CRL.REV.PET NO. 321 OF 2011 This is a Kerala High Court revision petition arising from a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The petitioner (Lekshmikutty Amma) was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor, for issuing cheques in discharge of a debt and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment plus payment of Rs. 6,18,000 as compensation under CrPC s.357(3), with a further month’s imprisonment in default. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner contends that Ext. P10, a tripartite agreement involving Indira Devi, and Exts. P1–P2 cheques were not for a legally enforceable debt but rather security for obtaining a dealership, and that PW1’s testimony, along with the non-examination of material witnesses (e.g., Indira Devi), undermines the prosecution’s case. The petitioner argues the courts below failed to properly evaluate Ext. D1 (reply notice) and DWs, and thus misapplied the law on presumption and the reverse onus under Sections 118, 139 and 138 NI Act. The High Court, invoking revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Secs. 397–401 and relying on precedents on the reverse onus and the role of the Revisional Court, holds that the lower courts misread the record and remands the matter to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration, directing a hearing afresh and expeditious disposal of Cr.A. No. 20/2009.
WP(C) Nos. 17906/2023 & 18301/2023 The two writ petitions challenge termination orders issued by the District Programme Coordinator (MGNREGS Kerala) terminating the petitioners as Quality Monitors on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The petitioners contend the orders rely solely on a report by the Joint Programme Co-ordinator, without providing the report to them, without recording their version, and without any formal enquiry, thereby creating a stigma and violating due process. The respondents submit that the petitioners’ competence had been assessed repeatedly and found wanting, and that continued service would undermine the monitoring of the Scheme. The High Court observes that the impugned orders are silent on any enquiry or opportunity to be heard and are based only on the Joint Programme Co-ordinator’s input. Citing Arunkumar V. Information Kerala Mission (IKM), the court notes that stigmatic removals require a proper enquiry. While it does not decide the merits, it sets aside the orders and directs the District Programme Co-ordinator to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioners and supplying copies of all inputs on which the orders were based. The petitioners are to appear before the District Collector/District Programme Co-ordinator on 26.08.2023, and a fresh order is to be passed expeditiously, but within three weeks from receipt of the judgment.
RFA Nos. 290/2017, 295/2017, 296/2017, 297/2017 These Regular First Appeals were filed by four resort developers challenging separate judgments of the Sub Court, Kattappana, in OS Nos. 161–164/2008. The High Court consolidated the four appeals (RFA Nos. 290/2017, 295/2017, 296/2017 and 297/2017) and heard them on 11 August 2023, along with connected cases. On the same day, the parties filed a joint memo indicating that the disputes had been settled out of court, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment records the decision as a procedural resolution rather than a merits adjudication, emphasizing the out-of-court settlement between the parties and the withdrawal of the appeals. The court cites Noorudheen V. Muhammed Najmal (2021) 4 KHC 257 and Mithun T. Abraham v. Sub-Court of Judicature, Kottayam and Others (ILR 2022(2) Ker. 699) to justify refund of the entire court fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal without deductions. The appellants include M-FAR Eco Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd.; Kumili Valley Eco Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd.; Kumili Mist Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd.; and M-FAR Elite Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondents comprise various individuals named in the original suits, with representation by counsel noted in the record. The judgment is delivered by Justice Sathish Ninan and records a withdrawal-based disposition.
TR.APPEAL (C) NO. 3 OF 2023 This Transfer Appeal (C) No. 3 of 2023 arises from a petition under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the order dismissing Transfer Petition No. 76 of 2023, which sought to transfer O.P. No. 2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Thrissur. The appellant, Rajam Babu, wife of the respondent, filed two matrimonial petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—divorce (O.P.2752/2019) and restitution of conjugal rights (O.P.1119/2019). The learned Single Judge dismissed the transfer petition on 25.05.2023. On 21.06.2023, the matter was heard by a Division Bench, which relied on Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act and several Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the convenience of the wife in transfer petitions and the desirability of joint hearings to avoid conflicting decisions. The Court noted that both petitions are between the same parties and that joint hearing is preferable when possible, especially to safeguard the dignity and convenience of the wife. The appellant resides in Thrissur (aged 69) while the respondent is 72; balancing hardship and legal principles led to the conclusion that the Ernakulam petition should be transferred to Thrissur. The appeal is allowed and records are to be transmitted to Thrissur for disposal.
