MACA No. 2423 of 2017; MACA No. 1539 of 2017 This High Court of Kerala decision, delivered by Justice Basant Balaji on 3 January 2023, consolidates two Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 2423 and 1539 of 2017) arising out of MACT Ottappalam’s award in O.P. No. 241 of 2014. The claimant Pradeep Kuttekparambil challenged the MACT award, seeking higher compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident caused by a lorry driven by Ramesh S. The insurer Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. contested, while the insurer’s cross-appeal (MACA 1539/2017) was filed by the insurance company against the award. Key evidentiary material included medical records and salary proofs (Exts. A29 and A13) suggesting overseas employment. The Tribunal applied Indian-standards income for loss of dependency, citing Valsamma v. Binu Jose, and disregarded overseas wages. The Court considered whether future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and the multiplier (Sarla Verma) should be applied, ultimately enhancing the claimant’s compensation to Rs. 48,18,000 (from Rs. 38,46,400) and granting an enhanced amount of Rs. 9,71,600 with 8% interest on the enhanced sum. The MACA by the claimant was allowed, while the insurer’s appeal was dismissed. Directions include NEFT/RTGS transfer of the enhanced amount within a month and set-off for any prior payments. All other MACT findings were confirmed.
This Kerala High Court decision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes criminal proceedings arising from Crime No.372/2023 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram, in SC 395/2023 before Fast Track Special Court – II. The petitioner/accused contends absolute innocence but cites a relationship that culminated in marriage with the victim (2nd respondent) on 08.02.2023, supported by Annexure-2 (Marriage Certificate). A child was born, and the couple are living as husband and wife; the victim confirms living with the petitioner as his wife and has no objection to terminating the proceedings; the Public Prosecutor also records the victim’s stance. The State’s counsel submits the victim’s statement; the victim’s counsel echoes no objection to quashing, emphasizing prejudice from continued proceedings. Relying on Vishnu v. Kerala (2023(4) KHC 1), the court surveys various precedents where criminal actions, especially involving rape and POCSO offences, were quashed in the face of marriage, settlement, or harmonious family life to secure ends of justice. The judge reiterates that Section 482 powers are exercised to advance justice in peculiar facts, balancing offence nature, societal impact, aggravation, and the likelihood of conviction. The outcome: the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in SC-395/2023 are quashed against the petitioner.
This is a criminal revision petition by the accused, K. Balachandran, challenging the conviction and sentence in S.C. No. 290/2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for allegedly transiting five litres of illicit arrack. The trial court convicted the accused to four years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with default imprisonment for non-payment, and allowed set-off. The appeal (Crl.Appeal No. 57/2012) was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence. The revision petition contends multiple defects in the prosecution process: (i) Ext P3 seizure mahazar lacks specimen seal and description of the seal on the sample; (ii) the sample was sent for forensic analysis only on 21.08.2008 despite production on 31.07.2008; (iii) unexplained delay in investigation and filing the complaint despite the chemical analysis report being available from 12.03.2009; (iv) non-examination of the thondi clerk to prove custody and seal integrity; (v) delay under Section 50 of the Abkari Act. Citing Baburaj and related decisions, the court emphasizes strict compliance with statutory formalities and link-evidence requirements between seized material and laboratory analysis. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody and link evidence due to procedural lacunae and excessive delays, and allowed the revision, acquitting the accused, cancelling bail, and directing refunds where deposits were made. The decision underscores the importance of tamper-proof sealing, timely analysis, and prompt investigation in Abkari Act cases.
