W.A. Nos. 1068, 1069 & 1081 of 2012 These three writ appeals arise from original petitions challenging orders of the Kerala High Court in OP Nos. 38421/2002, 38420/2002 and 38422/2002. The appellants are the Chairman and Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust, seeking relief against respondents including AISWARYA MARITIME SERVICES, Parekh Marine Agencies, IAL Shipping Agencies (Kochi), Sweety International (P) Ltd., the Union of India, and the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), among others. The High Court, in 2012, disposed of the writ petitions by following the view in APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Cochin Port Trust and others, ILR 2011 (4) Kerala 277, as confirmed by a subsequent Supreme Court intervention with a minor modification. The June 26, 2023 judgment treats the lead WA 1068/2012 as representative and disposes of the appeals in terms of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Civil Appeal No. 2525 of 2018. The decision reaffirms the co-extension of port-trust prerogatives with the established precedent and notes that the matter is resolved by this higher court’s ruling. The bench comprises Chief Justice S. V. N. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji (Division Bench). The neutral citation is not provided in the text.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from SC No. 88/2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, arising from crime No. 187/2018 of Muttom Police Station, Idukki. The petitioners, ten accused persons, sought to quash the ongoing prosecution under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 452, 308, 324, 323, 506(ii), 427, 294(b) r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges formation of an unlawful assembly, trespass into the victims’ premises, assault, mischief and criminal intimidation. The petitioners’ counsel contended that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to continue the prosecution, supported by affidavits from the victims; the victims and the public prosecutor acknowledged the settlement but the latter expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement, noting some accused have prior criminal antecedents though all cases are minor. The court, after examining the facts, relied on Supreme Court precedents (Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh) to exercise inherent powers under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the entire dispute has been settled, while considering antecedents and the nature of the offences. Holding the dispute private, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in SC No. 88/2019.
This High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) judgment concerns OP (DRT) No. 220 of 2023, challenging Ext.P6, the Debt Recovery Tribunal’s Order in SA No. 571/2022 that rejected I.A.1255/2023 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine whether the secured asset is agricultural land exempt under the SARFAESI Act. Wilson Joseph, the petitioner, stood as guarantor for a loan to respondents 5 and 6 and offered his agricultural land as collateral. The bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings in respect of the property. To establish the land’s agricultural character, Exts P2 and P3 certificates were relied upon; Ext.P5 contains a declaration by the petitioner that the land is non-agricultural for loan purposes. The Tribunal dismissed Ext.P4, and Ext.P6 followed, prompting the challenge. The petitioner contends that Exts P2 and P3 prove agricultural nature, and Ext.P5 should be reconsidered; he seeks appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve factual questions. The respondents argue that Ext.P5 was executed under contested circumstances and raise issues of bonafide, contending there is no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order. Relying on Supreme Court authorities (including Indian Bank & Anr. v. K. Pappi Reddiyar and K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions), the High Court notes that agricultural status cannot be decided solely by revenue records but must be assessed on the totality of facts on the date of security creation. A reference to Blue Coast Hotels Limited is noted. The court holds Ext.P6 legal and justifiable; if the declaration is proved void, the Tribunal may consider appointing a Commissioner. The petition is dismissed.
The appellant, Dr. S. Shailajakumari, a former Technical Officer at JNTBGRI, challenged a 1998 selection process for the post of Technical Assistant, alleging fraudulent denial of employment and concealment of the rank list. After a career-long battle, she sought relief in WP(C) 24542/2021 and then pressed the matter in WA No.639 of 2023. The single judge dismissed the petition on grounds of inordinate delay and laches, noting that the selections occurred in April–May 1998 while the petitioner did not challenge them for over two decades, and that Exts. P23 and P24, representations filed in 1998, were not acted upon. The writ appeal added the dimension that information obtained under the Right to Information Act in 2020 showed that the petitioner was ranked 18 in the list, whereas candidates ranked 20 and 21 were appointed. The court reasoned that the challenge to a 1998 appointment through a 2021 petition would be unjustified, especially after the passage of 20 years, and that the petitioner slept on her rights. It relied on established precedents that emphasize reasonable time, laches, and the reluctance of courts to intervene in stale claims (Tilokchand Motichand, A Court v. Cross, Rabindra Nath Bose, Ram Gopal). The appeal is dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed.
