Tag Archives: #kerala hc

Case title: P.S. Rajeev v. The Sree Narayana Trusts,

Special Jurisdiction Case No.6 of 2023

Judgement Dated: 8th day of November, 2023

CORAM: P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE, JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.

Introduction

The High Court of Kerala recently restated that the finality of a decree does not preclude a court settling scheme under Section 92 CPC from modifying it and that the court’s power to amend the scheme or to issue directions for the effective functioning of a Trust is derived from the scheme itself.

 

Facts of the Case

A suit was instituted before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) for framing of a scheme for the administration of the Trust. In the appeals preferred against the decree in the suit, this Court modified the scheme framed by the District Court in the suit and the Trust is being administered thereafter in terms of the scheme framed by this Court as amended from time to time.

The petitioners are persons who made contributions to the Trust in terms of the Scheme and thereby acquired membership in the Board of Trustees. They have approached this Court invoking Clause 34A of the Scheme for redressal of their grievances against the office bearers of the Trust. the petitioners took out a notice to them also by publication in the newspaper and several persons have got themselves impleaded in the proceedings, pursuant to the said notice.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent on his behalf and also on behalf of respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent, the Returning Officer appointed for the election. We are not referring to the averments in the counter affidavits as we find it unnecessary to refer to the same in the nature of the order we propose to pass in this proceedings.

this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents contended in unison that the special jurisdiction case instituted claiming the reliefs above mentioned, is not maintainable. The essence of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted in terms of Clause 34A of the Scheme.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents resisted the argument aforesaid of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners pointing out that the scope of Clause 34A is to be understood in the light of the orders passed by the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench It was also pointed out that in the concurring opinion rendered by one of the learned Judges, it is clarified that the said Clause cannot be invoked for seeking reliefs that would fall under clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code. According to the learned Senior Counsel, if the scope of Clause 34A is understood in that fashion, it could be seen that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted in a proceeding initiated under Clause 34A.

Analysis of the court

The special jurisdiction case, in the circumstances, is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed

It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners or any one of them from seeking appropriate amendments in the Scheme, so as to prevent the office bearers of the Trust from committing any act which would amount to a breach of trust. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners or any of them from seeking appropriate relief in appropriate proceedings in respect of the matters covered by this case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click to view the judgement

WP(C) NO. 20903 OF 2020

Case title: S Jayan v State of Kerala

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocates Suresh Babu Thomas, Nandagopal S.Kurup

Counsel for the respondents: Senior Government Pleader P.Narayanan, Central Government Counsel O.M.Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General S.Manu, Special Public Prosecutor Sreelal Warriar, Assistant Solicitor General P.Vijayakumar, Government Pleader Rajesh A and Public Prosecutor Rekha

CORAM: K.BABU, J

Dated: 14th day of November, 2023

Introduction

The High Court of Kerala contended the central government to be in charge to order the CBI in the matter to investigate the corruption assertion implying high officials of the titanium company for the charge of pollution abatement cum capacity expansion project involving above 256 crore rupees to M/s.Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Limited (MECON).

 

Facts of the Case

The petitioner pleaded that MECON was given the complete authority to enter into contract with Indian/foreign firms on behalf of the Titanium Company as per a letter of authority issued by the Titanium Company. MECON invited global tender on behalf of Titanium Company.

The contract price was approximately Rs.72 crores excluding taxes and duties, of which 1,08,34,938 Euros had already been paid. MECON entered into another agreement with an Indian company, namely V.A.Tech Wagbag, for setting up a Neutralization Plant (NP) at a cost of Rs.32.08 crores The Titanium Company incurred Rs.17.33 Crores towards import duty and other expenses. In addition, a sum of Rs.15 Crores was spent to set up the Neutralization Plant The Titanium Company was unable to incur such a huge additional financial burden.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB Special Unit 1, Thiruvananthapuram, registered an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 10, 11, and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The statement submitted by the senior government pleader is that the State Government decided to hand over the investigation to CBI as the case has interstate connections and international ramifications. It was submitted that VACB has limited resources to carry out an investigation involving MECON, a central public sector enterprise.

 

Analysis of the court

The court in command contended that VACB is incapable of conducting an investigation into money to foreign-based companies for the purchase of equipment by MECON.

respondent is directed to issue orders entrusting the investigation of VACB Thiruvananthapuram to the CBI. Respondents Nos.5 and 6 are directed to take over the investigation of Thiruvananthapuram. The CBI shall complete the investigation within six months from this date. The investigating agency is at liberty to approach this Court seeking an extension of time, if found necessary.

