This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cheriyan Abraham Malayampallil Veettil (plaintiff) against Chandran Pramod Bhavan and nine others (defendants) regarding a two-taks property abutting a municipal road in Chengannur, Alappuzha District. The plaintiff claims exclusive title to the plaint schedule property, contends that the defendants trespassed by demolishing a boundary bund and sought to open a new 4-foot-wide access along the eastern edge to reach the southern municipal road, thereby obstructing the plaintiff’s right to peaceful enjoyment. The defendants assert an eastern way of 4 feet width that has existed since time immemorial, used by residents to access the southern road; they claim a public easement and that the plaintiff’s obstruction and construction of a bund in December 2002 was wrongful. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed. The High Court, after considering evidence including a Commissioner’s Ext. C1 report showing only a 1½-foot path, and the pleadings and seven-ingredient test for easement by prescription under Section 15 of the Easements Act, set aside the lower judgments in part. It allowed the appeal to some extent, restraining the defendants from trespassing and from damaging the boundary, while directing costs. The decision emphasizes that easement rights require clear, precise pleadings and proof of prescription, not mere permissive public use.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 13426 of 2016) by Moideen Kaithakkodan challenges Ext.P1, a Secretary’s order of the Malappuram Municipality denying a building permit for a commercial structure on his land in Malappuram Village. The petitioner asserts the land, though shown as paddy land in revenue records, has been developed as garden land and that Ext.P1 is legally unsustainable and contrary to zoning. He seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 and a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to reconsider the permit application in light of law. Interim directions on admission required the Agricultural Officer to obtain a report from KSRSEC about the land’s status as of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and LLMC reports were to indicate whether the land should be included in the Paddy Land and Wetland data bank. The LLMC report shows Survey No. 604/3 not included in the data bank, though 604/2 is. The court engaged with statutory regimes: Section 14 of Act 2008 bars licences in paddy land or wetlands; Section 113 of Act 2016 preserves existing master plans and schemes; transitional provisions also contemplate the primacy of old plans unless new ones are introduced. The court held that the petitioner may pursue relief by approaching authorities under Section 27A of Act 2008 and Sections 50/63 of Act 2016 for variation or inter‑development orders, and that any permit decision must be in accordance with law, expeditiously once such orders are obtained. The petition is disposed of accordingly with these directions.
Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022; WP(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 This is a common judgment in seven Customs Appeal Nos. 9/2022 to 15/2022 and related W.P.(C) Nos. 9058/2022 & 27835/2021, decided by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 22 December 2022. The core dispute concerns actions taken by customs authorities and SEZ authorities in relation to gold moved from the Cochin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), alleged misutilisation and smuggling, and the consequent confiscations, penalties and cancellation of SEZ approvals. The CESTAT had allowed the importer’s appeals (Revenue challenges) on certain issues, including jurisdictional questions between SEZ Act/SEZ Rules and the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court re-examines: (i) whether customs actions in DTA fall within the exclusive SEZ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the SEZ unit’s activities beyond the notified SEZ area can nullify or expand jurisdiction; (iii) the legality of confiscations and penalties, especially the 4 kg of gold at Nedumbassery. The Court upholds that customs authorities have jurisdiction in DTA in light of the facts, overrides CESTAT to the extent of restoring the Revenue’s positions on jurisdiction, and remits certain matters back to the CESTAT/appellate authorities for fresh decision, while deleting an adverse finding in paragraph 8.1 of the CESTAT order. The appeal is thus allowed in part and remitted for reconsideration.
This revision petition (RP(FC) No.185 of 2021) before the Kerala High Court challenges a Family Court, Irinjalakuda, order dated 31 July 2018 in MC No.60/2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court had directed the respondent Rajesh to pay monthly maintenance to petitioners 1 and 2 (Lincy and her minor daughter Niveditha) at Rs.4,000 and Rs.3,000 respectively, from the date of the petition, with interim maintenance adjustments. The revision contends the impugned order is not legally sustainable and that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence, including the first petitioner’s income as a temporary teacher, which should affect the maintenance calculation. The counsel argues that the court should have either fixed maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application, recording reasons as required by Section 354(6) Cr.P.C. The counsel cites Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas (2015) 2 SCC 385 to emphasize the court’s discretion to order from either date with reasons. The petitioner also relies on Rajnesh v Neha (2020) to press a date-from-application guideline, invoking Article 142 to ensure parity among Family Courts. The High Court clarifies that Rajnesh provides a binding directive to unify practice and ultimately sustains the position that the maintenance could be ordered from the petition date, dismissing the revision petition.