This is a Criminal Misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Mohammed Ali H. M., the accused in Crime No. 6 of 2021 of Kavaratti Police Station, Lakshadweep. The accused faced charges under IPC sections 323 (hurt), 448 (trespass), 294(b) (obscene acts/words), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The petition seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings, asserting that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and do not wish to pursue the prosecution. Annexure A2, an affidavit sworn by the third respondent, supports the settlement, and the parties' posture indicates a desire to move forward in peace. The court had previously directed the investigation officer to verify the genuineness of the settlement and to determine if there are any criminal antecedents or impediments to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing merely on settlement but noted there were no other crimes against the petitioner and that the de facto complainant had stated there were no lasting grievances. Relying on a line of Supreme Court precedents, the court held that while Section 482 powers are to be exercised in largely civil/private matters where disputes are resolved, serious or heinous offences and certain public-interest offenses are not amenable to quashing. After evaluating gravity, antecedents, and amicable settlement, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and further proceedings. The order emphasizes ends of justice and public peace. Annexure-A1 FIR copy and Annexure-A2 affidavit accompany the judgment.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case filed in the Kerala High Court seeking exercise of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising out of a criminal case in Kayamkulam. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 were accused in C.C. No. 667 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam, for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 03.05.2019, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of a common object, assaulted the defacto complainant, resulting in injuries. The petition contends that the disputes have been amicably settled; annexed affidavits purport to establish this, and there are no prior criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The State’s counsel initially voiced reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged absence of other crimes and that the complainant has stated no lasting grievances. The High Court reviewed the governing law through a cascade of Supreme Court precedents, including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir and others, and State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, among others, and held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. power can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable, private offences where the dispute is resolved, while cautioning against quashing for heinous or public‑minded crimes. Ultimately, the court found the settlement genuine, concluded quashing would serve ends of justice, and allowed the petition, quashing the final report and proceedings in C.C. No. 667/2020.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a petition filed by the appellants (husband and children of the deceased) seeking compensation for the death of V.G. Vasudevan in a bus accident on 07.06.2006. The vehicle, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, was involved when the driver allegedly moved forward while the deceased was boarding, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The MACT Ernakulam awarded Rs. 8,87,893 as compensation, directing the insurer to deposit the amount with interest. The appellants challenged the award on two principal fronts: (i) inadequacy of compensation, particularly loss of dependency, arguing the monthly income and the method of calculation (split multiplier) were erroneous; (ii) other heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, medical expenses, and love and affection. The 3rd respondent contested liability on the ground of badge validity but did not lead evidence beyond admitting policy coverage. The High Court re-assessed the figures, corrected monthly income from Rs.3,375 to Rs.11,387, and held that the split multiplier approach should not be used, following Puttamma v. Narayana Reddy and Sumathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. It awarded enhanced sums for loss of dependency (Rs.11,52,360), loss of consortium (Rs.1,20,000), and other heads, totaling Rs.13,51,845, and directed deposit within three months, maintaining apportionment as in the original award.
