#keralahighcourt Archives - Page 2 of 10

4 Jan

The Kerala High Court directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to maximize vehicle parking, deploy volunteers and provide drinking water to pilgrims.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt, #vehicle

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case No: SSCR No. 41 of 2023

Decided on: 3rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH

Facts of the Case

The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala submitted a report regarding certain aspects concerning crowd management with reference to the deficiency in the Fastag parking fees collection point and vehicle parking at Nilakkal and deployment of personnel at parking grounds to arrange parking of vehicles. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has suo motu initiated the proceedings.

The High Court of Kerala passed a detailed order dated 25.12.2023 on crowd management at Sabarimala and at various places like Ponkunnam, Mundakayam, Pala, Kanjirappalli, Thirunakkara, Ettumanoor and Vaikom.

The learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board seek time to get instructions on crowd management and pilgrim facilities at Makarajyothi view points.

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submits that the second track of FASTag scanning/parking fee collection provided at Nilakkal has become operational on 28.12.2023. It also submits that the total capacity of the parking grounds at Nilakkal is around 8,000 vehicles. The parking fee is being collected through FASTag. There was underutilization of parking facilities at Nilakkal during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.

Issues

The primary issue involves deficiencies and management challenges in crowd control, parking facilities, and pilgrim amenities during the festival season at Nilakkal and various related locations, as highlighted in the Special Commissioner’s report and addressed by the High Court’s order.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directs the Travancore Devaswom Board and the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta to ensure that a maximum number of vehicles are parked at the Devaswom parking grounds at Nilakkal. It also directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to take immediate steps to deploy sufficient number of volunteers at U-turn and S-valavu, especially during night hours, and provide drinking water and light refreshments to the pilgrims stranded at those locations. The additional 17th respondent Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Circle, Pathanamthitta is directed to make provisions for adequate supply of drinking water at U-turn and S-valavu, in consultation with the Travancore Devaswom Board.

“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- Afshan Ahmad

Click to read the judgement

30 Nov

The Kerala High Court held that cheque dishonour directors not held vicariously liable if company found not guilty of crime under NI Act

Prime Legal

Blog #dishonourofcheque, #keralahighcourt, #negotiableinstrumentact

Title: Afsal Hussain v. K.S. Muhammed Ismail & Anr.
Decided on: 14 November, 2023

+ CRL.REV.PET NO. 1060 OF 2008

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Sophy Thomas

Introduction

The Kerala High Court ruled that, in cases where the company is not proved to have committed the offense, the directors of the company cannot be found guilty of a crime under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), which is known as “Dishonour of Cheque.”

Facts of the Case

In the current case, the Managing Director of Omnitech Information Systems Pvt. Ltd., the revision-petitioner, was sued by the first respondent for dishonouring a Rs. 10 lakh cheque that the latter had sent to the former. In the complaint, the Company was listed as the first accused, the Managing Director/revision-petitioner as the second accused, and the other Directors as the other accused parties. According to Section 138 of the NI Act, the trial court found all of the accused guilty. The first accused firm was fined, and the other accused directors—including the revision petitioner—were sentenced to simple imprisonment and a fine. The Appellate Court only maintained the conviction of the revision-petitioner, even though his substantive sentence was lowered, while clearing the other respondents—including the firm.

Courts analysis and decision

The revision-petitioner issued the check in his capacity as the company’s managing director, the court stated. It was determined that the Managing Director could not be held accountable for any offenses committed by the Company after the appellate court cleared the company of all charges. As a result, it overturned the contested ruling and cleared the revisionist of any wrongdoing.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view you judgement

30 Nov

The Kerala High Court says that BS-IV and BS-VI vehicle pollution certificates are valid for one year.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt, #pollution, #vehicle

Title: S. Sadananda Naik v. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors.
Decided on: 21 November, 2023

+ W.P. (C) No. 30776/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Introduction

A government order (“GO”) issued by the Kerala State Government that established a uniform period of validity for Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates for all vehicle categories—regardless of whether they were produced in accordance with BS-VI (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-VI) or BS-IV (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-IV) standards—has been overturned by the Kerala High Court.

Facts of the Case

The State Government of Kerala issued the notification G.O.(Rt)No. 353/2022/ TRANS on August 22, 2022, which specifies the validity period and cost for Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates for a variety of vehicle categories, including two- and three-wheelers. This notice is being challenged in the current writ petition.

Courts analysis and decision

According to the requirement, the PUC Certificate’s validity may not exceed a year for cars built in accordance with BS-IV or BS-VI standards. In light of this, the court invalidated the challenged order/notification to the degree that it specified a consistent 6-month PUC Certificate validity duration for vehicles classified as BS-IV and BS-VI.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

29 Nov

The Kerala High Court held that Natural justice principles are essential for transferring orders, preventing stigma and bias.

Prime Legal

Blog #bias, #keralahighcourt, #naturaljustice

Title: The Corporate Manager v. Beena Hilkushi and Ors.
Decided on: 23 November, 2023

+ WA NO. 2001/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen

Introduction

Recently, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court affirmed a Single Judge’s decision to revoke a teacher employed by Corporate Managers’ transfer order.

Facts of the Case

After receiving complaints from pupils, the school manager filed an appeal against the quashing of the transfer order, claiming that the order was made because of the teacher’s wrongdoing.

Courts analysis and decision

The court emphasized that in order to avoid bias or prejudice during the transfer order-issuing process, natural justice principles must be incorporated into statute provisions. The writ appeal was therefore denied.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view to your judgement

29 Nov

The Kerala High Court holds that the person with a better title and sufficient symbolic production may be granted interim custody of an elephant

Prime Legal

Blog #interimcustody, #keralahighcourt, #wildlife

Title: Jayakrishna Menon v State of Kerala

Decided on: 20 November, 2023

+ CRL.MC NO. 7600 OF 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice P.V.Kunhikrishna

Introduction

According to a recent ruling by the Kerala High Court, the person with a better title may receive temporary custody of property that is submitted before the Trial Court during an inquiry or trial conducted under Section 451 CrPC.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner contended that the third respondent was given custody of the Madom’s elephant, Raman, when it began exhibiting signs of musth. He stated that he learned that the third respondent’s staff and mahouts were harassing the elephant through social media and other sources. The petitioner then filed a First Information Report (FIR), claiming that offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust punishment) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing handover of property) of the IPC had been committed, and that Section 451 CrPC applied for interim custody of the elephant. The third respondent presented documents to support his claim that the Amrithanandamayi Madom gave him the elephant as a gift.

Courts analysis and decision

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 39(3), which forbade the transfer, sale, or gift of wild animals without the express consent of the Chief Wildlife Warden or another designated authority, was also cited by the court. It took into consideration Section 43(1) of the Act, which forbade the transfer of wild animals by means of an offer for sale or by any other form of payment involving commerce. It concluded, therefore, that the laws’ purpose was to forbid the sale of elephants for profit. As a result, the Court said that it was evident from the records that the petitioner was the rightful owner of the elephant, with the third respondent’s ownership being contested. As a result, it overturned the magistrate’s decision and ordered a reexamination of the petitioner’s case.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

1 2 3 4 … 10