This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda’s order in MC 227/2012 directing Muhammadali to pay maintenance to his wife Sabira and to his minor child Misiriya. The Family Court consolidated the maintenance proceedings with OP 414/2012 (a suit for gold ornaments) and heard evidence from the wife (PW1) and the husband (RW1), with Exts. A1 series and B1–B10 admitted. The Court found the wife’s and child’s claim credible and proceeded to assess the husband’s earning capacity, noting the petitioner's asserted income and his age (43) and determining a notional monthly income of Rs.25,000. It then ordered maintenance at Rs.3,500 for the wife and Rs.2,500 for the child, totaling Rs.6,000 per month, from the date of the petition. The petitioner contended desertion and lack of means to maintain dependants, while the respondents argued the petitioner’s obligation under Sec.125 CrPC, with the wife also pursuing a separate gold-ornament decree. The High Court, invoking social-justice principles underpinning maintenance laws and citing Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr., Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, and Bhuwan Mohan Singh, found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition at the threshold, upholding the Rs.6,000 monthly maintenance.
Review Petition No. 592 of 2023 (in Mat.Appeal No. 447 of 2014) The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, decides Review Petition No. 592 of 2023 challenging the judgment dated 25 November 2022 in Mat.Appeal No. 447 of 2014, which remanded OP No. 1968 of 2009 (Family Court, Ernakulam) for fresh disposal. The petitioner, Happy Maxwell, appeared in person and contended that paragraph 18 of the 25 November 2022 judgment directed recall of witnesses for further chief and cross‑examination, and the subsequent I.A. 7/2023, resulting in summons to doctors who issued Exts. X1–X3, would invade her privacy. She argued this direction was an error on the face of the record and thus reviewable. The respondents’ counsel opposed the review, arguing that, after remand, both parties have the right to adduce further evidence and that summons to doctors was a consequence of the remand order. The court cites Supreme Court precedent on the limited scope of review, including Meera Bhanja, Parsion Devi, Lily Thomas, Anantha Reddy, and S. Madhusudhan Reddy, to emphasize that review is not an appeal and can be granted only for an error apparent on the face of the record. It holds that the ground regarding privacy was not an apparent error, and thus the petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed, keeping in line with established principles on the nature of review under Order XLVII CPC.
PMR Properties, the tenant, challenges eviction proceedings filed by landlord Frank Thomas under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff, Irinjalakuda) in R.C.P. No. 17 of 2019 directed the tenant to pay Rs. 7,99,752 in arrears along with 6% interest within four weeks, failing which Section 12(3) would stop proceedings and eviction would be ordered. The tenant defaulted; an order under Section 12(3) of the Act was passed on 19-07-2022. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order. The revision under Section 20 was filed challenging both orders. The petitioner contended: (i) interest on admitted arrears is impermissible under Section 12(1); (ii) the court erred by not allowing adjustment of Rs.95,000 allegedly lost due to misdeeds of the landlord; (iii) the provisions of West Bengal Act on installments cannot be imported into Kerala; (iv) the Appellate Authority’s extension of time to deposit arrears contradicts the statute; (v) that reasonable time should be granted to deposit arrears. The respondent-landlord argued that the tenant admitted arrears from October 2018, failed to provide sufficient cause, and the rent was in arrears; the court found 6% interest on arrears appropriate and that Section 12(3) consequences follow automatically upon default. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the orders of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority, and declined to interfere with the statutory scheme.
Manoj A.K filed RPFC No.33 of 2015 under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a Family Court Thrissur order in MC 191/2013 that directed him to pay monthly maintenance to his ex-wife Sindhu and to their children Aarayananda and Amaldev. The respondents had approached the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance for Sindhu (their mother) and the two minor children, claiming financial distress and lack of income. The couple were married in 1994; their divorce was effected by a joint petition under Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The joint petition included an agreement that a jointly owned property would be sold and Rs. 25,00,000 would be paid toward future maintenance; however, Manoj allegedly paid only Rs. 5,00,000. He contended that prior mutual separation, and the absence of any legal obligation to provide maintenance to Sindhu after divorce justified excluding her from maintenance under Section 125(4). He also attacked the financial sufficiency of the award to the children. The Family Court partly allowed the application for maintenance. The High Court, noting that Section 125(4) applies to relationships within marriage and does not bar a divorced wife from maintenance, relied on precedents including Vanamala, Gurmit Kaur and Balan, and held that an agreement to waive maintenance is unenforceable under public policy. The petition was dismissed, affirming maintenance for Sindhu and the children.
