WP(C) Nos. 12327/2023, 12405/2023, 12459/2023 The petitioners, depositors of the Thodiyoor Panchayat Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society Ltd. (No. Q.1578), approached the Kerala High Court seeking writ relief to compel the bank to disburse fixed deposits matured over several years. The petitions, filed in 2023 and heard together with connected matters (WP(C) Nos. 12327/2023, 12405/2023, 12459/2023), allege the bank refused to release amounts on maturity despite ownership of valid fixed deposit certificates. The respondents contended that the underlying transactions are banking in nature and not suited to public-law remedies; they urged that the petitioners pursue an arbitration remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Citing a Division Bench decision in Raveendran V.G., the bank’s counsel framed the remedy as arbitration rather than writ. Counsel for the petitioners sought withdrawal of the writ petitions with a reservation to approach arbitration, highlighting the need for expeditious resolution given the pendency since 2023. The Court agreed to relegating the disputes to arbitration under Section 69, directing the Arbitration Court to expedite proceedings and conclude within four months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The order thus forecloses merit adjudication in writs and channels the disputes into the statutory arbitration process, balancing depositor rights with cooperative-bank regulation.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears MACA No.108 of 2018 filed by Abdul Azeez against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., arising from a motor accident on 29.09.2012 involving his motorcycle KL-56-B-1350 and a bus KL-13-L-4779. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, awarded ₹4,11,218 as compensation to the third respondent insurer, holding the bus driver negligent and the insurer liable under various heads: loss of earnings, transport, hospitalization, medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability. The appellant challenged several heads and the quantum, contending that the notional income should be ₹8,500 per month (per Ramachandrappa) rather than ₹5,000, and that the loss of earnings for 12 months, along with enhanced amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, should be higher. He also argued that permanent disability compensation, computed with future prospects, ought to be recalculated using the higher notional income in line with Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. The High Court, while not disturbing other heads, refixed the notional income at ₹8,500 and recalculated several heads, granting an additional ₹1,45,010 over the tribunal award and directing deposit within two months with 8% interest and costs. The appeal was allowed in part, with enhanced compensation to be disbursed to the claimant.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1163 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the first accused in Crime No. 35/2024 of Bekal Police Station, Kasargod, challenging ongoing detention. The prosecution alleges that around 22:30 on 13.01.2024, the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common intention to injure the defacto complainant; the first accused struck him with an iron rod while others hurled stones, though the complainant managed to ward off the assault. The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication, noting he has been in judicial custody since 16.01.2024. The Advocates for the petitioner argue that investigation is now complete and recovery has been effected; thus further detention is unnecessary. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes bail, but concedes that the petitioner has already spent about a month in custody and that the investigation is at its fag end with recoveries effected. The court cites established bail principles from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, emphasizing that bail decisions must be reasoned, consider factors such as the gravity of the offence, likelihood of repetition, witness tampering, and the possibility of absconding. It also notes that a bail order should reflect conscious application of mind. After due consideration, the court holds that continued detention is unnecessary. It grants bail with specific conditions, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 This is a common Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court hearing five connected ITA appeals (ITA Nos. 68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019) filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, challenging an ITAT order regarding Section 80P deductions claimed by Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The lead case (ITA 68/2017) concerns whether a Multi-State Co-operative Society (MSCS) registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 is entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the MSCS not being registered under the State Co-operative Societies Acts. The court overruled the Revenue’s preliminary objections on maintainability, recognizing that MSCS Act societies operate across multiple States and that the definition of “co-operative society” under Section 2(19) of the IT Act should be applied contemporaneously to MSCS. Citing Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd, the court held that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally in favour of the assessee. On the second question regarding income from surplus funds, the court remitted the issue to the AO following Peroorkada Service Cooperative Bank Ltd for disposal afresh. All five appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 & connected cases (batch: 273/2018 to 393/2018) This is a consolidated order of the Kerala High Court, delivered by Justice P. Somarajan on 07 June 2024, disposing of CrLRc Nos. 269/2018 and a large cluster of connected petitions (CRL.RC Nos. 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018) arising from Suo Motu Proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017.