This is a writ petition filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by retired employees of Keltron Component Complex Limited challenging provident fund related claims and seeking directions for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to process benefits in light of the petitioners’ service records. The petitioners rely on and seek implementation of directions issued by the Supreme Court in EPFO Organization & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar B & Others (Sunil Kumar B) reported as 2022 (6) KLT 234. Exhibits submitted include Exhibit P1 detailing individual PF account numbers, Exhibit P2 a circular, and Exhibit P3 a judgment in WPC 9929/2007, indicating the factual basis and documentary support for claims. The matter was heard by Hon’ble Justice Gopinath P. on 18 March 2024. While hearing counsel for the petitioners and EPFO, the court observed that the issues raised are covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment and its directions. Consequently, the petition is closed with the direction that the petitioners’ claims shall be considered in terms of the Supreme Court’s directions, ensuring conformity with the Supra judgment. The order thus resolves the petition by applying the controlling SC guidance rather than granting new independent relief, pending compliance with the directions.
This Kerala High Court judgment addresses the implementation of reservations for persons with disabilities (PwD) in aided educational institutions in Kerala under the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act. The petitioners, including K. J. Varghese, President of the Kerala Federation of the Blind, and others, allege non-implementation of the PwD reservation provisions and challenge government orders that purportedly regulate vacancies and reservations. The court traces the historical trajectory from the 1993–2002 Asian–Pacific Decade for Disabled Persons to the 1995 Act and its 2016 successor, emphasizing that PwD rights are protected by constitutional guarantees (Articles 14, 15, 41) and international norms. It cites Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation cases to stress proactive, liberal implementation and the horizontal nature of PwD reservations under Article 16(1), with 3% reservations (and 4% under 2016 Act) to be computed on total cadre strength, including unidentified posts. The court rebukes delay and retroactive fixations (cut-off dates) and directs immediate compliance, quashing restrictive orders and detailing steps for backlog calculation and roster preparation within tight timelines. It ultimately holds that aided schools fall within the statutory umbrella and must align with the 3%/4% reservation framework and related directives.
RCREV 270/2014; RCREV 279/2014 These two Rent Control Revisions under Sections 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 challenge a common judgment dated 22 March 2014 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority Kollam in RCA Nos. 11/2012 and 12/2012. The petitioners, Madhusoodanan and Laila, are landlords who purchased the petition schedule property in Mundakkal Village in 2001 (Ext.A1) hoping to use it for their own residence and initially let out the old building to Saraswathy, the respondent-tenant, for a short period. A dispute arose when the tenant allegedly sub-let portions of the premises, denied the petitioners’ title, and claimed some tenancy or permanent rights. The Rent Control Court initially held that the denial of title was not bona fide and granted eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3). The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the landlords’ appeals, permitting the tenant to pursue remedies in civil court for title disputes. In the revision petitions, the High Court considered the second proviso to Section 11(1), which vests jurisdiction in the RCC to decide bona fide title disputes and directs relegation to civil court where the title dispute is bona fide. The High Court ultimately found the denial of title to be bona fide, upheld the civil court route, and dismissed the revisions. The case underscores the limited, expeditious remit of Rent Control authorities in eviction matters when title disputes arise and emphasizes the necessity of resolving title disputes in regular civil courts.
This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Anil K. Narendran and P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ) invoking suo motu jurisdiction to examine alleged corruption in the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The petitioner is a Suo Motu matter based on a letter from Sri C. R. Radhakrishnan, a retired Deputy Commissioner, alleging corrupt practices in postings and promotions within the TDB, including reclassification of posts such as Finance Commissioner and Thiruvabharanam Commissioner, and attempts to bring the Estate Office under the Deputy Commissioner. The Board filed a detailed affidavit (01.08.2022) with Annexure R1(a) enclosing the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers and Servants Service Rules, 2022, explaining that appointments to Thiruvabharanam Commissioner, Finance and Accounts Officer/Devaswom Accounts Officer, Executive Engineer, etc., are by promotion from specific cadres via a Departmental Promotion Committee, and that postings are done after due verification and scrutiny. The Court noted the complaint’s anonymous character and reliance on vague allegations, citing Divine Retreat Centre to caution against unverified petitions, and proceeded to consider statutory provisions of the Travancore Devaswom Board Act and Rules. Ultimately, the Court held there are no merits in the contentions and disposed of the DBP with observations focusing on adherence to Rules, maintaining the Devaswom Board’s fiduciary duties, and safeguarding temple properties.