W.A.NO.1274/23 & WP.(C).NO.19320/23 The matter concerns a writ appeal (W.A. No. 1274 of 2023) and the connected writ petition (WP(C). No. 19320 of 2023) filed by DM Education & Research Foundation, a charitable educational trust, challenging orders under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 that denied exemption and demanded building tax on several buildings at Meppadi, Wayanad. The foundation contends that exemption should be determined for each building as a unit and not by aggregating the entire plinth area of all buildings. It argues that exemption is available where a building is principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes, and that the test must be applied to the building as a whole, guided by the Explanation to the relevant provision. The Government’s order (Ext. P7) denying exemption to some buildings and the consequential assessments (Exts. P6, P8, P9) are challenged as misreading the legal framework. The High Court, in a Division Bench, agrees that the Government failed to apply the correct legal perspective and that the exemption cannot be computed by total plinth area alone. Relying on Supreme Court guidance in Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent and Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala, the court quashes Ext. P7 and the related orders, and remands the matter for fresh adjudication within two months, directing hearing of the petitioner.
This Regular First Appeal arises from a suit filed for declaration that Ext.A6 and Ext.A8 sale deeds are null and void, for recovery of possession of plaint A and B schedule properties, for partition of plaint C and D schedule properties, and for a prohibitory injunction against encumbrancing the properties. The trial court held that Ext.A6 and Ext.A8 did not prove due execution by Kochappan and Karumbi, and decreed them null and void, granting possession and partition relief. The sixth defendant-appellant Hari G. Nair challenged these findings in RFA 673 of 2013. The central issue was whether a registered sale deed enjoys a presumption of due execution, or whether the burden to prove non-execution lies with the challenging party, especially when the document is not accompanied by the original. The appellant relied on Section 60 of the Registration Act and Sections 67-68 of the Indian Evidence Act, along with Sumathi Amma v. Kunjulekshmi, Prem Singh v. Birbal, Vishwanath Sabale, and Jamila Begum to argue that in fit cases a certificate of registration can serve as evidence of execution. The High Court, observing that the trial court did not adequately apply the presumption and considering the possibility of better evidence, remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh evidence on the genuineness of Ext.A6, while affirming certain marital-status findings. The appeal is allowed, and the suit is to be disposed of de novo, expediting the trial.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.15379 of 2020) is filed by 34 retired employees/subscribers of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging pension computation under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners contend that pension must be fixed by taking into account the average monthly pay drawn during the contributory period (the 12 months immediately preceding exit) and by including 8 1/3% of the full contribution made by the 6th and 7th respondent establishments, without an artificial wage ceiling. They argue that pension should be paid in accordance with the pre-amended paragraph 11 of the Pension Scheme, i.e., not limited by the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in paragraph 11(3). They rely on Ext P2 (the 2018 ILR judgment in WPC No.13120/2015, ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614) to support higher pension benefits. The respondents’ counsel submits that the question is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that the petition should be decided in light of that ruling. The High Court disposes of the petition by directing respondents 2–5 to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B decision within three months, noting Ext P2 but not granting relief beyond remand to apply the Supreme Court directive.
This is a High Court of Kerala bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Nazeer, accused no.3 in Crime No.48 of 2023 of Punnapra Police Station, seeking regular bail in offences under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) NDPS Act. The prosecution case states that on 12 January 2023, at about 9:30 PM near Panayakulangara junction, 0.635 grams of MDMA was recovered from accused no.1 while he was travelling in a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-04/Z 1457; subsequently, a search at the residence of accused no.2 yielded 9.70 grams of MDMA. On the basis of the confessions of the other accused, the petitioner was implicated as accused no.3, alleged to have supplied the contraband to accused no.2, who in turn supplied to accused no.1. The petitioner was arrested on 13 January 2023 and has remained in custody. The petition argues that there is no material showing the petitioner’s role beyond the confession of co-accused and that confession statements are inadmissible per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. It is contended that no direct monetary transactions or corroborating evidence linking the petitioner to the NDPS operation exists, and that more than seven months have lapsed in custody. Call data records show regular contact but are not sufficient on their own. The court ultimately finds doubt about involvement, notes the dual conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act, and grants bail with specified conditions.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by six petitioners (accused Nos. 1–6 in C.C. No. 317 of 2021) challenging the continuance of prosecution for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 25 February 2021, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the informant and friends, and inflicted serious injuries. The petitioners contend that the disputes have been settled amicably; affidavits from respondents support the settlement. The petition was admitted for admission, and the IO was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether any prior criminal antecedents exist, before deciding on termination. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing proceedings solely on settlement where non-compoundable offences are involved, noting concerns for public interest and societal impact. The court examined settled law on quashing criminal proceedings under 482 CrPC, including State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and subsequent cases, and held that quashing can be permissible where the offence is largely civil in character, the parties have resolved the entire dispute, and there is no ongoing grievance. On these considerations, the court found the gravity of the offences and injuries not severe, weighed the antecedents, and concluded that continuing prosecution would be a waste of time. The petition was allowed, quashing the Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioners.
