The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenges Ext.P12, an order of the Additional Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, denying sanction under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act, 2007 read with Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the second respondent. The sequence of events began with the petitioner’s arrest on 30.06.2011 for allegedly driving under the influence, followed by a breath/blood test dispute and a police complaint under IPC sections 279 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner alleged that falsities in the medical certificate stating a “smell of alcohol” and other acts by the police and departmental officials had been used to harass him. He sought sanction for prosecution under IPC sections 192 and 193, arguing vested vengeance and administrative malfeasance by the second respondent. Ext.P12 expressly refused sanction, stating no prima facie case existed and that there was no basis to prosecute the officer. The court, however, found that Ext.P12 did not consider the entire material before the sanctioning authority; three documents and other materials were not weighed, and the court cited the principle from CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal requiring complete, independent scrutiny of all relevant materials before sanction is granted. The judgment quashes Ext.P12 and remits the matter to reconsider Ext.P10 in light of the observations, with a three-month outer limit to decide, in accordance with law.
This is a constitutional challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to Ext.P10, a delivery order dated 12-01-2023 in EP No.99 of 2018 in RCP No.58 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Koyilandi. The respondent-landlord had obtained an ex parte eviction in 2015 on the ground of bonafide need for his own occupation. The petitioner, Vasntha, claims she learned of the eviction only on receipt of the execution petition and moved to set aside the ex parte order and condone the delay in filing those petitions; those petitions were dismissed in 2021. RCA No.21 of 2022 was dismissed; meanwhile the respondent sought expedited disposal of EP No.99 of 2018 via OP(RC) 26/2022, which this Court allowed by dispensing with notice and directing the Munsiff to decide within a month after production of a certified copy. The petitioner alleges suppression of material facts and argues that Ext.P10 violates a stay order; the respondent contends the omission to mention Exts.P4 and P5 in OP(RC) 26/2022 was inadvertent. Relying on Kensington, Prestige Lights and Usha Nanthini, the Court emphasizes candour in writ jurisdiction. It holds Ext.P10 liable to be set aside but allows the execution to proceed in accordance with law, noting RCA 21/2022 has been dismissed. The judgment is delivered by Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar on 24-08-2023.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4846 OF 2022 This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC by Shaabu V.G., the sole accused in Crime No.95 of 2022, Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are punishable under IPC Sections 498, 468 and 471. The prosecution contends that the petitioner misused the de facto complainant’s Aadhaar and PAN cards to create forged documents and obtain a GST number in the name of “Bhavani Wood Products.” The GST department notice for arrears of Rs.5,97,439 prompted the complaint. The de facto complainant explains that he entrusted his PAN to one Vinod for an IDBI Bank account, and later learned that “Bhavani Wood Products” was run by Shaabu, who would pay the amount. Annexure R2(a) cites a statement that the accused allegedly forged an agreement dated 19.10.2022 in the name of Mr. D. Chandramohan and the complainant, enabling GST registration through OTP from RJ Associates. The State argues prima facie case and continued investigation; the petitioner submits innocence and willingness to comply with conditions. The court notes progress in investigation but directs two days of further interrogation to aid the investigation. If arrested, the petitioner is to be produced before a jurisdictional court. The order grants anticipatory bail with conditions, including surrender for interrogation, bond and two sureties, ongoing cooperation, and non-interference with witnesses. The court emphasizes balancing effective investigation with personal liberty, and permits the de facto complainant to pursue GST liability remedies through proper channels if necessary.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by five petitioners (accused nos. 1–5 in C.C. No. 1210/2021 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hosdurg) seeking quashing of proceedings arising from alleged offences under sections 341, 323, 147 and 143 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution claims that on 17.09.2021, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the complainant, and caused injuries. The petition relies on amicable settlement between the parties, supported by affidavits, and argues that quashing would further peace and the ends of justice, especially since no other serious offences are involved against the petitioners. The Respondents—State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Aneesh K.—submit reservations about quashing solely on settlement and emphasise not to bypass the evidentiary process in cases involving non-compoundable offences. The Court surveys established Supreme Court law, citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to lay down the principle that Section 482 power should generally be exercised where the dispute is civil/private in nature and settled, with exceptions for heinous or public-interest crimes. The Court ultimately holds that, in light of the nature of the offence and the settlement, quashing will not undermine the ends of justice and proceeds to quash the proceedings, while noting the ongoing annexures and final reports.