WP(C) Nos. 8352/2010 and 8398/2010 This is a common-judgment disposal of two connected writ petitions filed by Mithra Megha Mart, retail outlet of Mithra Agricultural Producer Company Ltd. (registered under the Companies Act) challenging an order by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act alleging payment of wages below the statutory minimum. The petitioners contend Ext.P1 (an application under s. 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act) is not maintainable, citing Town Municipal Council v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, and that where there is no dispute as to the rates only, remedies lie under the Payment of Wages Act; Ext.P1 was found maintainable by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4. Thecourt notes the Minimum Wages Act’s primary object is fixation of wage rates and seeks to harmonise it with the Payment of Wages Act to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It addresses whether the claims could have been brought before the Authority under s. 20(1) and concludes that Ext.P1 should be dealt with on merits, with maintainability to be adjudicated at the Ext.P1 stage, as per law in existence on that date. The court relies on cited authorities (Town Municipal Council and Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Sadu) for framing, but disposes of the petitions by (i) setting aside Ext.P4, (ii) directing the 1st respondent to decide Ext.P1 on merits, and (iii) keeping contentions open.
This writ petition, WP(C) No. 21355 of 2021, was filed by Mayadevi K.S., M. Radha and Bindhu Letha Menon challenging the applicability of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Rules, 2015 to the Guruvayur Devaswom employees governed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 and the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, evidenced by Ext. P1. The petition sought to promote the petitioners as Manager under Regulation 16 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, quash Exts. P23–P25, and declare various promotions (Ext. P6) and selections (Exts. P7, P9, P17) illegal or ultravires. The respondents included the State government, the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, its Administrator, the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotions to Deputy Administrator/Manager, and several Devaswom officers. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the issue is settled by a prior judgment of this Court in Administrator Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. Mayadevi, and that relief should be granted accordingly. The respondents did not appear. On 16 November 2022, the Court closed the petition, recording Exts. P33 and P34 resolutions of the Managing Committee, and left other contentions to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Liberty to approach afresh was granted to the petitioners as required.
This writ petition concerns Bindu Vijayakumar, who faced securitisation proceedings under the SARFAESI Act after SBI declared her loan account a non-performing asset and offered a one-time settlement (OTS). The OTS, referred to as SBI OTS 2020, fixed the payable amount at Rs. 1,07,81,341, to be discharged in four instalments over eight months from sanction. The petitioner paid the first three instalments and part of the last but could not complete the final payment by 30.07.2021 due to the COVID-19 lockdown in Kerala, which severely affected livelihoods. Notices for sale were issued, and while the bank continued enforcement, the petitioner sought directions to repay the balance with interest and for timely disposal of her representations. The court notes the general principle that courts cannot alter contractual terms under Article 226, citing Asokan Vasu v. SBI (Ker. HC) that modification of a contract requires mutual consent under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. However, it also recognises exceptional circumstances in light of Vijayakumari v. Indian Bank (SC) and other authorities that delay caused by lockdown may be excused with fair concessions. In light of these facts, the court permits a limited extension of time to repay the balance under the sanctioned OTS, with a fixed interest rate, and directs the bank to dispose of Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 representations within ten days, with the condition that non-compliance will nullify the benefit of the judgment.
Dasan, owner of 2.700 cents of land in Survey No.1176/4 of Kodassery Village, petitions the Kerala High Court challenging the denial of Building Number and Occupancy Certificate for a building constructed under Ext.P5 Building Permit. The permit, issued by the Kodassery Grama Panchayat on 19 April 2021, described the structure as a commercial cum residential building. After completing construction, Dasan sought a Building Number; the Panchayat Secretary rejected this, citing that the land had been assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and, under Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, it could be used only for residential or agricultural purposes, not for commercial use. Dasan contends the assignment permits residential and agricultural use, and the ground floor rooms would be used for storage related to agriculture, with no intent to operate a commercial venture. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat relied on the Purchase Certificate and cited Haridas R. v. State of Kerala and others (2016 (4) KLT 707), which held land assigned for a purpose may not be used for other purposes. Government Circulars Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) were invoked, mandating pre-permit verification of consistent land use. The court noted the Building Permit predates Ext.R2(B) and, finding no breach of the permit, allowed the writ petition, set aside Ext.P7, and directed numbering and issuance of Occupancy Certificate if otherwise eligible, considering the permit and pre-existing use.