The petitioner, Kuriakose I. Mathai, holds a quarrying lease over 1.2656 hectares in Marady Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District, for mining granite building stone and has obtained all statutory licenses required for operating the quarry. Ext.P6 shows a mining plan approved for the entire lease period, valid since 2015, with a Scheme of Mining approved in 2021 that projected production around 50,000 metric tonnes per year, despite the lease order permitting only 30,000 MT per year. Movement permits were issued for 2021–22 and 2022–23 (Exts.P9–P11) based on the scheme. After 31.03.2023, the applicant sought a fresh Movement Permit for 2023–24, but the 3rd respondent demanded royalty for 2023–24 and subsequently did not issue the permit. The Government Pleader contends that the Mining Plan permits 30,000 MT per year and that the Scheme of Mining, prepared by a recognized person, overstated the quantity; the Geologist allegedly approved an erroneous scheme and the KOMPAS online portal reflected inflated production. The Geologist later corrected entries and the balance mineable reserves. The court found a conflict between the approved scheme and the lease quantity and directed the petitioner to submit a revised Scheme limited to 30,000 MT per year, with a timeline for approval and issuance of the Movement Permit, while preserving rights under an earlier related judgment.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash CC No.735/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery, where accused Nos. 1 and 2 are charged under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with 34 IPC for an incident on 29 July 2022. The petition contends that the parties have settled their disputes and no longer desire prosecution, supported by Annexure A3 (affidavit) and the involved complainant’s statement recorded by police. The investigating officer was directed to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the settlement and to check for any criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved, but conceded absence of other crimes against the petitioners. The High Court places reliance on binding Supreme Court precedents summarized in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and the related line of authorities (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Rajveer Singh, Dhruv Gurjar, Kalyan Singh and others), holding that Section 482 quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable offences with predominantly civil character where disputes are resolved, while recognizing exceptions for heinous or public‑interest offenses. After evaluating gravity, degree of injury, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court holds that quashing would not harm society. The petition is allowed and the final report in Crime No.423/2022 and CC No.735/2022 are quashed.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 4519 of 2023) heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. The petition seeks invocation of the extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 403 of 2021, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, involving accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 08.12.2020, at about 5:00 pm, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained and assaulted the de facto complainant. The petitioners argue that the disputes have been amicably settled, supported by Annexure A3 affidavit, and they seek termination of the proceedings to allow the parties to move forward in a peaceful atmosphere. The learned Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but notes there are no other serious offenses against the petitioners. The Court surveys the controlling law (State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and companion decisions including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and others) and concludes that the power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised where the offences are private/non-serious and the parties have settled, while recognising exceptions for heinous crimes and public-interest offences. Having weighed the circumstances, the Court allows the petition and quashes Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC 403/2021. The judge notes the gravity of the offences and the overall interest of justice, and records that the amicable settlement would not undermine societal welfare.
Mat.Appeal No. 391 of 2013; Mat.Appeal No. 1162 of 2014; RP (FC) No. 192/2013 The matters arise from matrimonial disputes between K.K. Unnikrishnan (husband) and T.K. Savithri (wife), with the husband challenging a Family Court order in OP 489/2011 and seeking divorce, and separately challenging maintenance orders. The three connected petitions, heard together by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court on 6 June 2023, reveal a marriage that lasted since 1979 but deteriorated into long-standing separation spanning over two decades. The husband alleged misconduct by the wife, including an illicit relationship with her uncle, and contended that cruelty and desertion warranted dissolution of the marriage. The Family Court record indicates persistent incompatibility, relocation to Bombay, and a prolonged period of separation after 2011, with a new house built in 2008 that the wife did not inhabit with the family. The High Court, after examining pleadings, evidence, and jurisprudence, concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It held that withholding consent for mutual separation itself can amount to cruelty and dissolved the marriage, observing that both fault and irretrievable breakdown can justify divorce in modern jurisprudence. The court also addressed maintenance, approving the lower awards as appropriate in light of the husband's earnings. The petitions were disposed of by dissolving the marriage and dismissing the appeals against maintenance.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition and declaration suit (O.S.1216/1999) filed in the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, by the plaintiff (the daughter) challenging a partition deed and seeking a share in properties allegedly held by her deceased mother Kamalojini. After Kamalojini's death, her children claimed equal devolution of the properties and agreed to partition; a partition deed dated 03.01.1998 was executed by the first defendant under influence of the other siblings, excluding the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues that she was not a party to the partition and that the partition is improper as it affects her rights in the plaint schedule properties. The trial court held that Ext.A3 partition deed is not binding on the plaintiff and ordered partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares, granting a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from waste. The first appellate court and the Subordinate Judge affirmed the decree. The second defendant contends via RSA that Ext.B1 gift deed, given to the plaintiff in contemplation of marriage, estops her from claiming further shares, relying on Sarojini Amma v. Johnson and related authorities; he also argues misjoinder and lack of title evidence. The High Court, however, finds no express relinquishment or consent by the plaintiff to give up rights in the remaining properties and holds Ext.B1 does not bind the plaintiff. Consequently, the RSA is dismissed and the partition decree stands.