The writ petition filed by Canara Bank (Arm Branch) challenges encumbrance certificates Exts. P9 and P10, which record attachments under two items in Ext. P7, claimed as security for an equitable mortgage. The mortgage was created in 2013, and the attachments were effected in 2015 and 2019/2020, i.e., after the mortgage. The petitioner argues that under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, attachments of an immovable property created after a security interest are void or do not survive, citing Madhan v. Sub Registrar, Kollam (2014) 1 KLT 406, and this Court’s own extant judgments (Exhs. P11–P12) in similar circumstances. The relief sought includes quashing the encumbrances, declaring the properties free from encumbrances (Item 1: 2.06 Ares in Ollur; Item 2: 1.72 Ares in Pananchery), directing removal of the entries from land records, and facilitating registration in favor of the auction purchaser, with tax receipts issued after effacement of encumbrances. The respondents contend that attachments under SARFAESI are valid and binding, emphasizing the ongoing enforcement framework and the chronology of attachments. The court ultimately allowed the petition, quashing the post-mortgage encumbrances and directing authorities to erase the entries and recognize the purchaser’s rights, while ignoring the attachments for registration purposes.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3330 OF 2005 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (CRL.R.P No.3330 of 2005) by Bharathan, challenging a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and the appellate reduction of sentence. The prosecution case, based on a patrol encounter on 24.09.1999, led to Bharathan being found with five litres of illicit arrack in a plastic can. The trial court convicted him under Section 55(a) Abkari Act and imposed three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 with a default sentence. The Ist Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, on appeal, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for two years while keeping the fine and default sentence. The revision petition argues substantial defects in the prosecution: lack of independent corroboration for the arrest and seizure, and absence of proof of tamper-proof despatch of the sample from seizure to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory. It highlights inconsistencies in seal usage (forwarding note seals) and a delay of more than 13 days before the sample reached the Chemical Examiner, with the Guards not examined to explain the delay. It also stresses that the investigation by a subordinate officer following detection by a superior officer may prejudice the accused, citing Xavier; Sasidharan and Krishnadas are relied upon to stress chain-of-custody concerns. The court ultimately finds the prosecution failed to prove tamper-proof custody and explains the unexplained delay, acquitting Bharathan and setting aside the previous judgments.
This Regular First Appeal arises from a suit (OS 183/2001) filed by Prima Agro Products Ltd, a public limited company engaged in wheat products, against the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the State Bank of India (SBI) alleging breach of contract in the sale of wheat under the OMSS/open sale scheme. The parties had planned to supply 500 metric tonnes of wheat for ₹35,60,250 along with a separate weightage charge. A release order (no.1121/49) was issued after DDs were deposited and accepted; the supplier expected delivery by 31/03/2000. However, FCI allegedly refused delivery on 31/03/2000, citing government decision to increase prices effective 01/04/2000, and later delivered to other buyers. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, declaring breach of contract by FCI. The Kerala High Court reversed, holding that there was no concluded contract at the time of DD handover; under the Sale of Goods Act the contract is concluded when the release order is accepted and delivery occurs. The court also held that price differences and delivery terms on the reverse side of the release order bind the purchaser, and that the plaintiff was obligated to pay any enhanced price before delivery. The appeal was allowed; the suit was not entitled to relief and the trial court’s decree was set aside.
This High Court of Kerala judgment addresses a Criminal M.C. challenging the absence of arrest records and the relief of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. for numerous FIRs against the petitioners, who are the Managing Director and Directors of PRD Mini Nidhi Limited. Accused in over 185 cases at Koipuram Police Station, the petitioners faced charges under IPC sections 409, 420 read with 34, and sections 3 and 5 of the BUDS Act, 2019, while seeking safeguards against preventive detention and blanket bail. The court reviews earlier jurisprudence: Abhishek Singh Chauhan; Narendrajith Sahani; Anubhav Mittal; Arnesh Kumar; Satender Kumar Antil; Vinubhai Malaviya; Vinay Tyagi; and Satinder Bhasin, among others, to determine whether FIRs can be clubbed, whether a comprehensive bail can be granted, and what procedure must govern future arrests. It ultimately rejects clubbing and a universal bail cover, emphasizing the right to a fair and timely investigation under Article 21 and citing the need to balance liberty with legitimate police powers. The bench directs that arrest in existing cases be recorded within ten days, and future arrests guided by 41A Cr.P.C., with safeguards from Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil, while ensuring magistrate scrutiny of detention. The matter is disposed with specific directions.
This is a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Kannur Family Court order in MC 117/2014 directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and their minor daughter. The respondents filed under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month each, contending that Abdul Sathar P. deserted them on 01.01.2001, and that despite his earnings abroad (allegedly around Rs. 1,00,000 per month) he refused to maintain them. Abdul Sathar admitted the marriage to the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent, but alleged that the marriage was irretrievably broken because of the first respondent’s mental depression and that he has since remarried, having two children in his current wedlock; he also argued that after 13 years of separation his liability should be limited given his present income (about Rs. 14,000 per month) from labourer work. The Family Court partly allowed the application, awarding Rs. 6,000 per month to each. The High Court, relying on social-justice jurisprudence, notional-income concepts, and assessment of evidence (notably the unproduced/untested Ext.R1 salary certificate), upheld the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition. The court underscored the respondents’ entitlement to maintenance and declined to interfere with the Family Court’s calculation.
