack of notice and hearing, defamatory remarks, and mischaracterisation of the matter as a service dispute; he further challenges the Commission’s jurisdiction over service matters under Regulation 17(f) of the KS HRC Regulations and Sections 12, 16, 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The court ultimately holds that the petitioner was not shown to be a party to the HRMP and that there was a violation of natural justice, setting aside the interim order and allowing the writ petition, while leaving maintainability concerns to be raised if the petitioner is arrayed as a party in the complaint.
CRL.A Nos. 860 & 868 of 2021 These two criminal appeals arise from a challenge to an order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. in a high-stakes mass trial of NIA cases in which the prosecution sought to record the sworn statement of PW1 (Salomi, wife of the victim) in the absence of several accused and rely on it against them in S.C.No.1/2015 before the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The trial court partially allowed the deposition against accused Nos. 2-8, 10 and 12, but dismissed it as to accused Nos. 9 and 11 on the ground of their not being absconding at the relevant time. The core issue is whether the court recording depositions under Section 299 must first explicitly record that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arrest, i.e., whether the jurisdictional facts must be established before such evidence can be used later. The Kerala High Court traces the two-phase operation of Section 299, surveys seminal decisions (Nirmal Singh and Jayendra Vishnu Thakur) emphasizing the need for explicit satisfaction of the jurisdictional facts, and critically analyzes contrary authorities (notably Abu Salem) to underscore that strict compliance is mandatory. The court ultimately allows the appeals and sets aside the impugned order, holding that the requisite satisfaction must be recorded in the first stage.”
Confident Projects India Pvt Ltd., a private limited company, challenges Ext.P6, a communication from the Sub Collector directing the petitioner to file Form-7 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 to change the land’s nature in revenue records. The petitioner owns 30.98 acres in Survey No.1285/2, Kadakampally Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The land is dry but is recorded as Nilam in revenue records. The petitioner sought to use the land for non-agricultural purposes and obtained permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, via Ext.P2, dated 04.12.2015, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, subject to conditions. This permission enabled the construction of a multi-storey apartment complex; Occupancy Certificates were issued by the local self-government. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 in Form-A under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, seeking reassessment and corrections in the Basic Tax Register regarding land nature. Ext.P5 was the representation dated 09/06/2022, followed by Ext.P6. The Government Pleader argued that change of land type in revenue records required compliance with the 2008 Rules; the petitioner argued Ext.P6 was unwarranted as relief flowed from LOU 1967 and LTA 1961. The High Court held that the petitioner invoked Clause 6(2) LOU 1967, and that the Tahsildar must consider Ext.P4 Form-A and pass orders; Ext.P6 is set aside. The court relied on Joseph Uppani and Iype Varghese to justify reassessment possibilities.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.MC No. 7426 of 2022) filed by M.P. Mahamood, the fifth accused in Crime No.1412/2013 of Hosdurg Police Station, now pending as CC 1152/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Hosdurg. The offences alleged against Mahamood and four others include IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427, read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 24 November 2013, around 8:30 PM, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, restrained respondents 2 and 3, assaulted them, and caused grievous hurt. Earlier, the Magistrate took cognizance in CC 1018/2015; all accused except the petitioner were acquitted, and the case against him was split and refiled as CC 1152/2019. The petitioner seeks to quash further proceedings on grounds of settlement, supported by Annexure AIV and AV affidavits from respondents 2 and 3 declaring no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The court notes the private nature of the dispute and, following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, exercises its 482 Cr.P.C. powers. Despite a serious IPC 326 offence, lack of identification and prior acquittals, plus settlement, justify quashing. The petition is allowed; Annexure AII and all further proceedings in CC 1152/2019 are quashed.