This high court appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV)180/2011 at Kottayam, concerning the death of Aravind M.V. The appellants, being the father, mother and younger sister of the deceased (with Anoop M.P. as the elder brother), challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal held the KSRTC bus driven rashly and negligently caused the accident on 01.06.2010, and awarded Rs.6,44,000 with 7.5% interest from 16.02.2011. The appellants contend the compensation is grossly inadequate and argue that the deceased, a 19-year-old final-year B.Tech student, would have earned more as notional income. They rely on precedents enabling higher notional incomes for young graduates (e.g., Basanth Devi and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021) and insist on applying Sarla Verma’s doctrine on future prospects (and a higher multiplier). The court discusses Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and related authorities, including deductions for personal living expenses, future prospects, and the proper scale for multipliers, along with conventional heads (funeral, loss of estate, love and affection) and filial/ spousal consortium under Magma. The High Court ultimately allows the appeal, enhancing compensation to Rs.16,93,400 with 7.5% interest from 16.02.2011, apportions the amount among the appellants and Anoop M.P. in a specified ratio, and directs payment within two months along with bank details. The judgment emphasizes adherence to established notional income concepts, future-prospects doctrine, and escalation provisions for conventional heads while applying the principal of just compensation under Section 168 of the Act.
Vasudevan Pillai, the appellant, challenges MACA No. 958 of 2013 against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur’s award in OPMV No. 20/2007 for injuries sustained on 02.01.2006 when a JCB allegedly driven rashly felled a mango tree, injuring his left thigh. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded Rs. 27,500 under various heads, but the claimant contends the sum underestimates medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and disability. The evidence shows the claimant underwent 24 days of inpatient treatment and produced a 13% permanent disability certificate (Ext. A8) though the Tribunal adopted 9% permanent disability for calculation. The judgment discusses the bifurcation of damages into pecuniary (special) and non-pecuniary (general) damages, citing Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another to outline the components of compensation such as treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishment, and loss of earnings during treatment, as well as damages for pain, suffering and trauma. The court recognizes notional income and assesses loss of earnings for two months, along with enhanced amounts for nourishment, bystander expenses, loss of amenities, and disability. The High Court partly allows the appeal, awarding enhanced compensation with 7.5% interest, and later issues a correction reducing the enhanced sum in Oct. 2022. The operative order directs payment within two months from certified copy, subject to further correction.
This writ petition challenges the selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Rank List was prepared by the Kerala State Co-operative Service Examination Board at the request of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Society. Before the Rank List could be acted upon, the Managing Committee was superseded under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, after which the Administrative Committee took over the process. The petitioner contends that the Administrative Committee has no power to make substantive appointments in the Society and asserts that the selection process was tainted by corruption and mala fides. The respondents claim authorization from the 1st respondent Joint Registrar to continue the process initiated by the superseded Committee, arguing there is no illegality since the Administrative Committee is only completing the process begun earlier. The court clarifies well-settled law that an Administrative Committee can manage day-to-day affairs but cannot take policy decisions or enroll members, citing earlier precedents and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan. Noting the Rank List has already been transmitted to the Society, the court directs that the Administrative Committee must not make substantive appointments but may authorize temporary appointments to prevent administrative breakdown, with explicit notice that such positions are temporary and do not confer vested rights to permanent employment.
This writ petition challenges the Travancore Devaswom Board’s inaction in promoting/appointing petitioners from Ext.P1 rank list for Overseer Grade III (and Grade II) despite vacancies and a complex promotion regime. Petitioners, ranked 40–58 on the Ext.P1 list (dated 23/6/2018), claim there were numerous vacancies: 32 Grade II posts and 42 Grade III posts (as per RTI replies Exts.P3–P4), with 7 Grade III vacancies shown as unfilled, and Ext.P5 indicating a seniority list as on 31/01/2020. Ext.P6 (29/2021) purportedly qualified 30 Grade III Overseers for promotion to Grade II, creating further vacancies; Ext.P9–P10 suggest additional promotions/relaxations via seniority and representation. Petitioners press for appointment from Ext.P1, reporting and advising of vacancies to the 3rd respondent for promotion and for consideration under Travancore Devaswom Board Reservation of Vacancies for Temple Employees to the Post of Devaswom Guard and Grade IIIrd Overseer Rules, 2014, or by direct promotion within the law. Respondents attribute the vacancies to financial constraints, covid-pandemic impacts, and austerity, including Ext.R1(a) abolishing 10 posts of III Grade Overseers on 16/11/2021, and cite decisions limiting the binding effect of rank lists. The court ultimately allows the petition with directions to fill available posts in accordance with law and to issue advise memos within two months, without prejudice to statutory rights of other eligible candidates.