W.P.(C).No.12474/21 & OP(DRT) No.114/21 This petition and the related OP (DRT) arise from two defaulted SBI loan accounts. The petitioners, Sreepprakash A.P. and Mini Sreepprakash, contend they faced coercive SARFAESI actions despite payments and interim adjustments during the COVID-19 period. They had two loans (₹4 crore in 2016 and ₹50 lakh in 2016) secured by five properties; SARFAESI notices under Section 13(2) were issued on 25 July 2017, with possession notices in 2018, even though accounts were not declared NPA until 30 March 2018. A compromise in June 2020 required payment of ₹4.30 crore to settle both loans; substantial payments followed, including ₹1.90 crore under interim orders, and a further ₹90 lakh by 2023, with the bank not approving the concluded settlement terms. Petitioners sought release of documents related to the assets and argued COVID-19 impeded full payment; they urged that the bank be directed to grant relief and credit the payments towards an OTS. Respondents argued that public money and financial capability of the borrowers justify no extra relief and relied on decisions limiting the extension of OTS. The High Court found the 13(2) notices issued before declaring NPA to be incompetent, set aside those proceedings, and directed the bank to reckon ₹1.90 crore paid towards the OTS, with balance and interest to be calculated, noting the exceptional facts and that the ruling should not create a precedent.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P8, a 2018 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC) directing disciplinary action against Sajitha S.T., a senior clerk of Thanneermukkom Grama Panchayat, based on a complaint filed by a third party. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent lacked jurisdiction and violated Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and related Kerala Panchayat Raj rules governing custody of records and the operation of Ombudsman and Tribunal procedures. She argues that the Commission acted in a manner inconsistent with the Local Self Government Act and its rules, denying fair opportunity and infringing Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution by negating the rule of law and due process. The grounds assert that the 1st respondent usurped inherent powers of the Ombudsman and the Tribunal created under the Ombudsman Rules (1999) and the Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules (1999). The court, after considering the material, holds that Exhibit P8 was without jurisdiction and merits, and finds that the petitioner did not delay in her duties and that there was no dereliction. Relying on Thrissur Corporation v. Jose K.R. and Others (2022) and Jose V. Jacob v. Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayat and Others (2016), the court held that the Lok Ayukta-like order is barred under Section 271O of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P8 is quashed, pending applications to be closed.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Dr. Soorya Kumari, accused no.1, challenging the cognizance taken in CC 2747/2014 (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad) for offences under Section 304A IPC. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleges medical negligence during the care of a pregnant patient, culminating in a stillbirth on 30 May 2004. The petitioner contends that the entire prosecution is untenable since a police case (Crime No. 195/2004) for the same incident was registered, and expert panel findings (Annexure A2) concluded there was no negligence; a civil suit also exonerated the petitioner (Annexure A4). Annexure A3 contains the final report, and Annexure A1 is the complaint lodged before the Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the expert panel’s findings, corroborated by civil court exoneration, negate the basis for criminal liability, citing Philips Thomas v. State of Kerala and others to emphasize that criminal negligence requires a higher degree of negligence than civil negligence; mere civil negligence cannot sustain a criminal charge. The High Court perused Annexures A1–A4, including the expert-panel findings, and held that prosecution cannot proceed against the petitioner. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in Annexure A1 are quashed.