WP(C) No.19808/2021 & connected cases Five petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge the inaction of the State and aided-school managers in implementing disability-reservation provisions under the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act. The petitions, including WP(C) 19808/2021 (K.J. Varghese) and connected matters, highlight that Persons with Disabilities (PwD) face discrimination in employment and demand that 3% vacancies in aid-ed schools (and 4% under the 2016 Act) be reserved for PwD, and that backlog vacancies since 1996 be identified and filled. The Court traces background from the 1990s, citing Union of India v National Federation of the Blind (2013) and Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation decisions, and holds that aided educational institutions fall within the statutory ambit of the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act, and that the Government’s and managers’ delays must end. It notes that identification of posts cannot be a prerequisite to grant of 3% reservation and endorses a horizontal reservation principle under Article 16(1). The judgment records a trajectory from Renjith v. Kerala (2020) to Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2021), and concludes that implementation must be accelerated, with a schedule to identify backlog, compute vacancies, and recruit PwD in the posts identified, while ensuring that already-appointed staff are not retroactively unsettled. The Court ultimately directs the government and aided schools to implement the reservations, quashes problematic cutoff orders, and prescribes a roster-based absorption plan with a two-month timeline to prepare the backlog roster.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No.972 of 2013) from Kerala High Court challenging an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The death of Ansar occurred on 31-12-2003 when a bus allegedly driven rashly by the first respondent hit him near Kodimatha bridge, resulting in fatal injuries. The MACT, Mavelikkara, held the owner vicariously liable and the insurer liable to satisfy the award, awarding Rs. 2,48,000 in compensation. The appellants, as the deceased’s mother, siblings, and his minor daughter, challenged the quantum. The insurer admitted policy coverage but contended policy conditions were violated due to lack of driving license and badge, and argued that the claimants must prove certain facts. The High Court re-examines the quantum using well-established precedents: Ramachandrapa (income with no documentary proof acceptable), Sarla Verma (deductions and multiplier), and Pranay Sethi (future prospects). The court fixes the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.4,000 (27 years old) with 40% future prospects, applies a multiplier of 17, and deducts personal living expenses (1/3) and dependent deductions. Conventional heads (loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses) are enhanced in light of Magma and subsequent cases, with 10% escalation on conventional heads supported by Rasmita Biswal. The court awards enhanced compensation of Rs.5,97,350 with 7.5% interest and directs 50% to the mother, the rest to others, paid within two months, along with costs.
The High Court of Kerala in a criminal revision under the DV Act examines a challenge by a husband and his mother to a trial court order granting maintenance to the wife and denying other DV reliefs. The trial court held that although no act of domestic violence had been proved, the husband had sufficient means yet failed to maintain the wife, and accordingly granted maintenance under Section 20(g) of the DV Act. The II Additional Sessions Court dismissed the appeals. The petitioners argued that the wife cannot be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the DV Act if no domestic violence is established, that she was employed and earning at the time of filing and thus could not claim maintenance, and that the quantum of maintenance was excessive in light of the husband’s means. The court clarifies that relief under the DV Act requires predicate acts of domestic violence and that the term aggrieved person includes someone in a domestic relationship who has suffered such violence; it also discusses economic abuse defined in Section 3(iv). The wife is shown to have had prior earnings and later post doctoral research with substantial earnings, affecting the maintenance calculation. The court reduces the monthly maintenance from 15000 to 10000, payable until November 2019, and allows the revision petition in part.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3238 OF 2022 This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns Raveendran, accused in Crime No.112/2022 (Meppayur Police Station, Kozhikode) under IPC sections 451 and 354 and Section 8 read with 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The prosecution alleges that on 27 February 2022 the accused unlawfully trespassed into the house of the victim’s mother, a 16-year-old, and attempted sexual assault, and that on 13 March 2022 he again trespassed, grabbed the victim’s breast over a churidar top and kissed her breast with sexual intent, thereby outraging modesty. The petitioner surrendered on 28 March 2022 and is in judicial custody. The defense argues that the parties are neighbours and that the victim’s relationship with another person is involved; the case is falsely foisted; there is an unexplained delay before filing the police report, with no prior complaint about outraging modesty. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations but noting ongoing investigation. Relying on the Supreme Court’s dictum that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court granted bail with conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, cooperation with investigation, not to leave India without permission, not to commit similar offences, a 60-day ban from Meppayur jurisdiction or until final report, and reporting/residence details to the court and IO. The order also cites an earlier CRL.M.C. decision appended to the bail file.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2681 OF 2022 This is the second bail application filed by the first accused in Crime No.139/2021 of Kalpakanchery Police Station, Malappuram District, under NDPS offences (Sections 22(C), 20(b)(ii)A r/w Section 29). The petitioner, who has been in custody since 22 May 2021, seeks statutory bail. His earlier bail plea was rejected by this Court on 3 March 2022 (B.A. No.10064/2021). The prosecution case alleges possession of 85 grams of MDMA and 100 grams of ganja in a car, with 12 grams of MDMA recovered from another accused nearby; the offences are alleged to involve a commercial quantity, invoking Section 37 NDPS. The defense contends that the final report was filed without the chemical analysis certificate, and that the analysis is crucial to prove MDMA; they rely onSameer v. State of Kerala (2021) to argue entitlement to statutory bail in absence of the chemical analysis. The prosecution counters with an FSL report indicating the substance is Methamphetamine, arguing that the case falls under the stringent bail regime when commercial quantities are involved, and that the law in Shino Paul, Kamalaksha, Saharath V.P., and related precedents does not override the controlling statutory framework. The Court ultimately holds that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail and dismisses the bail application. The decision emphasizes the coercive impact of commercial quantities and the rigour of Section 37 NDPS, irrespective of-mdma versus methamphetamine labeling in the forensic report.