The petition is filed by T.N. Sadasivan, an office bearer of the Kunnathunadu SNDP Union, challenging actions surrounding the Neeleswaram SNDP Sakha and the leadership dispute within the SNDP Sakha. The petitioner alleges that the former President and Secretary were removed by the General Secretary, with an Administrative Committee installed. When the Administrative Committee attempted to assume charge, respondents allegedly threatened them and did not hand over the office keys. A member reportedly faced a physical assault. Based on a complaint, Crime No. 915/2023 was registered with Kalady Police Station. The petitioner approached the police seeking protection to enter the Sakha office, to access keys and documents, and to ensure smooth functioning of the Sakha office at Neeleswaram. The Government Pleader submitted that civil suits had already been instituted between the parties and two crimes had been registered; police cannot adjudicate civil right disputes and must leave the matter to civil courts. The Court framed the central question: can the High Court under Article 226 act as a forum to decide entitlement to hold office, and grant police protection in civil rights disputes? Citing case law from George Mirante, P. R. Murlidharan, and Gladstone George Varghese, the Court held that it would not be proper to direct police protection for the Sakha office or to hand over keys. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue civil remedies, while directing the police to maintain law and order pending civil court determination. The petition is disposed of with these directions.
The petitioner, M/S. RDS Projects Ltd., is a leading contracting company that challenges Ext. P49, an order blacklisting the firm for five years and cancelling its license to quote for future works. The dispute centers on the Palarivattom Flyover in Ernakulam on NH 66. After completing substantial works in 2014-2016, the flyover developed defects including potholes, water stagnation, and stressed joints due to repairs carried out in monsoon conditions. KITCO and IIT Madras examined the structure and proposed rehabilitation schemes; IIT Madras suggested strengthening 97 of 102 RCC girders, while Dr. E. Sreedharan advised dismantling and replacing with PSC girders. The Government of Kerala established a technical committee to reconcile conflicting views, which ultimately recommended rehabilitating the bridge through DMRC under Ext. P17. The government directed the RpBDCK to initiate action against the contractor for lapses under the PWD manual, and Ext. P49 blacklisting was issued after a show cause and a reply by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the earlier reports, the rectification plans, and the involvement of DMRC were mishandled, that the show cause was deficient, and that the government acted with malice and without fair hearing. The Kerala High Court, however, upholds the cautionary safety measures and the contractual basis for blacklisting, and dismisses the petition. The court emphasizes that due process was followed, that the contract terms and PWD manual authorize such action, and that public safety justifies the measure.
CRL.A Nos. 527, 528 & 540 of 2017 The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and G. Girish, heard three criminal appeals arising from the conviction of the appellants in S.C. No. 648 of 2012 of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha. The appellants were found guilty of offences including murder (Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC), conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC), and were sentenced to life imprisonment with fines and, in some counts, additional terms for related offences. The prosecution’s case rested largely on circumstantial evidence and on recoveries made at the instance of the accused, based on alleged disclosures and statements by witnesses. The court scrutinized the recovery process, the credibility of witnesses, and the chain of events linking the accused to the crime, noting serious concerns about fabrications, embellishments, and missing independent corroboration. It highlighted the importance of strict compliance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (discovery) and related panchnama procedures, the requirement for evidence to form a complete chain of circumstances, and the need for admissible electronic evidence (65B) where applicable. On these grounds, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences and releasing the appellants on bail.
The petitioner, a crumb rubber production unit, challenges the denial of extended incentives under the State’s Special Incentive Scheme. It had an HT power connection with the Kerala State Electricity Board since 1994 under the incentive policy and contends that the government breached promises of uninterrupted 100% incentive supply. Similar petitions led to a Supreme Court direction via Ext. P5 directing the Board to extend the incentive period for petitioners in that batch, and the petitioner submitted a representation to extend the benefit. This representation was rejected by Ext. P6. On 23.01.2024 counsel for the Board relied on a Division Bench decision in Kerala v. State Electricity Board (2016) which held that Ext. P5 relief could not be granted to the petitioner. The court flagged that the grievance appears to be individually grounded and not suitable for class relief, emphasizing that the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment would depend on factors such as rate and duration of power cuts, consumption, and waivers or acquiescence by the individual consumer. Consequently, the court held thatExt. P5 relief could not be extended to the petitioner and declined to interfere with Ext. P6, dismissing the writ petition with no order as to costs. The Appendix lists Exts. P1–P6, including the Supreme Court judgment Ext. P5.