This Kerala High Court judgment, dated 7 August 2023, pertains to Crl.M.C. No.2126 of 2022 arising from CC No.146 of 2022 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, connected to Crime No.1003/2021 of Nedumbassery Police Station under IPC Section 406. The petitioner, K.O. Antony, aged 65, was a headload worker in the Air Cargo Section of Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) and the Secretary of the CIAL Air Cargo Loading and Unloading Workers Union. The prosecution alleges that Antony, by virtue of his union role, approached workers, claimed a government order granting permanence to employment would be challenged in court, and solicited blank signed cheques as security for legal fees. While some cheques were later returned, others remained in possession and were seized by police. The petitioner contends that, to attract Section 406, there must be misappropriation or conversion of entrusted property in breach of law or contract, and that mere retention of cheques does not establish an offense; reliance is placed on Suryalakshmi Cotton Industries Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. (2008 (1) KHC 337). The court notes that the union’s minutes reveal a decision to collect cheques for legal fees and that 27 cheques were returned after undertakings, but it finds no proof of dishonest misappropriation. Citing Sudhir Shantilal Mehta, Raghavender N, Bhajan Lal, and Inder Mohan Goswami, the court emphasizes the need to evaluate the ingredients of 406 and the High Court’s wide powers under 482 CrPC. Ultimately, it holds that the allegations do not satisfy 406 IPC and quashes the final report and proceedings under 482 CrPC, allowing the petition.
Shamsudheen, the revision petitioner, challenged the Family Court, Malappuram’s order under Section 125 CrPC, which directed him to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and two minor children. In MC 55/2010, the Family Court had ordered maintenance of Rs 2,200 to the first respondent (wife), Rs 2,500 to the second respondent (minor son), and Rs 5,000 to the third respondent (minor son) from the date of the application. The petitioner, employed as a contractor, contested the amount, arguing that he earns Rs 6,500 per month and that the first respondent is a tailor earning Rs 350-400 per day, with no landed property; he offered to pay Rs 1,000 per month and sought dismissal of the application. The respondents contended that the wife and children require financial support; the third child’s liver cirrhosis necessitated substantial medical expenses (around Rs 12,000 per month); the petitioner is able-bodied and not justified in withholding maintenance. The Family Court examined PW1 and Exs P1–P1g and RW1’s testimony. Relying on judgments like Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr., Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, the court upheld the principle that maintenance serves social justice, and could be determined on notional income. The High Court held the revision petition without merit, noting the petitioner’s admitted status and age, and found the Family Court’s Rs 9,700 monthly maintenance reasonable. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with directions to adjust any interim deposits against the due amount.
This is a revision petition under the Family Courts Act challenging the Family Court, Malappuram's order in MC 206/2017, directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife, Fathima Hasna, at Rs. 3,000 per month from 08.06.2017 until remarriage. The respondent wife had filed under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs. 8,000 per month. The petitioner, who was employed abroad as a lift technician, contends that he lost his job and has no means to maintain himself, and that the marriage has dissolved by talaq; he also asserts the respondent has studied and has means to sustain herself. The Family Court, after considering pleadings and evidence (PW1 for the respondent, RW1 for the petitioner; Ext A1), partly allowed the application. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on maintenance as social justice is invoked, including Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.; Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal; Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. The High Court upholds that an able-bodied person at the material time would have earned not less than a notional income and, while noting remarriage on 21.02.2021, finds no illegality in the order, and dismisses the revision petition in limine. The liability is thus limited to 08.06.2017 to 21.02.2021.
Roy George, the petitioner, challenges the omission of the 4th respondent Tahsildar in entertaining his application for reassessment of the Basic Tax rate on land and for updating the Basic Tax Register. He owns 20.23 ares of land in Survey Nos. 922/2B and 922/2A-5 in Arakuzha Village, acquired in 2018. The predecessor obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLUO) for non-agricultural use; Ext.P3, dated 27 November 2015, was issued under Clause 6 of KLUO. Despite that order, the land is still recorded as Nilam/Paddy land in revenue records, and no orders under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 have been passed. The petitioner invoked Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act seeking reassessment of the Basic Tax rate and entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar did not decide the application, prompting this writ petition. The Government Pleader contends Ext.P3 requires verification of genuineness and status before reassessment. The Court relies on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and on District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani to hold that once an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the KLUO 1967 permits conversion, earlier entries become superfluous and the Tahsildar is obliged to re-assess under Section 6A after verifying the permission. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the Tahsildar is directed to consider Form-A dated 16.12.2022 and pass orders within one month, setting aside Ext.P5.