Shanmughan, the defendant in O.S. 385/2018 before the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda, challenges Ext.P5, the order in I.A. 8/2022, which dismissed a stay application in a money-recovery suit filed by Peninsula Chits (P) Ltd. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted the suit in 2018. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 on 5 July 2020 a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking recovery of Rs. 10,25,000, and the Forum, by Ext.P2, restrained the respondent from taking further proceedings against the petitioner until further orders. The petitioner then sought to stay the civil suit via Ext.P4/I.A. 8/2022; Ext.P5, however, dismissed the stay. The central issue is whether the civil suit should be stayed in light of the forum complaint. The court notes that the suit was instituted before the Ext.P1 complaint and that no set-off or counter-claim was pleaded. Ext.P2 does not specifically restrain the suit. Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits injunctions against proceedings in a court subordinate to it. Citing Emaar MGF v. Aftab Singh, the court holds the CP Act is in addition to other laws so parallel proceedings are permissible. The petitioner’s reliance on Anil Paul v. South Indian Bank to treat the Consumer Forum as a “court” is rejected. The court concludes Exts.P1 and P3 can run in parallel, and the petition is dismissed; Ext.P5 is not shown to be in error. The decision preserves the possibility of recovery under Ext.P1 even if a decree is passed in Ext.P3.
RCREV. Nos. 369 of 2018 and 28 of 2019 These revision petitions, filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, arise from disputes over fair rent for a cinema theatre in Kanjirappally. The petitioner-landlord contends that the petition schedule building, including ancillary structures, is a high-value commercial property whose tenancy should attract a fair rent far above the incumbent ₹800 per month. He asserts the plinth area of 6,802 sq ft, with additional structures pushing the total to 7,802 sq ft, and argues that the surrounding market rents (₹20–₹25 per sq ft) and the property’s prime location justify a higher rate (initially claimed at ₹30 per sq ft). The respondent-tenant disputes these figures, claiming the building is old and dilapidated, has undergone repairs, and that the vacant land should not be included in rent computations. The Rent Control Court fixed ₹2.75 per sq ft, and the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred. On revision, the Kerala High Court reassessed the evidence, including rental agreements in nearby properties and entertainment tax records, and concluded that the tenanted area should encompass parking and related spaces, totaling 7,802 sq ft. Relying on Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria and Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan, the Court fixed fair rent at ₹7.50 per sq ft with a 10% annualized increase every three years, allowing the landlord’s revision in part and modifying the tenant’s case likewise. Interlocutory applications were closed.
Sidheek filed W.P.(C) No.4709 of 2023 challenging Exhibit P4, a stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent Municipality under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, and sought a declaration that Exhibit P1 building permit enables him to construct a football turf on his plot. The petitioner asserts that the building permit and approved plan authorized the project and that ordinary earth removal was permitted within the stated parameters; he contends that the stop memo is unjustified and that construction had not commenced, rendering Ext. P4 invalid. The 3rd respondent Municipality counters that the permit allowed removal of ordinary earth within a defined area (1528.83 sq.m) to a depth of 1.5 m, with a total permit for 2293.25 cubic metres; however, inspection revealed substantial extraction beyond the approved scope, with about 4394.80 cubic metres allegedly removed, based on a sketch (Exhibit R3(a)) and other records. The petitioner alleges inaccuracies in measurements and service of notice, while the respondents maintain that the activity was based on Exhibit P1 and that the matter is a question of fact to be decided in accordance with law. The court notes the reliance on Kulakkada Grama Panchayath v. Sabu Thomas and disposes the petition, directing that any reply to Exhibit P4 be considered and that action be taken within two weeks of receipt of the reply, leaving the substantive issues to be resolved as per law.
The Kerala High Court, in CRL.MC No. 6219 of 2022, examines a petition to quash an FIR (Crime No. 233/2022, Moozhiyar Police Station) and all further proceedings arising from offences under IPC Sections 452, 294(b), 323 (read with 34) and Arms Act Sections 20 and 27(1). The petitioners, accused 1 and 2, allegedly trespassed on the residence of the 4th respondent, engaged in verbal and physical altercation, and a gun was drawn, causing fear. The petition relies on a settlement with the victims (affidavits A2–A5) and a gun license (A6) to contend that continued prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose, warranting quashing under settled IPC offences. The State opposes quashing, especially for Arms Act offences. The court affirms the settlement’s genuineness and notes that the IPC offences can be quashed on that basis, while scrutinizing the Arms Act. It is argued that Sections 5 and 7 of the Arms Act (licensing regime and prohibited arms) are not attracted due to the license; the court cites Surinder Singh v. State (UT Chandigarh) to stress that possession under a license does not automatically trigger Section 27 absent a violation of Sections 5 or 7. The court analyzes Section 20 (an enabling provision) and concludes no material exists to sustain Arms Act charges. Consequently, the FIR and all proceedings are quashed.”
