This criminal miscellaneous case arises from Crime No. 527/2016 of Chalakudy Police Station, pending as CC No. 1172/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy. The petitioner, accused no. 8, K.A. Joy, a director of the first accused company, is charged along with others under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 read with section 34 IPC for alleged misappropriation and forged documents connected with a kuri business. The prosecution initially submitted a final report under section 173(2) CrPC concluding no offences. Subsequently, a supplementary report under section 173(8) CrPC was submitted implicating the accused, and cognizance was taken on 17.10.2018 solely on the supplementary report. The petitioner challenges this order, contending that he was not adequately investigated, his role as director at the relevant time is not established, and no meaningful consideration was given to the primary report. He relies on Supreme Court precedents holding that two police reports under CrPC sections 173(2) and 173(8) must be read conjointly and weighed together to determine whether grounds exist to presume the accused’s guilt. The State and complainant oppose quashing, arguing that guilt is a matter of evidence and not appropriate for scrutiny under 482 CrPC. The High Court ultimately quashes the cognizance, directing the Magistrate to re-examine the matter afresh with regard to both reports and their contents.
The petitioners, five existing BSNL franchisees in Kerala, challenge the Expressions of Interest (EOIs) issued by BSNL for the CM Franchisee Sales and Distribution Policy 2018, alleging illegality in including Section 2B(g) as part of Exts.P2, P3 and P4. They argue that 2B(g) imposes a new eligibility criterion requiring an existing franchisee to secure a minimum average 50% score in the last two quarters of operation before the EOI floating quarter, a condition introduced unilaterally by the Kerala Circle and without prior approval from BSNL Headquarters. Ex-post facto sanction was granted only on 25.02.2022 after EOIs dated 22.02 and 23.02.2022; thus, the EOIs cannot be validly sustained. The petitioners contend that this change infringes the CM – Franchisee Sales and Distribution Policy – 2018 (Ext.P1) and Section 3A(g) which requires such changes to be notified to franchisees; they argue discrimination against long-standing franchisees versus raw bidders with no prior track record. Respondents counter that the Circle is empowered to effect changes within the policy, that the EOIs were published with notice, and that the change is supported by ex-post facto approval. The court reasons that policy decisions are generally immune from challenge if bonafide and in public interest, and ultimately dismisses the petition for lack of merit.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns two accused, Shahul Hameed and Mansoor, who petitioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in S.C. No.141/2021 arising from Crime No.195/2013 of Pattambi Police Station. The matter traces back to an alleged attack by an unlawful assembly of 17 persons on 20.02.2013, in which CW1 sustained injuries; several accused were tried in Sessions Court and acquitted, with the petitioners’ cases split from the main trial and placed in the Long Pendency Register as LP 37/2019. The petition was initially directed to be pursued after the petitioners surrendered; only the 1st petitioner did so, while the 2nd petitioner remains absconding. The Sessions Court’s Annexure A2 judgment found the evidence of PW7 (the injured) and PW8 (his wife) unreliable due to inconsistencies and a delay in FIR registration, leading to acquittals of other accused and, in the court’s view, a loss of substratum. The High Court relied on Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (Full Bench) to exercise its 482 Cr.P.C. powers, quashing the proceedings against the 1st petitioner but not granting relief to the absconding 2nd petitioner, who may reapproach upon surrender. The order emphasizes substratum loss as a basis for quashing and respects absconder concerns under Moosa."
The appellant, Paanikulam Mariyakutty, was convicted under Section 58 of the Abkari Act for possession of 16 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) on 19.11.1999. The trial court sentenced three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. On appeal (CRL.A No. 2021 of 2008) before a High Court Bench led by Justice K. Babu, the defense urged that the contraband analysis was not proven, highlighting several gaps: the detecting officer did not describe the seal, the specimen seal was not forwarded for verification, and there was unexplained delay before the sample reached the Chemical Examiner. Exhibits P2, P6 and Ext P7 (Certificate of Chemical Analysis) were challenged for lacking chain-of-custody, tamper-evidence, and for not proving that the lab analysis related to the same sample seized. The court relied on established jurisprudence (Sasidharan v. State of Kerala; Sathi v. State of Kerala; Ravi v. State of Kerala; Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala; Rajamma v. State of Kerala; Viswanadhan v. State of Kerala; Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P) to emphasize strict compliance with sampling/sealing and the necessity of a tamper-proof chain of custody, and the requirement that the sample tested in the lab be the same sample seized. Finding no satisfactory link, the court acquitted the appellant, allowing the appeal.