This High Court of Kerala, in CRL.MC 1039 of 2016, challenges the cognizance and seeks quashing of proceedings in CC No.1145/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Malappuram, arising from a private complaint under sections 499 and 500 IPC. The complainant, Dr. Hassan Thangal, alleges that the petitioners published a book containing defamatory statements about late Sayyids and other Islamic figures, including material about Shamseeya Thareeqath and related religious organizations. The petitioners contend the publication is a fair critique and part of a historical discussion on religious practices, authored by multiple persons, and published within a commemorative volume of the Samastha Kerala Jam’iyyathul Ulama. They argue such statements fall within exceptions to defamation and are protected by public good as well as truth; the publication is offered as public information to guide followers about correct practices. The State opposes, asserting that the statements are specific accusations against individuals and not mere fair comment, and that issues of defamation are to be adjudicated at trial. The court, relying on Neeharika and other precedents, holds that quashing under Section 482 Cr.PC should be sparingly exercised and that determining truth or public good is a matter for trial. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, with a caution that observations are not binding on the trial court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1042 OF 2024 This bail petition (BAIL APPL. NO. 1042 OF 2024) arises from Crime No.1542/2023 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, where the sole accused is charged under IPC Section 447 (criminal trespass) and Official Secrets Act, 1923, Section 3(1)(a), for allegedly trespassing into the Ezhimala Indian Naval Academy – a prohibited naval establishment. The petitioner, a 21-year-old from Jammu & Kashmir, contends false implication and asserts he visited the Academy merely to seek admission; he claims no intention to offend and has been in custody for about 53 days. The defense highlights that the mobile phone password was not disclosed; the accused has offered to comply with any stringent conditions, and the state of investigation is nearly complete with recoveries made. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail, arguing ongoing investigation, non-cooperation, and the gravity of offences given the naval establishment’s security interests. The court notes 439 CrPC as the relevant framework for bail and emphasizes that the Academy falls within the purview of the Official Secrets Act; it cites Supreme Court bail guidelines (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar) and related precedents (Ram Govind Upadhyay; Puran) to caution that bail should not be granted lightly where investigation is ongoing, cooperation is lacking, and the accused has no roots in Kerala. Ultimately, the court finds the case premature for release and dismisses the petition.
This writ petition, filed by V.G. Nair and S.R. Nivas, both former Central Industrial Security Force personnel, challenges the recovery of pension dues arising from the Sixth Central Pay Commission revisions. After retirement in 2000, the petitioner’s pension was revised several times; in 2014–2015, communications Exts. P3, P4 and P8 indicated an excess payment had been made from January 2006, leading to a proposed recovery of Rs. 4,860 per month for 77 months (Sept 2014 to Jan 2021). The petitioner argues that such recovery is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to established law, particularly as framed by State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (AIR 2015 SC 696), which enumerates circumstances where employer recoveries are impermissible. The respondents contend that recoveries are authorized by the pension framework and the communications in question. The court examines the facts and applies the ratio of Rafiq Masih, emphasizing that recoveries from retired employees or those due to retire within one year, and recoveries for excess payments made over a period longer than five years, are impermissible. On these grounds, the court holds that the impugned orders are vulnerable. Consequently, the petition is allowed: Exts. P3, P4 and P8 are quashed; respondents are directed to restore amounts recovered and to pay pension in accordance with law.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1116 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Sethu, the sole accused in Crime No. 810/2023 of Yeroor Police Station, Kollam, charged under Section 326A IPC. The FIR alleges that the accused poured red chili water on children related to the defacto complainant and, on 27.08.2023 around 11 p.m., poured acid on the defacto complainant’s face, resulting in loss of eyesight. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.08.2023. The investigation has been completed and the final report laid. The Sessions Court, Kollam, had dismissed a prior bail application (Crl.M.C 2017/2023). The petitioner contends that the order denying bail is erroneous and perverse and that continued detention is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing the offence is heinous, the investigation complete, and that the gravity of the offence warrants keeping the accused in custody to face trial.