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed in the Kerala High Court by six accused (petitioners) challenging FIR No. 837/2013 and the connected proceedings culminating in Criminal Case No. 617/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery. The defacto complainant had filed O.S. No. 339/2013 seeking declaration of easement by grant over a pathway (C schedule) and later lodged a private criminal complaint under IPC sections 143, 144, 149, 447 and 427. The Magistrate referred the matter to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A final report was filed, naming the petitioners as accused. The petitioners submitted that the final report is baseless and that the civil disputes between the parties predominate; the criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and misuse of process, and should be quashed in view of authorities that civil disputes cannot be cloaked as criminal offences. The respondents contended that civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings and that the acts alleged amount to offences. The High Court found that the civil dispute mirrors the criminal complaint and final report, and that the complainant sought to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. Accordingly, the court quashed the final report and all further proceedings, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 807 of 2013) in the Kerala High Court, heard on 28 November 2022, by Justice Mary Joseph. The appellants are the legal representatives of Mohanan Nair, who died in an autorickshaw accident in 2009. They challenge the MACT Pala's award of ₹3,06,000, contending the deceased, a 54-year-old rubber tapper earning about ₹7,500 per month, should have been assigned a higher notional income. The petition claimed compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, and urged the court to apply principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram and the Supreme Court's Pranay Sethi guidelines, including future prospects. The insurer and owner contest the petition, noting the insured driver lacked a valid license and that the vehicle lacked a permit. The Tribunal had fixed an income of ₹4,000 per month and awarded ₹3,06,000 with 7.5% interest and permitted relief on recovery. The High Court re-assesses the claim, holding ₹7,000 per month as notional income for 2009, adds 10% future prospects, applies a multiplier of 11 for age 54, and deducts 1/4 for personal expenses among four dependents. It awards additional compensation of ₹6,70,300 and directs the insurer to deposit it within two months, with interest fixed as per the impugned award. The court allows the MACA, though it excludes damages for pain and suffering and love and affection, and clarifies the insurer may recover from the vehicle owner for breach of policy.
CRL.A Nos. 2239/2009, 2369/2009, 1620/2013 This is a consolidated criminal appeal from the judgment of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C. No. 10/2005 (dated 13/10/2009), arising from a Panchayat project under the Peoples Plan program. Accused 1 (Vasanthakumary) and accused 2 (Vijayan) were respectively the President and Secretary of Thodiyoor Grama Panchayat; accused 3 (John T. Varghese) was the Singer India Ltd. branch manager. The Panchayat intended to purchase 70 sewing machines for unemployed women, inviting tenders and ultimately contracting with Singer India Ltd. The prosecution alleged that accused 1 and 2, with accused 3, misappropriated ₹56,503 by withdrawing ₹1,99,500 against the actual cost of ₹1,32,997, and falsified accounts, thereby violating sections of the PC Act (13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)) and IPC (120B, 477A). The trial court convicted 1 & 2, acquitted 3. On appeal, the Kerala High Court, before a single judge, dismissed the appeals of 1st and 2nd accused and abated the State’s appeal in 1620/2013 after the death of the third accused. The court held that entrustment of ₹2.10 lakh to the accused was proved, and the misappropriation of ₹56,503 was established, with violations of tender norms. The appeals were thus dismissed; the State’s abated appeal was also dismissed. The judgment affirms the trial court’s appreciation and sentences as reasonable.
This MACA (Motor Accidents Claims Appeal) arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Ottappalam, challenging the liability allocation after a fatal 2000 accident involving an autorickshaw KL-09-E-8094. The Tribunal held the insurer liable for the awarded compensation due to a finding that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence and that the policy was an "act only" policy, directing the insured to reimburse the award. The appellant-owner contends that the insurer’s reliance on the Swaran Singh ratio to deny liability is misplaced, arguing that Ext. X1, a report from the Regional Transport Office, shows the licence details relate to a different person and that Swaran Singh’s rationale should not override the evidence. The appellant sought remand to enable production of a valid licence along with its details from the RTO and to consider policy coverage. The respondents argued the insurer’s liability could be negated under the policy conditions, citing Swaran Singh and later decisions such as the Beli Ram line of authority supporting employer/licence verification. The Kerala High Court remanded the matter, directing the Tribunal to obtain licence details and consider the policy terms, with a cost order of Rs. 15,000 to be deposited, and held that the right of recovery would be set aside during remand.