WP(C) Nos.23661 and 26604 of 2020 These two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 23661/2020 and 26604/2020, are intrinsically connected and disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in WP(C)23661 is Saffe Panel Industry (P) Ltd., which operates a wood-based panel unit within KSIDC’s Industrial Growth Centre at Pallippuram, Cherthala. The adjacent LPG Bottling Plant belonging to Evershine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. (the 4th respondent in 23661 and the 5th respondent in 26604) was non-operational for years and sought transfer of the land to the petitioner to enable expansion and settlement of dues. A 2019 decision of the District Industrial Land Allotment Committee (DILAC) approved transfer of 4 acres from Evershine to Saffe, subject to conditions including payment of balance lease premium, transfer charges, and an NOC from KSIDC’s project department. The petitioner made substantial payments in 2019–2020; correspondence followed, including representations to the Industries Minister and the Principal Secretary. In WP 26604, Evershine sought relief to continue its LPG plant and challenge KSIDC’s position on the transfer. The Court observed that KSIDC had not yet taken a final decision on allotment or transfer, while noting the parties’ factual matrix and prior approvals. It directs the KSIDC to decide, in light of the Disposal of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules (2013) and the facts already on record, whether the lease deed should be executed in favour of the petitioner or whether the transfer should be accepted, and to pass orders within two months. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, with costs.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging Annexures A and H orders in relation to CC No. 67/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peerumedu. The petitioner, Sajeevan, S/o Balakrishnan Pillai, was authorized by the Managing Director of the Kerala Livestock Development Board to give evidence in O.S. No. 65 of 2011. A complaint under Section 340 read with Section 195 IPC alleged that, during cross-examination, he gave a negative answer about lodging a police complaint and the sighting of the place, contradicting the records, which formed the basis for an offence of perjury under Section 193 IPC. The Munsiff issued Annexure-B and later Annexure-H, noting that the Munsiff and the JFCM I were one and the same, and directed transfer to JFCM II. Annexure-I then recorded cognizance for the offence under Section 193 IPC. The petitioner contends that the inquiry mandated by Section 340 Cr.P.C. was not conducted and that the entire sequence of orders is unsustainable. Drawing on the Kerala High Court precedent in Benedict that the inquiry is mandatory, the court is urged to quash. The respondent State argued that not every false statement merits Section 340, but the court ultimately finds the lack of a proper Section 340 inquiry fatal and allows the petition, quashing Annexures A and I.
Pradeep Kumar P., the borrower and managing partner of Sama Rubbers, challenges Ext.P2, a Government notification issued in 2010 under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act that brings the entire State of Kerala within the ambit of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The petitioner contends that the original TP Act provision, which allowed deposit of title deeds as equitable mortgage only in a list of towns (Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Karachi, Rangoon, etc.), cannot be read to cover the whole State simply by a notification. He argues that Ext.P2 was issued without a specific, cogent reason and lacks the required mind‑application to extend the provision to every part of Kerala, thus improperly enabling banks to rely on 58(f) to secure loans and to proceed under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner asserts that simply delivering title deeds at Kanjirapilly cannot create an equitable mortgage under 58(f), and that the State’s action constitutes a policy decision outside the judicial remit. The respondents, including the Bank and the official Government respondents, contend that the Governor General in Council and, post‑Constitution, the Kerala Government possess the power to notify any area to be covered by 58(f), with 'any other town' extending to entire territory when warranted by economic exigency. The court reviews the historical evolution, including the 1929 amendment and constitutional framework, and concludes that Ext.P2 is valid and that the writ petition fails.
This Kerala High Court revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C challenges a Family Court order in M.C.No.252/2016, Thiruvananthapuram, granting maintenance to the wife (Rs.10,000/month) and to the unmarried daughter (then 17 years old, Rs.8,000/month) from the date of filing. The revision petitioner contends that the daughter, having attained majority in 2017, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and that the daughter should pursue maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, since the law recognises a broader right for unmarried Hindu daughters. The respondents counter that an unmarried daughter who has attained majority may still claim maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C if she is unable to maintain herself, or, alternatively, can seek relief under Section 20 of the Act if she qualifies for maintenance thereunder. The Family Court awarded substantial maintenance to both parties, while the revision petition relied on the Supreme Court decision in Abhilasha v. Parkash (2020), which held a daughter’s maintenance rights under S.20 are absolute and can extend till marriage, with enforcement under S.20. The High Court, considering the evidence (including the lack of proof of disability for the daughter) and the statutory framework, partially allowed the revision: it upheld Rs.10,000/month to the wife, but reduced the daughter’s maintenance to Rs.8,000/month only till she attains majority, and confirmed the rest of the Family Court’s order.