The court recalls Supreme Court bail jurisprudence: Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446. These decisions underscore that bail is not automatic and requires weighing prima facie evidence, gravity, risk of witness tampering, and societal interests. Upon careful consideration of the materials on record, the court finds that the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the risk of tampering with witnesses, and the public interest in orderly justice outweigh the petitioner's entitlement to bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed and the petitioner must face trial as an under-trial prisoner.
Rahimkutty, the petitioner, seeks reinvestigation into Crime No.73/2021 of Nooranadu Police Station after the death of his son Muhammed Rafi in a road accident on 24 January 2021. The FIR and accompanying documents (Ext.P1–P7) show a motorcycle involved in the collision with a private bus. The final report filed on 5 April 2022 described the vehicles incorrectly (stating KL-31-P-4665 and KL-01-AR-8464) and concluded the offences under IPC sections 279 and 304A had not been committed, labeling the case as 'undetected'. The petitioner alleges mala fides and manipulation of vehicle numbers to favour the accused, and contends that the absence or timing of insurance renewals reveals investigator bias. The High Court scrutinized the case diary, noting flaws in the investigation and finding the final report unsatisfactory and contrary to investigative canons. Citing Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others, the Court holds that only a higher judiciary body can order fresh/de novo investigations where warranted. It therefore orders reinvestigation by the District Crime Branch, with an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to be overseen by the District Police Chief, and sets aside the final report. The writ petition is allowed in terms of this direction.
The petitioner, Renjith Raj, served previously as Technician (Process) with the first respondent company under Ext.P1 (appointment dated 24.03.2017) and resigned on 09.01.2018 to join the Kerala State Police, later returning to the company as a temporary Technician (Process) via Ext.P2 (dated 16.06.2020). In 2022 a recruitment notification No.11/2022 for Technician (Process) led to Ext.P5, by which the petitioner ranked 63 and underwent document verification on 14.02.2023. The merit list Ext.P7, published 21.03.2023, did not include his name, with HR citing clause 16.11 of Ext.P4 (10/25/2022) as the basis—holding that the petitioner, though initially engaged on a consolidated pay, had previously held a permanent post and resigned, thus rendering him ineligible for the present vacancy. The petition argued clause 16.11 is inapplicable since the petitioner was not a permanent employee at the time of his resignation; the petitioner sought records and a writ directing inclusion in Ext.P7. The respondents contended that the 2017 appointment was permanent and governed by company rules, and that the subsequent temporary 2020 engagement did not erase this. The High Court held that Ext.P1 constituted a permanent appointment, making clause 16.11 applicable and upheld the merit-list exclusion. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed.
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by two petitioners, Jabirali A.H and Sunil C., arraigned in Guruvayoor Temple Police Station Crime No.61/2024. The offences alleged are sections 269, 323, 294(b), 506 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on January 25, 2024, around 11:40 p.m., the petitioners discharged septic tank waste into a public canal near Galaxy Inn, Guruvayur, and upon a health inspector’s direction, they allegedly abused him vocally and attempted to assault him, obstructing him from discharging official duties. The petitioners contend false implication, possibly motivated by hostility over employment issues, and argue that custodial interrogation is unnecessary as no recovery is expected. The Public Prosecutor submits that the acts constitute grave offences, and custodial interrogation is essential; the investigation is at a preliminary stage and arrest would be necessary to safeguard the investigation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre; Sibbia; Jai Prakash Singh), the court emphasises discretion under Section 438 must be exercised with care, not by rigid guidelines, and balancing investigation against harassment. After careful consideration, the court holds there are no exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail and dismisses the application, with a conditional avenue for surrender and merit-based bail thereafter.