The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No. 4291 of 2023), deals with two accused, Irfan and Muhammed Hasil, who faced offences under Sections 511 and 384 IPC in Kondotty Police Station Crime No. 229/2023. The petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings on grounds of an amicable settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant. Annexure A2 contains an affidavit from the third respondent corroborating that the disputes have been resolved, and the parties desire to move forward in peace. The court had earlier directed the investigating officer to verify the genuineness of the settlement and to determine whether the petitioners have any criminal antecedents or impediments to termination of proceedings. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about quashing purely on settlement for offences that may be non-compoundable, but conceded lack of other transgressions against the petitioners. After careful scrutiny of the gravity of the offences, the injuries, antecedents, and the evolving amicable relationship, the judge concluded that continuing the prosecution would be a waste of time and would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR (Annexure A1) and all further proceedings, allowing the petition.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Misc Case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash CC No. 419/2022 arising from Crime No. 225/2022 of Aranmula Police Station. Accused Nos.1 and 2, Prakash Kumar M.S. and Randeeep Reji Varghese, faced charges including offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (grievous hurt) and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 21.03.2022 at 10.30 PM, they restrained and assaulted the party respondents causing injuries. The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably settled; affidavits from respondents support recording a settlement and quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations; but noted no other crimes against petitioners. The court reviewed the settled legal authorities, specifically State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and held that the power under Section 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences when the offence is private in nature and the civil character predominates, where the parties settle and public interest is not offended. Considering the gravity, antecedents, and amicable settlement, the court concluded quashing would promote peace and ends of justice. The petition is allowed; final report in Crime No. 225/2022 and proceedings against petitioners in CC 419/2022 are quashed.
OP (FC) Nos.601/2021, 311/2023 This joint order of the Kerala High Court disposes two original petitions filed under OP (FC) Nos. 601 of 2021 and 311 of 2023, challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Ottappalam. In OP (FC) 601/2021, Sridharan (the husband) challenged a Family Court order which rejected his objection to the wife’s maintenance but granted Rs. 8,000 per month to each of the two minor children, with no maintenance awarded to Rekha. In OP (FC) 311/2023, Rekha (the wife) sought substantial maintenance — Rs.30,000 per month for herself and Rs.25,000 for each child — asserting the husband earns about Rs.4,00,000 monthly, while the husband contends the wife is employed, reportedly earning around Rs.80,000 per month. The court notes that affidavits and income material were not thoroughly examined. Relying on Rajinesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court states that the law on maintenance is settled and guidelines apply. Without deciding merits, the court relegates interim maintenance matters to the trial court, directing expeditious disposal and maintaining Rs.5,000 per month per child as interim maintenance until further orders. Petitions are disposed off with a direction to decide the interim maintenance issues promptly in the trial court.
This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC is a challenge by the plaintiff Sinebha to a decree in O.S. No.1373/1994 of the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Thrissur, which dismissed her suit for damages following a postpartum sterilization (P.P.S.) operation performed in 1987 by Dr. Jose Parakkal at Government Hospital, Kunnamkulam. The plaintiff, from a poor family with four children, was assured that the sterilization would prevent future pregnancies. She later conceived and bore a daughter, alleging negligence in the procedure. She claimed about Rs 2,00,000 for mental agony, medical expenses, and future maintenance. The District Collector (State) and the insurer were drawn in as defendants; the 2nd defendant doctor contends the procedure is not foolproof and that there was no negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court, while noting the public policy of family planning and the Bolam standard of medical negligence, held that there was no evidence of rashness or negligence by the 2nd defendant and that the State could not be vicariously liable without proof of negligence. It relied on numerous precedents and eventually dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. The result is that the plaintiff’s claim for damages is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.