This writ petition, filed by Suthan N, seeks a directive to respondents 1 to 5 to investigate and take action against the 6th respondent NBFC-IFC on the basis of Ext. P5 complaint. The petitioner alleges that he subscribed to debentures worth Rs. 10,00,000 from the Kayamkulam branch of the 6th respondent on 15.04.2017, trusting the promoters’ assurances of better returns. After expiry, the amount was not refunded, despite Ext. P2 (lawyer’s notice) and Ext. P3 (reply) from the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent contends that due to internal audit findings of malpractices and the timing of the complaint, the refund cannot be made. The petitioner approached the RBI via Ext. P5, but the RBI relegated him to the Ombudsman; however, the Ombudsman stated that NBFC complaints fall outside its scheme, as per Ext. P7. The 8th respondent (SEBI) contends jurisdiction is not theirs, while the 6th respondent argues the subject matter falls under the Companies Act and not RBI. Relying on Nedumpilli Finance Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (SC 2022), the court notes RBI’s supervisory role over NBFCs and that the grievances should be adjudicated by RBI. Ultimately, the court directs RBI to consider Ext. P5 and decide within three months, after giving reasonable opportunity to all parties, thus disposing the petition.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P7, a supersession order dated 04.03.2022 concerning the Committee of Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The court reiterates the statutory duty to consult before passing such an order under Section 32(2), namely to engage the financing bank and the Circle Co-operative Union or State Co-operative Union and to provide consultees with objections, tentative findings, and the materials on which those findings are based. Citing Ellakkal Service Co-Operative Bank v. State of Kerala, Sahadevan v. Padmanabhan, Johny Kachappally v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach, the court holds that there was no meaningful consultation in this case since Ext.P5 objections dated 26.02.2022 and the tentative findings were not supplied to the consultees. Consequently, Ext.P7 cannot stand. The petition is allowed and Ext.P7 is quashed, albeit without prejudice to initiating fresh, law-compliant proceedings. The court also directs that no policy decisions be taken by the Committee for two weeks from today pending final orders on supersession proceedings, and that Ext.P6 appeal before Addl. 5th Respondent be heard within two weeks. The court does not express an opinion on the merits of the inspection report Ext.P2.
The petitioner, Kadakkavoor Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, challenges Ext.P6, an order of the 1st respondent Ombudsman directing payment of Rs.59,500 with 9% interest from 01.01.2020 to the 2nd respondent for LED-light maintenance works. The writ petition contends the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for money where liability is disputed, citing John A., Ansons Group, Architects v. Changanacherry Municipality (2011 KHC 800) and Kulukkalloor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions (2013 (2) KHC 133). The court notes the dispute concerns a spillover project for LED lights in 2017-2019, with quotations invited and the 2nd respondent being the lowest bidder; although a contract was contemplated, no formal agreement appears to have been executed. The Panchayat contends procurement rules required a contract and supporting documents (procurement reports, bills, etc.), which allegedly were not produced. While acknowledging the jurisdictional arguments, the judge focuses on the factual matrix, observing that Ext.P6 was issued without full compliance with contract procedures. Consequently, the court quashes Ext.P6 and directs the Panchayat to reconsider the matter in light of Exts P1-P2 and R2(a)-(c), after appropriate enquiry including local enquiry and hearing, and to decide within three months.
W.P.(C) No.15495 of 2021 & W.P.(Crl.) No.284 of 2023 This is a Kerala High Court judgment delivering a consolidated decision on W.P.(C) No.15495 of 2021 and W.P.(Crl.) No.284 of 2023, arising from life-convict Shyamala M.K. and the convict (convict No.3860) challenging orders denying premature release/commutation under Article 161 of the Constitution and CrPC 432-433. The petitioner-convict had undergone extensive imprisonment (more than 16 years in actual confinement) and is reported to be suffering from tongue cancer (squamous cell carcinoma) with treatment at RCC, Thiruvananthapuram. The Jail Advisory Board did not recommend release, but the State Level Advisory Committee recommended premature release on 26.09.2022. Following interim directions, the Government issued a fresh rejection on 24.12.2022 and 09.03.2023, prompting the petitions. The court held that life sentences are effectively lifelong, and remission alone does not vest a right to premature release; the Government retains discretion, and the recommendatory bodies’ opinions are not binding, though to be considered with adequate reasoning. The court discussed the constitutional scheme: Article 161 orders must reflect ministerial advice and be issued by the Government, not the Governor in isolation; judicial review is narrow and cannot substitute the Government’s decision. Citing Laxman Naskar, Samsher Singh, Maru Ram, and distinguishing A.G. Perarivalan, the court concluded there is no right to release and declined to interfere.