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2015 & MAT.APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2015 This is a Kerala High Court judgment in Mat.Appeal Nos. 479 and 482 of 2015, arising from matrimonial proceedings in Thalassery. The appellant, Sheena A., challenges two linked orders: O.P. 410/2012 (divorce petition filed by Rajeevan A. on grounds of cruelty and desertion) and O.P. 498/2012 (maintenance and related challenges to documents). The Family Court, Thalassery, by its 26.11.2014 order, granted a divorce to Rajeevan A. and partly dismissed Sheena’s plea in O.P. 498/2012. The High Court, on 19.03.2024, while allowing Mat.Appeal 479/2015, held that the divorce on the ground of cruelty was not proven to the required standard and set aside the Family Court’s decree, dismissing O.P. 410/2012. In Mat.Appeal 482/2015, the High Court dismissed Sheena’s challenge to the maintenance-related orders and confirmed the Family Court’s preservation of existing maintenance and related provisions, including against the challenged sales. The judgment emphasizes that cruelty must be pleaded with specific instances and notes inconsistencies in the husband’s evidence, condemning reliance on uncorroborated documents. It also reiterates that false allegations of illicit relationships constitute mental cruelty and that condonation by cohabitation can nullify cruelty claims. Overall, the Court remits matters consistent with the evidentiary standards for cruelty and maintenance as per the Hindu Marriage Act and CrPC provisions.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Ansal H. O, the second accused in Crime No.1725/2023 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, facing multiple IPC offences (Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 327 and 452 read with Section 34). The prosecution alleges that on 20.09.2023, in a fit of prior animosity toward the defacto complainant, the two accused trespassed into her residence with deadly weapons, assaulted the father, and caused injuries, with the mother also being injured and household articles damaged. The first accused is alleged to have inflicted injuries on both parents; the mother’s head injuries are supported by wound certificates. The petitioner, who was arrested on 20.01.2024, contends total innocence and that there is no specific overt act attributed to him; the first accused has already been released on statutory bail. The petitioner had previously sought pre-arrest bail (B.A. No.11068/2023), which was dismissed, directing surrender to the Investigating Officer. The prosecution asserts that there is a specific overt act attributable to the petitioner, that the accused absconded for a period, and that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent (Crime No.545/2021, Cheranalloor, IPC 302). The court cites Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar to reiterate well‑settled bail principles, including reasons for bail and risk of tampering. After hearing, the court concludes the application is meritless and denies bail, ordering dismissal of the bail petition.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases This is a batch of connected criminal revision petitions heard by the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, on 7 June 2024 before Justice P. Somarajan. The matters, labelled CrLR.C Nos. 269/2018 and connected cases, arise from suo motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017 in several Criminal Trials at Kollam, challenging orders/ acquittals in various ST/Criminal Cases (summons cases). The primary legal question concerns the court’s power to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons cases instituted otherwise than on complaint, and the proper test to be applied when locating accused persons and assessing the cost of procuring attendance. The court relies on a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821), which clarifies the conditions under which Section 258 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, notably that if due steps to locate the accused have failed and the cost of securing appearance would exceed the maximum fine, stoppage may be permissible. The judgment concludes that the cited position governs the present batch, finds that the stoppage power was not to be interfered with, and holds that the revisions fail and are closed.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges two orders of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode in W.O.S. No. 66 of 2019 and its interlocutory application IA No. 34 of 2024. The petitioner, Vazhakad Dar-ul Uloom Waqf, represented by the Dar-ul-ULOOM Association, sought to set aside Exts. P6 (order) and P7 (judgment) of 06.01.2024, which denied the adjournment request and dismissed the suit for default. The petition contends that the Waqf Tribunal’s handling—especially listing the matter for evidence immediately after receiving the Advocate Commissioner’s report (Ext. P4 on 04.01.2024) and thereafter dismissing for default—is arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The High Court recalls the supervisory powers under Article 227, as clarified in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath and Shalini Shyam Shetty, and reminds that interference should be minimal, preserving efficiency and public confidence. It also notes the Tribunal’s powers under the Wakf Act (Section 83(5)) and the applicable Civil Procedure norms (Order IX Rule 9) and the Kerala Civil Courts (Case Flow Management) Rules, 2015 (Rules 5(1)(g), 5(2), 5(3)) and Rule 104(7) of the Civil Rules of Practice. The Court allows the petition, sets aside the impugned orders, restores the suit to file, and directs both sides to appear on 25.03.2024 to proceed with the matter after examining Ext. P4’s report objections.