This Regular Second Appeal challenges concurrent decrees in a suit for declaration of title to plaint A schedule property. The suit arises from a partition claimed in 1952 within a joint family; the second plaintiff allegedly became absolute owner by a settlement in 2009. The first defendant Sangha claimed title and possession since 1956, supported by Taluk Land Board proceedings and a series of tax records. The Trial Court decreed that the judgment in O.S.381/2004 was not binding on the second plaintiff and other legal heirs, while the prayer for declaration of title in favour of the second plaintiff was disallowed. The First Appellate Court upheld this, and the matter went on appeal. The appellants argued (i) that a suit for declaration without any consequential relief is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act; (ii) that the trial court erred in not having a definite finding on possession; and (iii) that there was misjoinder and issues of title/possession. The respondents contended that no substantial question of law was involved and that the evidence supports the Sangha’s possession. The High Court analyzed evidence, noting that mutation, tax receipts and Taluk Land Board records do not by themselves confer title or possession; possession follows title where the land is vacant. With multiple precedents on Section 34, the court held the appeal lacks merit and dismissed it with costs.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 12626 of 2021) before the Kerala High Court concerns the Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the Bank), which seeks a directive to the Sub Registrar to erase entries relating to attachments on the Bank’s property and to register Ext.P5, a sale certificate issued under SARFAESI proceedings. The Bank had obtained an equitable mortgage over the property from the original owners on 21 April 2012 and later exercised possession on 20 August 2016 under the SARFAESI framework, bringing the property to sale on 27 December 2019 (Ext.P5). When the Bank attempted to register Ext.P5, the Sub Registrar refused, citing multiple attachments noted in Ext.P6 encumbrance certificate. The Bank contends that, under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, it holds a primary charge by virtue of its prior equitable mortgage, thus entitling registration of Ext.P5 and erasure of subsequent encumbrances. The respondents contest, as they are attaching creditors seeking recovery, and some respondents did not appear. The court consciously acknowledges settled law that a prior equitable mortgage can prima facie prevail over attachments, subject to verification. It directs the Sub Registrar to verify the mortgage's priority on a specified date (21.01.2022) and, if established, to register Ext.P5 and remove the later encumbrances, with further steps for registry transfer following. The petition is disposed by an order directing action consistent with the Bank’s priority claim under the SARFAESI framework.
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenges an award dated 25 August 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in O.P.(MV) No. 994/2009. The appellant, Sivadas @ Das, sustained injuries in a road accident on 8 April 2009 while travelling in an autorickshaw. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,08,378 with 7.5% interest per annum. The Tribunal fixed the appellant’s monthly income at Rs. 4,000 despite the nominee’s claim of Rs. 7,000 as a mechanic, and it accepted an 8% disability (Ext. A14) while the disability certificate indicated 18%. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa ruling to contend for a higher income and greater compensation; the respondents’ counsel contested the higher disability percentage, arguing the record shows only mild disability and no infirmity beyond 8%. The High Court re-assessed the evidence: it increased monthly income to Rs. 7,000, fixed disability at 15%, and recalculated losses—earnings, loss of disability income, and loss of amenities. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,40,880 (total Rs. 2,49,258) is awarded, with the same rate of interest, payable by the insurer (3rd respondent) within two months. The appellant is entitled to deposit and beneficiary relief on realisation.
OP(FT) Nos. 6 of 2019 and 10 of 2019 Geethakumari C and others petitioned OP(FT) Nos. 6/2019 and 10/2019 before the Kerala High Court, challenging orders of the Forest Tribunal under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The petitions trace a complex sequence: OA 63/1975 before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad, which was allowed in 1977; assignment of the subject property in 1980; a 1988 review order; and subsequent appeals culminating in MFA 166/2004 and MFA 601/1989, eventually leading to extant exemption under Section 3(2) & (3) of the Act. OP(FT)6/2019 challenges an amendment to the extent of the land subject to the exemption, while OP(FT)10/2019 seeks review of Ext.P8 and related orders. The court held that the exemption order has merged with the MFA/decree and that the Tribunal cannot entertain review on the inter se issues of title, applying the principle of merger and the doctrine of functus officio. It unanimously agrees, following the Full Bench authorities, that an assignee has a legitimate claim to restoration under Section 8(3)(b), but that restoration orders are for the Custodian to execute, not the Tribunal to specify a recipient. Consequently, the legal heirs of the assignee should approach the Custodian; disputes on title may be pursued in Civil Court. OP(FT)10/2019 is disposed of with these observations; OP(FT)6/2019 is rejected. Costs awarded to respective parties.