Reena Beegum K., a regular Part-Time Lower Grade Urdu Teacher appointed from 01.08.2007 against an additional anticipated post at Badhiriya UP School, Velichikkala, claims that approval for the post was granted only from 01.06.2011 by including her in the Teachers package, while the period 02.06.2008 to 31.05.2011 was rejected on the ground that the Manager failed to execute a bond under GO (P) No.10/10/G.Edn. The petitioner challenged the delay and sought consideration of Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent. Her counsel argued that it is settled in law that even when bonds were not executed, managers would be deemed to have executed the bond and would be obliged to appoint from the list of protected teachers an equal number to the appointments approved during the ban period. The Government Pleader countered that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that managers who failed to execute bonds should have done so, with some matters pending before the Apex Court. The court relied on State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S.Suma Devi and Ors (W.A.No.2111/2015, judgment dated 01.08.2017) to hold that non-execution of bonds could be deemed executed. The petition is disposed by directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass orders within four months, noting these orders remain subject to any final Supreme Court decision and permitting the petitioner to furnish a copy of the writ petition with the judgment for further action.
This is a Kerala High Court CrL.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Senthilkumar, an accused in C.C. No.2315/2017 (NI Act) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (NI) Court, Palluruthy, challenging proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The background involves a share-purchase agreement for 833 shares in Elnocs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. dated 11.3.2016. The buyer (petitioner) intended to transfer shares after meeting conditions including securing loans, with post-dated cheques handed to the seller as consideration guaranteed through Annexure II. The deal collapsed within three months after execution: the petitioner resigned as director and sought cancellation, returning the cheques, while the complainant alleged the cheques were issued for consideration under a legally enforceable debt. The respondent State contends the cheques were given to secure performance and were backed by debt, rendering the complaint maintainable. The Court cites Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. and subsequent precedents (Indus Airways, Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao, Sunil Todi, and Dashrathbhai Patel) to explain the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of Section 138’s phrase “for discharge of any debt or other liability.” The high court held the cheques did not represent a subsisting debt since the agreement fell through, thus continuing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process, and quashed the proceedings.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 207 OF 2011 This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent convictions recorded in Crl.A. No.124/2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Kalpetta, and in C.C. No.280/2004 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sulthan Bathery, for offences under Sections 16(1A)(i) read with Section 7(i) and Sections 2(ia)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Trial Court convicted the second accused (the manufacturer) and acquitted the first accused; the Appellate Court upheld the conviction. The complainant contends the sample was adulterated due to orange-2 and that the analysis was performed by a Public Analyst rather than a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee); the defense relies on PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Rasheed v. Food Inspector, arguing that without a report from a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) the prosecution must fail and the accused should be acquitted. The State contends that PepsiCo’s ratio needs reconsideration in light of Section 8, which empowers appointment of Public Analysts, and that Rasheed’s clarifications do not negate this position. The High Court traces the chain of authority from PepsiCo to Rasheed and concludes that, after PepsiCo, a Public Analyst’s report must come from a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) for a prosecution to be sustainable. In the instant case, the absence of such a laboratory-defined report leads to acquittal. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the lower judgments are set aside, the accused is acquitted and released, and bail bonds are cancelled.
This is a criminal revision petition (CRL.R.P. No.647 of 2023) filed by three petitioners—P.B. Prasobh, K.V. Lal and Selvakumar C.—accused in CC 207/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad. The petition challenges a chargesheet dated 13 June 2022 framed against them for multiple offences including sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 355, 323 and 324 read with 149 IPC, arising from alleged police assault on the complainant on 9 March 2001 and related conduct. The petition contends lack of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute public servants, and seeks discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground of want of sanction; the petition traces that the 1st respondent was involved in two crimes (Nos. 116/2001 and 117/2001) and was arrested and later released on bail. The petition argues that the timing and manner of the complaint suggest harassment, and that sanction is a jurisdictional precondition for cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by public servants in discharge of official duties. The court relies on authorities including Choudhuri Parveen Sulthana, S.B. Saha and Ohm Prakash to explain the protective ambit and limits of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The High Court ultimately sets aside the charge dated 13.06.2022 on the issue of sanction, clarifying that this decision is limited to sanction and does not decide merits; it states that if proper sanction is obtained, the magistrate may proceed in accordance with law.