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition suit in which the plaintiffs claimed 12 cents of ancestral property and sought 1/3rd share each. The defendant contends that 8 cents were allotted to her by an oral will at the time of her marriage and that a portion of the property is non-partible; she also challenges documents relating to the parentage of the plaintiffs and accuses the plaintiffs of suppressing material facts. The trial court held the property to be partitionable and allotted 1/3rd share to each party; the appellate court affirmed. During admission of the appeal, the defendant urged that the decree was the outcome of fraud and that critical documents (Annexures A1, A and B) were not properly tendered under the Evidence Act, suggesting the plaintiffs are not the children of K. Ponnamma but of K. Radhadevi. The High Court considered the fraud argument in the light of established jurisprudence, including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, and noted the documentary disputes while emphasising that fraud, if proved, could vitiate judgments. However, on the available materials, the court held that fraud could not be established and dismissed the appeal, ruling that a substantial question of law was not formulated for admission. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed and the trial and appellate orders stand.
CRL.A Nos. 692/2007; 693/2007; 694/2007; 695/2007; 700/2007; 701/2007; 702/2007; 703/2007; 704/2007; 705/2007; 706/2007; 707/2007; 708/2007; 709/2007; 712/2007; 713/2007; 714/2007 This is a consolidated set of criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, convicting the appellant, G. Chandrabhanu, a former Junior Superintendent in the Office of the District Registrar (GL), Alappuzha, in 17 cases under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC. The prosecution alleged the forging of Essentiality Certificates to claim medical reimbursement totaling ₹23,381, using the documents as genuine. All trials were tried together (CCNos.16/2003 to 32/2003) with a common judgment dated 28.03.2007. On appeal, the Kerala High Court scrutinized the evidentiary value of Exts.P2–P50 (applications and Essentiality Certificates), noting that most were photocopies and originals were not produced. The prosecution claimed destruction of originals by the Accountant General’s office, evidenced by Ext.P66; however, the court held that Ext.P66 did not prove destruction or admissible foundation for secondary evidence, and that primary evidence of the originals was not established. Relying on established jurisprudence on retrial and the admissibility of secondary evidence, the court held that there were no exceptional grounds to order a retrial and that the prosecution failed to prove forgery beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellant acquitted in all 17 cases; all connected CRL.A. Nos. were allowed.
This is an appeal under M.A.C.A No. 2093 of 2012 arising from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, in O.P.M.V. No. 61/2010, concerning a road traffic accident dated 25.04.2009 near Meppadi police station that left the claimant Sri Muhammed Kutty severely injured and subsequently deceased. The appellants are ten legal heirs (Ayisha, Mymoona, Sainaba, Rukhiya, Jameela, Nabeeesa, Saidhalavi, Ramla, Subaida, Muneera) who claimed compensation on the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 23,800 with 7.5% interest per annum. The insurer admitted policy coverage; the driver and owner contested. The appellants contended the award undervalued the claim, arguing the deceased, a 72-year-old coolie, had a substantial earning capacity and income should be notionally increased beyond Rs. 3,000 per month, drawing on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify higher monthly income and permissible adjustments such as bystander expenses. They also sought compensation for loss of future earnings and enhanced pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, arguing disability considerations. The insurer contended the Tribunal’s award was just and that no enhancement was warranted. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 44,100, fixed income at Rs. 6,000/month, allowed bystander expenses at Rs. 250/day for 14 days, and held that future loss requires a disability certificate per Raj Kumar, ultimately directing the insurer to pay within two months and apportion the amount equally among the claimants.
Sulthan Bathery Service Co-operative Bank challenges Ext.P13 (dated 17.04.2018) order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement) under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the attachment Ext.P14 (dated 10.08.2018) issued in relation to non-payment of contributions. The petitioner is a primary Co-operative Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 with 52 employees, some of whom are already pensioned under the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board. The Bank contends it is exempt from the 1952 Act under Section 16(1) because it is a cooperative society employing fewer than 50 persons and operates without the aid of power; it had communicated that employees were registered under a pension scheme and that the 1952 Act provisions were thus inapplicable. The respondents argue the EPF Act applies based on the Bank’s activities, noting proceedings under Section 7A and that the Bank’s use of power (including computers) constitutes “aid of power.” The Bank relies on a prior directive in WP(C) 13339/2006 (Exhibit P12) directing consideration of exemption. The court ultimately holds that the use of power in modern banking extends to computers and related devices, thus defeating the exemption and quashing Ext.P13 and Ext.P14; the writ petition is allowed, with the EPF actions deemed unsustainable.