WP(C).No.9330 of 2012 (M) and WP(C).No.21626 of 2012 The judgment addresses two connected writ petitions challenging a Lok Ayukta interim order in Complaint No.2297/2011. Petitioner-drivers include the University of Kerala (Dr. A. Jayakrishnan, Vice Chancellor, and the Registrar) and B. Rajendran Agra, who filed WP(C).No.9330/2012 and WP(C).No.21626/2012 respectively. The Lok Ayukta, after considering rival contentions, granted an interim injunction restraining the University from appointing anyone to the post of Finance Officer other than the complainant pending disposal of the complaint. The second petition attacks the minutes of the selection committee dated 11.5.2009 and 17.2.2010, alleging malafides and violations of Kerala University First Statutes 1977 (Statutes 34 and 39). The petitioners contend that the interim injunction effectively grants main relief and is untenable in light of Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (JT 1995 (3) JT SC 175). The court also examines maintainability under the Lok Ayukta Act, Schedule II and Section 8. After hearing, the court holds that Ext.P9 (the interim order) is not sustainable as it amounts to granting the main relief; Extinguishes WP(C).9330/2012’s relief and notes WP(C).21626/2012 may revive the complaint if the interim order is removed. The judgment emphasizes restraint on interim orders, adherence to statutory processes for appointments, and the proper scope of Lok Ayukta proceedings.
This Criminal Misc. Case (Cr.L.M.C. No. 1752 of 2022) was filed before the Kerala High Court by the petitioner Ranjith V. L. @ Kannappan seeking to quash Annexure-1 FIR (Crime No.1247/2013 of Ezhukone Police Station) and the annexed Final Report (Annexure-2) along with all proceedings in SC No.1587 of 2019 arising from the same incident. The allegations, framed under Sections 324, 307 and 34 IPC, relate to an incident on 26.07.2013 in which the petitioner and co-accused allegedly caused grievous hurt to Vishnu and Valsala. The petitioner contends there is no material to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC and points to the prior settlement between the parties and the lack of public interest in continuing the case. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (the victims) appeared and filed affidavits stating they do not intend to proceed with the matter further; a counter case (Crime No.1249/2013) existed and its final report had been quashed earlier on settlement. The High Court relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 to lay down the principles for exercising inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, including distinctions with Section 320 IPC and the need to consider ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process, while noting that Section 307 is a harsh, heinous offence. The Court also cites Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) SCC 341 to emphasize cautious, case-specific scrutiny. Ultimately, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed Annexure-1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings in SC No.1587/2019.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by Shibu and Jomon, challenging CC No. 2006/2019 arising from Crime No. 1294/2018 of Thrikkakara Police Station. The offences alleged were under Sections 384 and 34 IPC (extortion). The petitioners contend that the dispute has been fully settled between the parties and they do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits from the victims support the settlement and object to continuing proceedings against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged the settlement itself. The Court cites Sajeev and anr v. State of Kerala and anr (2022) to underscore that the final report can be quashed against one or more accused on settlement. It further relies on the Supreme Court precedents in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to outline the governing principles for exercising the power under 482 CrPC in private disputes, highlighting that private, non-compoundable offences with no substantial societal impact may be quashed when the dispute is resolved. On these facts, the court deems the dispute private and accepts the settlement, allowing the Crl.M.C. and quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 2006/2019.
The Kerala High Court revision arises from eviction petitions under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, filed by the landlord (Najeeb) against the tenant (Binesh) for need-based eviction to enable a computer education center run by the landlord’s son. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff, Ponnani) held the landlord’s need to be bona fide and not barred by the first proviso (availability of another building) or the second proviso (tenant’s livelihood predominantly from trade). The Rent Control Appellate Authority (AAD Tirur) affirmed the eviction. The tenant challenged the concurrent orders under Section 20 of the Act. The High Court, while upholding the concurrent orders, emphasized that the bona fide need must be sincere and not a pretext, and that the first proviso requires proof of an available alternative building, while the second proviso places a burden on the tenant to show livelihood dependence on the trade and lack of other suitable premises. The Court noted several precedents on bona fide need, burden of proof, and revisional limits under Section 20, including Rukmini Amma Saradamma and Hindustan Petroleum. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed, but the Court granted the tenant six months to vacate, subject to conditions such as an affidavit, arrears payment, and prohibition on third-party possession during the period."