The petitioner, R.S. Sasikumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 31 March 2023, which directed that the investigation into the alleged corruption, favoritism and nepotism by the Chief Minister and Ministers and decision-making bodies of the Government of Kerala should be handled by a three-member bench (Lok Ayukta and two Upalok Ayuktas) due to a difference of opinion on whether Cabinet decisions could be investigated under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. The matter traces back to Complaint No. 899/2018, which initially was held maintainable and to have an investigation ordered by the Lok Ayukta in 2019 (14 January) with one Upalok Ayukta concurring and another disagreeing. After investigations and hearings culminating in Ext. P8, the Lok Ayukta reserved the matter for orders (18 March 2022). In 31 March 2023 the bench remitted the matter to a three-member panel. The petitioner contends that there was no need for re-referral since the 2019 order already determined maintainability, and that the Lok Ayukta and Upalok Ayuktas could have delivered their orders or referred to the third member without constituting a three-member bench. The respondents defend Section 7(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act, arguing that in case of any difference of opinion the matter must be decided by a bench of Lok Ayukta and two Upalok Ayuktas with the majority ruling prevailing. The High Court ultimately dismisses the petition, upholding the impugned order and the statutory mechanism for resolving differences of opinion.
This is an anticipatory bail application in Crime No.1065/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam district, concerning an accusation under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner, Khader Pillla @ Sali, contends his relationship with the defacto complainant’s family was cordial and that there were financial transactions between the families; he asserts he is not a flight risk and will cooperate with investigation, seeking anticipatory bail with reasonable conditions. The complainant alleges rape on 31-07-2023, with the case filed on 13-08-2023 after her shock. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the charge but finds that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and runs several business establishments around Perumbavoor, indicating limited flight risk. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab (Constitution Bench) and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), the judge expounds that Section 438 CrPC is to be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21, with the aim of protecting personal liberty while ensuring fair investigation. The court lays down guiding principles for anticipatory bail and concludes that, given the circumstances, anticipatory bail with conditions is warranted. Final order grants anticipatory bail subject to conditions, including bonds, appearance, no contact with the complainant, passport surrender, avoiding social media prejudice, and ongoing cooperation with the investigation.
The petitioner Kaningat Ramachandra Menon challenges Ext P5 order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, in I.A.174/2023 in S.A.No.57/2022. The core dispute arises from a 2015 loan from the second respondent SBI and the subsequent default, leading to OA 407/2021 under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner opposed the securitization action and sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner (Ext P4) to conduct a local inspection to determine whether the secured asset is agricultural land exempt from SARFAESI. The Tribunal dismissed Ext P4 (Ext P5). The petitioner contends that the land is agricultural and thus exempt; he relies on Supreme Court decisions including Indian Bank & Anr. v. K. Pappi Reddiyar & Anr. (2018) and Mathew Michael & Anr. v. Dhanlaxmi Bank, among others, to argue for the appointment of a Commissioner and re-consideration of Ext P4. The respondents argue OA was filed in 2021, the Securitization Application only in 2023, and that Ext P5 reflects correct application of the law, following Indian Bank and Mathew Michael. The court concludes there is no material establishing agricultural use on the date of creation of security, that a Commissioner cannot be used to retroactively prove such facts, and disposes of the petition, upholding Ext P5 and dismissing the original petition.
Balan, the revision petitioner, challenges a conviction under the Abkari Act (sections 8(1) and 8(2)) recorded by a trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. On 06.08.2005, a preventive excise party detected five litres of arrack in the possession of the accused near his residence. MO1 was seized and a sample tested; PW1 and PW2 corroborated seizure and arrest, with Exts P1–P7 and MO1 indicating proper handling of the contraband, including a tamper-evident seal. The chemical analysis (Ext P7) confirmed ethyl alcohol, establishing arrack. The accused faced trial under 8(1) and 8(2) Abkari Act provisions; he pleaded not guilty, but the trial court convicted him and imposed a one-year rigorous imprisonment, Rs 1 lakh fine, and a default sentence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The revision petition before this High Court raises two principal issues: (i) whether two samples should have been taken under the excise manual rules, citing Girish Kumar; (ii) whether the absence of a second sample violated the accused’s rights. The court examines jurisprudence, noting that Girish Kumar is not good law in view of Krishan M.C. and Santhosh T A; it upholds the prosecution’s case, finds the samples tamper-proof, and sustains the conviction. The revision petition is dismissed, and the sentence remains intact, with directions for execution."