This motor accident claims appeal challenges a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in O.P.(MV).No.2404/2004 (Thrissur) dated 07.10.2010, arising from a 31.07.2004 road accident in which Varghese, riding a motorcycle, succumbed to injuries after a Toyota Qualis struck him. The appellants sought compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/-, naming Shihabudhin (driver of the Qualis) and the Insurance Company as respondents. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of Varghese and the second respondent in a 50:50 split and awarded Rs. 3,61,000 as total compensation, with 50% payable (8% interest). The appellants contended the finding of 50% fault by Varghese was unsubstantiated, relying on Ext.A2 (final police report) and the scene mahazar, arguing that mere recitals cannot prove contributory negligence without cogent evidence. They also argued for higher compensation based on income and allowable heads. The insurer disputed negligence and advanced quantum arguments. The High Court, referencing Velayudhan E.P. v. P.P. Poulose, held that scene mahazar alone cannot prove contributory negligence and set aside the Tribunal’s 50% attribution to the deceased. For quantum, it applied Ramachandrappa for income, Pranay Sethi for future prospects, and Sarla Verma for multiplier, recomputing loss of dependency at Rs.7,56,000 and by adding other heads, total Rs.9,22,000. The appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation to be deposited and distributed (40:25:35) within two months, with court fees and interest directions.
P. Murugan, the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.18/2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, appeals against an award dated 21 November 2011 that granted compensation of Rs. 3,05,920 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 17 February 2007, when a jeep (KL-7 C 313) collided with a lorry (KL-12 B 9712). The Tribunal held the lorry driver liable, with the insurer admitting coverage; the claimant’s claim encompassed medical and miscellaneous expenses, transport, nourishment, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The appellant contends that the quantum is inadequate, particularly because the Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs. 3,000, though PW1 testified to Rs. 6,000 per month. Relying on precedents like Ramachandrapa and Syed Sadiq, he argues for a higher income reflecting ground realities and the serious injuries leading to permanent disability (52% per disability certificate, Exhibit C1). The insurer contends the award is just and should not be enhanced. The High Court, applying established principles of just compensation and objective assessment of damages, fixes the monthly income at Rs. 6,000 in light of the evidence and the employee’s occupation, and evaluates heads of loss, including bystander expenses and pain and suffering, deeming further enhancement warranted in view of the injuries. It ultimately enhances compensation to Rs. 2,70,270 with interest and directions for payment.
Rembha, the appellant, challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur award in O.P.(M.V) No.2083/2005 arising from a motor accident on 17.04.2005 near Kuthiran on the Thrissur–Palakkad highway, seeking higher compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal held the second respondent driver liable and the first respondent vicariously liable, with the insurer directed to indemnify; a total award of Rs.86,530 with 8% interest was made. The appellant, a homemaker, pressed for Rs.4,000 monthly income (instead of Rs.3,000 as accepted by the Tribunal) and for a higher permanent disability certificate, claimed at 7% versus the Tribunal’s 4%. Ext.A7 (disability certificate) indicated 7% permanent disability, but the Tribunal relied on a lower figure. The petition documented medical treatment from 17.04.2005 to 24.05.2005 for a degloving injury, knee involvement, and wound care, with hospitalisation for 37 days. Relying on Ramachandrappa and Raj Kumar, the appellant argued for full and fair compensation, including special and general damages, loss of earning, bystander expenses, nourishment, clothing and pain and suffering, guided by Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi multiplier principles (as approved by NIC v. Pranay Sethi). The insurer argued that the Tribunal’s quantum was just. On appeal, the High Court re-measured disability at 5%, extended inpatient treatment, and recalculated components, enhancing total compensation to Rs.46,800 with 6% interest and ordering payment within two months, including bank details.
CRL.M.C.2786/2019 & 2794/2019 These are two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (S.T. Nos. 20/2019 and 14/2019) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam, arising from complaints lodged by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ernakulam, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioners, Sarovar Hotels Private Limited and its Director and General Manager, challenge alleged violations including non-maintenance of muster rolls and wage records (Rule 75, 78, 79, 81), non-display of statutory notices, and failure to send copies of notices to inspectors (Rules 81(1)(i), 81(2)). The core dispute is whether the engagement with IIM Kozhikode constitutes contract labour or an establishment under the Act, and whether the alleged offences fall within the Act’s ambit given the petitioners’ claim that their staff are fixed-tenure employees and that the IIM engagement is a service contract, not a labour‑supply arrangement. The petitioners contend they are governed by the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, and that the central Act does not apply; they also urge lack of jurisdiction and that the complaints are time-barred. The respondents argue that the CLRA applies and that statutory violations occurred. The Court ultimately quashes the complaints, finding no liability under the CLRA and holding the complaints barred by limitation, exonerating the petitioners.