This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges an EPF assessment for 6/2005 to 2/2009 and a remand order by the EPF Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a labour-supply contractor for Apollo Tyres, contends that the remand directing the Assessing Authority to reassess dues for all employees on the premise that all employees are to receive equal allowances (special HRA, conveyance allowances, special conveyance allowances, and Sunday wages) is sustainable only if universally applicable to all staff. The wage register shows that out of 334 employees, only 98 actually receive these special allowances, raising issues of universality and the true scope of basic wages under the EPF Act. The petitioner relies on Supreme Court authorities such as Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd v. Union of India and Vivekananda Vidyamandir (2020) to argue that basic wages are defined with universality in mind and that certain allowances may or may not be included in the contribution base. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner contends that the writ petition is not maintainable against remand and that the Tribunal’s findings cannot be treated as binding, arguing that the wage record was not placed before the Assessing Authority. The High Court ultimately interprets the statutory definitions (Sections 2(b), 2(c), 6, 7A, 7(O) of the EPF Act) and precedents to quash the remand and allow the petition, clarifying the proper scope of basic wages for EPF contributions.
This is a criminal revision petition filed by the convicted David George alias Bijoy challenging the judgment in CC 65/2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur, which convicted him under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment and fines. The Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, confirmed the conviction in CRA 182/2005. The prosecution case is that on 7 October 2002, at about 3:30 p.m., the accused drove jeep KL-5-D-4304 rashly along the Kulathupuzha–Anchal road, hit a motorcycle KL-2-J-4981 ridden by Sunil Kumar (the deceased), who died en route to the hospital. Eyewitnesses testified that the jeep was driven at excessive speed and on the wrong side of the road. PWs 1–13 and documentary Exts. P1–P11 and MO 1–4 supported the prosecution’s case. The trial court found guilt and sentenced three months’ imprisonment with fines; the appellate court affirmed. The High Court notes the broad scope of the revisional power under CrPC Secs. 397–401 and refuses to disturb the concurrent findings unless perverse or untenable. However, given the 21-year lapse since the incident and the petitioner’s remorse, the court partly allows the revision: conviction is upheld, but the substantive sentence is reduced to one day (till the rising of the court) and Rs.50,000 is awarded as compensation under Sec. 357(3) CrPC, depositable within 60 days. Execution is suspended till 7.2.2024, with directions to the Trial Court for compliance.
The petitioner, Kabeer, asserts title and possession over 2.84 ares in Re-Sy No.193/5, Block 66, Karakkunnu, based on a settlement deed (Ext. P1) executed by his mother and supported by a land tax receipt (Ext. P2) dated 23.01.2017. He alleges that the 1st respondent (Village Officer) refused to issue a possession certificate or remit land tax despite the absence of any interdictory order preventing mutation. A civil suit for partition (O.S.337 of 2016) filed by his uncle led to an interim injunction against waste, and the petitioner later became a party to that suit. The 2nd respondent subsequently indicated there was no impediment to tax payment or obtaining a possession certificate since no interdictory order existed, but a later Ext. P10 communication, based on legal opinion, deferred the petitioner’s request due to pendency of the civil suit. The petitioner prays for quashing Exts. P4, P7 and P10 and for directions to receive land tax and issue possession. Respondents contend the description is erroneous (193/10 vs 193/5); they argue the mutation process cannot proceed amid ongoing litigation without correction. The court disposes the petition by directing correction of the re-survey number from 193/10 to 193/5 within three weeks and, after correction, processing of possession, mutation and tax remission within two months, with due notice to affected parties, expeditiously.
Mat.Appeal No.273 of 2020 The Kerala High Court heard Mat.Appeal No.273 of 2020 and Cross Objection No.79 of 2020 challenging a Family Court order in OP No.48 of 2016 arising from a Christian marriage dissolution at Irinjalakuda. The husband (appellant) challenged the Family Court’s partial decree granting the wife relief in the form of 24 sovereigns of gold or its market value and interest, while the wife (respondent) cross‑objected seeking larger relief and conversion into cash value. The core dispute concerned the patrimonial share, including gold ornaments, landed property, and transfers of salary and loans between the spouses during their married years. The appellate court examined whether the wife had 45 sovereigns at marriage as claimed, or only 24 as the husband admitted; it scrutinised Exts. A14 (photograph) and B1 (Will Deed) and the absence of documentary proof for larger claims. It concluded that the wife did possess 24 sovereigns at most and that some ornaments were likely utilised for purchasing an 18½ cent residential plot, with at least four sovereigns left for her daily use. The court modified the decree to 20 sovereigns or its value on realisation and allowed the cross‑objection for the market value on realisation, while finding no basis for the claimed Rs.15 lakh or Rs.16 lakh transfers. The decision, delivered by a division bench led by Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas on 22 August 2023, partly allows the appeal and cross objection.