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.MC No.2491 of 2023) filed by AFLAHSAHALA.S, the accused in Crime No.132/2023 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod, challenging continuation of criminal proceedings for offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34. The alleged incident occurred on 2 February 2023 around 10:30 PM, when the petitioner is said to have restrained the de facto complainant and his brother and attacked them with a weapon. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits from respondents 2 and 3 purportedly confirm this settlement. Citing a prior quashing in a related matter (Crl. M.C No.2479 of 2023) and directions to verify the genuineness of the settlement, the court considered whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be invoked. The Public Prosecutor raised concerns about quashing solely on a settlement basis, noting potential public interest in more serious offences, but acknowledged absence of other transgressions against the petitioner. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and others) and the proposition that non-compoundable offences with a private settlement can be quashed where the dispute is fully resolved, the court found the offences predominantly civil in character. It held that quashing would not affect society adversely and would secure ends of justice. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.132/2023 and all further proceedings were quashed (petition allowed).
Sebastian V.T filed OP(C) 1104 of 2022 challenging Ext P9, the common order of the Principal Munsiff, Alappuzha, which set aside Exts P6–P6(b) (the Advocate Commissioner’s report, mahazar and plan) and appointed a fresh Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor in OS 723/2013. The suit, for fixation of southern and northern boundaries of plaint item 1 and related reliefs, proceeded with an Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor producing reports after Ext P5 directions, including demarcation per Ext A4, A5, and Exts B1–B2 and separate plans for suit and counter-claims. IA Nos. 3382/2019 and 4346/2019 alleged non-compliance with Ext P5; the court below set aside the commissions and directed fresh officers. The petitioner contends Ext P9 is illegal; he invokes Francis Assissi to argue remittance instead of setting aside; the respondents contend the commission did not comply with Ext P5 and that Ext P9 was proper. The High Court, noting a conflict of opinions on remission/removal of commission reports and emphasising that Article 227 is supervisory rather than appellate, declined to interfere; it upheld Ext P9 and directed the trial court to determine the matter and dispose of the suit expeditiously. The petition is dismissed, and the suit is to be decided according to law, with the High Court not substituting the subordinate court’s judgment under Article 227.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 2494 of 2023) heard by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam before Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. The petition seeks exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the investigation and proceedings arising from Crime No. 201/2023 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur, in which petitioners (accused Nos. 1–3) are charged with offences under Sections 341, 323, and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 24.02.2023 the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained and assaulted the defacto complainant and his brother, causing injuries. The petition rests on affidavits from respondents that the dispute has been amicably settled and parties do not wish to pursue prosecution. The Public Prosecutor, while noting absence of prior serious crimes against the petitioners, reservations on quashing arise since Section 482 is ordinarily not invoked for grave offences or where public interest or offences under special statutes are involved. The court cites State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to articulate the governing principles: quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable offences with civil character where a settlement exists, but not for heinous offences or those under special statutes; and meaningful scrutiny of the charge is warranted. Having weighed gravity of the offences, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court held that quashing would not undermine societal interests and would promote peace. The petition is allowed and FIR No. 201/2023 along with all further proceedings in CC 414/2023 are quashed.
Con.Case(C) No.1042 of 2023 This Contempt of Court case before the Kerala High Court concerns alleged willful disobedience of the court’s directions in Annexure A1 of the 11.04.2023 judgment in W.P.(C) No.4617 of 2022. The writ petition disposed of with directions to maintain roads and pedestrian facilities as per IRC guidelines (IRC:103-2012), to keep right of way free from encroachments, and to prevent temporary structures, hoardings or other obstructions on footpaths and public roads used by pedestrians, including persons with disabilities. The judgment cites Satheesh v. Travancore Devaswom Board and related decisions emphasizing that footpaths should not be used for political campaigns, trade, or demonstrations and that encroachments violate the public trust. In the present contempt petition, the petitioner points to hoardings and advertisement boards erected in connection with temple events (Annexures A9–A12), allegedly by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was named as a party in related matters. Respondents’ counsel contends no permission was granted for such hoardings; the Temple Advisory Committee claims removal orders were issued. The court directed strict compliance with the earlier judgment and, after further proceedings, closed the contempt case, directing enforcement against future encroachments and hoardings, especially during festive seasons.