This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, deals with a criminal Misc. Case (Crl.MC No.8651 of 2016) arising from Crime No.663/2010 registered at Kunnamkulam Police Station and the connected Sessions Court proceedings (SC No.416 of 2011) involving an alleged attempt to commit rape on a minor (the 3rd respondent) by the 74-year-old petitioner, Kunjamon @ Muhamod. The petition invokes Section 482 CrPC to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties. The 2nd respondent (the mother of the 3rd respondent) and the 3rd respondent submit that the dispute had a genuine amicable resolution; the 3rd respondent has since attained majority and her marriage is fixed. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations, but notes the petitioner lacks criminal antecedents. The Court situates its approach within the well-settled law that compromise agreements can justify quashing criminal proceedings where it would secure ends of justice and not amount to abuse of process, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. The court finds the offence not grave and the prospects of conviction unlikely, and, exercising inherent powers, allows the quashing petition. The final report and related proceedings before the Sessions Court are quashed, bringing the matter to an end.
R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 These Rent Control Revisions arise out of eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, involving two intertwined petitions. Landlords, Greenix Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Greeniz Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (represented by Saritha Babu and others), challenged the Rent Control Court’s order under Section 12(3) directing eviction of tenants and the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s judgment upholding that order while granting the tenants a three-month window to pay admitted arrears. The tenants—P.M. Salim, P.M. Kareem, Abdul Hadi Hussain, and R.O. Shehnaz—contested the admitted rent and arrears, arguing that the rent figure and the deposits were disputed and that no receipts were produced for the pendency period. The Rent Control Court had earlier directed the tenants to pay Rs.20,80,000 as admitted arrears from January 2020 to January 2021 at Rs.1,60,000 per month; the tenants failed to comply. The Appellate Authority confirmed the eviction but gave three months’ time to clear arrears. The High Court, hearing the two revisions together, clarifies the mandatory nature of Sections 12(1)-(2) (deposit/payment of admitted arrears) and 12(3) (consequence of non-compliance), while acknowledging power under Section 23(1)(i) to enlarge time in appropriate circumstances. It allows Rev.147 and dismisses Rev.151, clarifying the limits of extensions and the primacy of deposit obligations in eviction proceedings.
Thankachan, the petitioner tenant in O.P.(RC) No.91 of 2021, challenges the Rent Control Court’s order dated 23 February 2021 in I.A.1/2020 in R.C.P.No.32/2019, which sought to decide the maintainability of the eviction petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The respondent landlord claims title to the petition schedule building and the adjoining land (27.33 acres) acquired through sale deeds, and seeks eviction on grounds of default in rent since 2018 and subletting to three occupants. The petitioner counters that the petition schedule building along with the land originally belonged to his father and that Ext. R1(a) (sale deed) was executed merely as security; he contends Ext. R1(d) (purported rent agreement) was fabricated using blank signed stamp papers, and that there is no valid landlord-tenant relationship or rent liability. The Rent Control Court dismissed the maintainability issue, holding that the landlord has title. The High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to examine whether the denial of title affects maintainability under Section 11(1) and its second proviso. It scrutinizes the evidence (Exts. A1–A8, B1–B9) and a string of precedents on title disputes and the role of tribunals versus civil courts. The judgment ultimately sets aside the R.C.P. order, holds that the petition is not maintainable under the second proviso, and permits the landlord to pursue eviction in a competent civil court, while safeguarding the petitioner’s challenge to title.
This is a criminal appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, challenging a Kasaragod Sessions Court order (Crl.M.C. No.159/2023) dated 13.11.2023 that denied anticipatory bail to the appellant, Sherly Joseph, Headmistress of Kottamala MGM UP School. The victim, a 12-year-old student belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, alleged that on 19.10.2023 during school assembly, the appellant cut his hair with scissors in front of teachers, and students mocked him. The child’s mother supported the account; the school community reportedly contested the claims. FIR No.450/2023 was registered under IPC 341, SC/ST (PoA) Act, 3(1)(e) and 3(2)(v)(a), and JJ Act 75. The Sessions Court found no prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act but concluded a prima facie case under the JJ Act and thus refused anticipatory bail. The High Court, in a single-judge judgment by Justice K. Babu, examined the law on anticipatory bail, citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and later rulings (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sushila Aggarwal) to assess mens rea, the offender’s role, and risk of tampering with witnesses. It held that there is no prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and allowed anticipatory bail with conditions: appearance before IO on 27.01.2024, bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation, including deemed custody, as per precedent. The order thus grants relief to the appellant while preserving conditions to safeguard the investigation and victim’s rights.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions, filed by managers of private aided higher secondary schools, challenge Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn (dated 7 July 2022) and the Plus One admission prospectus, arguing that reducing the management quota to 20% and the directive requiring managements to declare the community to which they belong, with a mandated 10% community quota for that community, violate constitutional guarantees and established law. The petitioners contend that such allowances amount to an arbitrary, religion- or community-based reservation in private education contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and would undermine merit-based admission; they also contend the 10% community quota lacks a rational nexus to the objective and would harm meritorious students from backward sections. The respondents defend the policy as a legitimate executive decision to correct historical anomalies, promote transparency, and align with Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) for merit-based admissions. The judgment surveys the evolution of management quotas from 1990 through 2005, cites various precedents (including Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mailerumperumal and other constitutional/educational cases) to frame the policy review, and holds that while the 20% management quota is a valid policy, the 10% community quota is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 15, directing that those seats be treated as open-merit seats to be filled via CAP. Admissions already made under declarations are not disturbed.