The above-mentioned writ petition is allowed.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click here to view the judgement

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 41159 OF 2022 (T)

Case Title: Syama M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Order dated: 8th day of November, 2023

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Introduction

On Wednesday the High Court of Kerala conducted the chief secretary of the concerned state to issue needed instructions and circulars to all entities involved in infrastructure development to comply with the recommendations made by the State’s Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA)

 Facts of the case

One of the recommendations calls upon all Engineering Departments and local Governments in the State to consider risks from the planning stage itself. It encourages them to fill the annexure to the State Disaster Management Plan at the designing stage of engineering projects and to incorporate the checklist as part of their detailed project report, in a bid to ensure that risk awareness is clear to executing entities and beneficiaries at the designing stage itself.

the afore Report that there are various recommendations made by the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority. It is for the District Collector, who is the Chairperson of the said Authority, to confirm that these recommendations are properly complied with.

Analysis of the court

The court directed that the competent Authorities make sure that the recommendations as afore are implicitly complied with, and the District Collector will file an Action Taken Report before this Court within a period of one month

the recommendation in the afore Report is not one specifically to the petitioner’s predicament, but it should be considered in all such cases of infrastructure development.

Therefore it is conducted that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala immediately advert this recommendation and issue necessary orders/circulars/instructions to all entities so that in the future such issues can be allayed.

A Report in this regard by the Chief secretary will also be placed on record by the next posting date.

I order so since am without doubt that the views of the State Disaster Management Committee are imminently deserving of being acceded to and adhered to, the Court said.

 

The  aforementioned case was posted after a month

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Written By

Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

view the judgement

Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) NO. 19463 OF 2023: Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Narayan Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony

Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) NO. 23679 OF 2023: Advocates P. Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev, Vivek Vijayakumar, Riya Tomy, Indu C. Sreekumar

CORAM :Justice Raja Vijaya Raghavan

Introduction

The petitioners in the abovementioned writ petition were affronted by the addition of candidates who lacked the invited qualifications but had higher qualifications as per the notification legally and publically issued by LDC, In the Rank list published by the Public Service Commission (PSC).

.it is imperative to recognize that the Public Service Commission, having steadfastly maintained a particular stance in the earlier proceedings and vigorously objected to the acceptance of candidates with advanced qualifications, cannot justifiably alter its stance by subsequently admitting individuals with higher qualifications. Such a reversal of position, if sanctioned, holds the potential to reopen previously concluded judgments of the Court. This not only raises concerns regarding the abuse of the judicial process but also carries significant ramifications for the overall administration of justice.

the Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. observed.

Facts of the case

An Inviting application for the post of LDC has been issued by Kerala Water Authority by listing the following qualifications,

Degree in any discipline

Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation of minimum 3 months (120 hrs) duration awarded by Lal Bahadur Sasthri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS), Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD) or from a similar/equivalent institution approved by the Government.

A petitioner based on this had needed qualification to apply for the post it is pointed out that one of the parents approached the court asserting that a Degree/Diploma in computer application is a higher qualification for the post of  LDC and he is a well-deserving candidate for the post. Another Single Judge disposed the matter holding that candidates with higher qualifications would also be eligible for the post of LDC

 

The appeal against the afore finding by the Single Judge was sustained by the Division Bench. Subsequently, the PSC issued the rank list including the names of candidates unqualified candidates holding qualifications other than what had been prescribed in the notification. It is thus challenging the same that the present writ petitions were filed.

It was submitted that if the higher qualification is in the same faculty, it would presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification for the post and that inclusion of higher qualifications is permissible as per Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II KS & SSR Rules.

Findings of the Court

The ranked list produced as Ext.P6 in W.P(C) No.19463 of 2023 to the extent it includes candidates holding higher qualifications like Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) and such other qualifications deviating from the prescribed qualifications is quashed.

It is held that only candidates who have the prescribed qualifications as notified are entitled to be advised and appointed to the post of LDC in the Water Authority

There will be a direction to the Kerala Public Service Commission to recast and rework the ranked list by excluding candidates who are not qualified and publish a modified ranked list for the post of LD Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by

Kaulav Roy Chowdhury

view the judgement