Cont.Case (C) No.1963 of 2019 This Contempt of Court case, Cont.Case (C) No.1963 of 2019, before the Kerala High Court, arises out of WP(C) No.31088 of 2016 and related matters. The petitioners (petitioners 2, 9, 10, 12 and 14–17 of the W.P.(C) No.31088/2016) filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 12 October 2018 in WP(C) No.31088/2016 and connected matters. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) was directed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8143–8144 of 2022 (and connected matters) to implement the amended pension provisions under the notification G.S.R.609(E) (2014) and to read down certain provisions; this was clarified in the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 04 November 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 5634). The Kerala High Court, after considering the 2022 apex court decision and the settled precedents, noted that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO. The court observed that the eight petitioners’ rights must be addressed in light of the amended regime, with possible extension for options as directed, and disposed of the contempt petitions by closing them, while clarifying that EPFO may revisit entitlements in accordance with law. The judgment ultimately directed no further coercive relief and reserved EPFO’s right to reassess entitlements under law.
This writ petition (Article 226) was filed by the Temple Advisory Committee and two devotees of Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple seeking quashing of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 and, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus directing the 9th respondent, Special Tahsildar, Kerala Land Conservancy Unit of the Travancore Devaswom Board, to take action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 to remove encroachments on temple properties detailed in Ext.P6. The petition traces litigation since 2016 (WPC 161/2016 and DBP No. 82/2017) where directions were given to resolve the dispute amicably and to consider action under the Land Conservancy Act or Civil suits, while noting that the District Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue declined intervention. The petitioners contend that Kootholikavu Temple properties are vested Devaswom lands and fall within the Land Conservancy Act; Ext.P6-8 reflect orders contrary to this and to the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Respondents rely on title disputes and long possession by private parties; they argue that Section 3(1) of the Land Conservancy Act and Section 27 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act apply in different ways, and that certain properties may not vest in the Board. The High Court ultimately held that Exts.P6-P8 are to be quashed, and directed a fresh decision by Respondent 9 under Section 11 of the LCA, remitting the matter to determine the right and title, with TD Board instructed to resume possession of specified parcels to the Deity. The bench concluded with directions to decide anew in light of precedents and evidence on record.
This criminal revision petition challenges the jurisdiction of a Committing Magistrate to entertain a Section 321 CrPC withdrawal from prosecution after determining that the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The State contends that Annexure A-3, the Magistrate’s order dismissing Annexure A-2 (consent to withdraw from prosecution), is illegal and improper. The prosecution case relates to an unauthorised 2003 march in Thiruvananthapuram where 44 accused faced charges including IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 332, 333, 114 and 115, plus 3(2)(e) of the PDA Act, 1984. On 26.08.2009, the Magistrate committed 27 accused to the Court of Session; the remaining 17 were pending committal. The APP then filed Annexure A-2 seeking consent to withdraw; the Magistrate entertained and dismissed it via Annexure A-3. The High Court held that once the offences are exclusively triable by the Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain a Section 321 application; the proper recourse is to file such application before the Court of Session. The Court discussed Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan (2012) and distinguished Rajendran Kumar Jain v. State, stating the former reflects the correct legislative mandate. The revision petition is allowed, with directions for the Session Court to consider any Section 321 application in due course.”
MACA No. 2764 of 2018; MACA No. 2883 of 2019 Two Motor Accident Claims Appeals filed before the Kerala High Court—MACA No. 2764 of 2018 by SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. and MACA No. 2883 of 2019 by Sajeev—arose from the MACT North Paravur award in OP(MV) No. 131/2015 for injuries sustained in a road accident on 05.03.2014, where the scooter ridden by Sajeev was struck by a lorry. Sajeev, who suffered near-total amputation of the right leg and long hospitalisation, sought compensation of about Rs.1.16 crore, but the Tribunal granted Rs.28.64 lakh. The insurer challenged the award as excessive, while Sajeev pressed for higher compensation and more robust treatment of future expenses. The High Court re-examines the notional income (holding it should be Rs.10,000 per month with 10% future prospects given his age and vocational profile), and applies Pranay Sethi and Ramachandrappa line of cases to reassess income and future prospects. The Court approves substantial enhancements to compensation for Loss of Earning Power, Extra Nourishment and Bystander’s Expenses, and notes the need to re-assess Future Treatment Expenses in light of Annexure A1 (prosthetic limb cost). It remands that issue to the Tribunal, permitting fresh evidence and a hearing, and directs payment of enhanced compensation with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim, subject to the remand outcome. Overall, the appeals are disposed of in part with remand for one issue and with substantial recalibration of several heads of compensation.