This writ petition by a group of retired professors and a retired Director of Physical Education at the University of Calicut challenges the fixation and restoration of pensionary benefits under UGC revisions. The petitioners contend that pension revisions granted to them under Exts. P4 and P5, calculated in accordance with Ext. P3 GO(P) No. 211/2011, must be restored and that Ext. P20, which reduced these benefits, is illegal. They rely on Exts. P1–P3 for the calculation framework and had previously challenged a reduction in pension in a prior round of litigation. The Government counters that the revised pension is computed by applying clause 3.1 of Ext. P3 (for those who retired before 01.01.2006) using the unrevised basic pension plus fitment and Dearness Allowance, with further provision under clause 3.2 for minimum guarantees; it also invokes CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and relies on decisions such as PV Prakasini v. KPSC and Krishnan Kutty K.P. to justify recovery of erroneous payments and rectification of mistakes. The Court scrutinizes the controlling provisions and notes that Ext. P20 contradicts the Government’s stance and that Government intervention is necessary in financial matters. It quashes Ext. P20, directs the Government to decide within five weeks after hearing the petitioners, and emphasizes that pension computation must reflect the law in force at retirement, with retrospective relief where appropriate. The petition is allowed.
Cus. Appeal Nos. 9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022; W.P.(C) Nos. 9058/2022 & 27835/2021 This is a consolidated Kerala High Court decision on Customs Appeal Nos. 9–15 of 2022 and W.P.(C) Nos. 9058/2022 and 27835/2021 arising from CESTAT Final Order No. 20057–20065/2022 and earlier SEZ/Customs orders. The core issue is jurisdiction: whether alleged offences in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) context fall under the SEZ Act (exclusive jurisdiction of the SEZ authorities) or under the Customs Act, 1962 (duty, penalty and confiscation). The importer Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd. (AGPL) and related parties were accused of clandestine movement of gold from CSEZ to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and other violations; seizures and subsequent orders involved confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties under the Customs Act, as well as SEZ-imposed penalties and cancellation of SEZ approvals. The CESTAT had allowed the importer’s appeals on certain grounds, and the Revenue challenged these outcomes. The Kerala High Court held that the jurisdiction for acts in DTA relates to the Customs Act and not exclusively to SEZ for the challenged movements, reversed CESTAT’s jurisdictional conclusions (paragraph 8.1), and remitted the matters to CESTAT for fresh consideration on merits. It also set aside SEZ-related penalties and directed appropriate remediations, while disposing of the WP petitions consistent with the above. The court emphasizes that if two interpretations are possible, the taxpayer-favorable interpretation cannot be presumed to prevail over statutory law, and it clarifies that the 4 kg of gold confiscation was unsustainable in the particular context but leaves other issues to be decided by the relevant authorities.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from a SARFAESI-related eviction dispute in which Stephy K Regi Medha B.S. (the applicant) challenges Annexure A4, an order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam in MC 638 of 2022, which permitted eviction of respondents in the secured asset matter. The petitioners seek to quash the CJM’s order to safeguard ends of justice, arguing that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against them require a proper challenge in the appropriate forum and that a Sub Court injunction restraining eviction (CMA 18/23 in CMA 18/23, Sub Court, Pala) should have overriding effect. On 09.11.2023, this Court admitted the Crl.M.C. and stayed dispossession for 30 days to enable the petitioners to pursue legal remedies. A report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam indicates that the Sub Court’s injunction restrains the bank’s possession and that the order under challenge is subject to the due process of law. The Court cautions about judicial discipline in handling civil orders produced before another court and notes that such civil orders may be void or not have overriding effect. It ultimately holds that the SARFAESI process must be challenged in the appropriate forum and relies on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. B. Ganesh Moorthi to deny further extension, dismissing the Crl.M.C.
