0

To be enforceable, a Lok Adalat Award must include all of the following features, says the High Court of Kerala

Blog

Case Title : Case Title: Vijaya K Vs. Muraleedharan K G

Bench : HON’BLE MR. A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE, MRS. SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

O.P.NO.539/2007

Date : 13th Day of June

Facts :

1. The case is an appeal resulting from an award passed by the Lok Adalat in Thrissur.

2. The parties involved in the case had matrimonial disputes that were resolved in the Lok Adalat.

3. The brief award passed in the Lok Adalat stated that the parties had reconciled and decided to live together in a rented house. The respondent agreed to settle half share in a property owned by him in the name of the wife petitioner.

4. The appellant moved the execution court to execute the award, but it was dismissed.

5. The appellant alleges that the respondent refused to execute the deed and ill-treated her, leading to her discontinuation of stay.

6. The appellant argues that the award is inexecutable because it lacks the necessary details and does not meet the criteria of a decree.

Analysis :

1. Lack of Clarity in the Award: The award passed by the Lok Adalat appears to be vague and lacking in clarity. It does not provide specific details regarding the property settlement, such as the nature of the obligation to be performed or the specific property involved. This lack of clarity raises concerns about the enforceability of the award.

2. Failure to Ensure Executability: The Lok Adalat officers responsible for passing the award should have applied their minds to ensure that the award is executable. They should have taken into account the requirements outlined in Order 20, Rules 6(1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulate the necessary contents of a decree. However, in this case, the award lacks essential details, making it difficult to enforce.

3. Allegations of Breach: The appellant alleges that the respondent refused to execute the deed and mistreated her, leading to the appellant discontinuing her stay. These allegations
indicate a breach of the terms agreed upon in the award and further complicate the execution process.

4. Executability of the Decree: Due to the lack of specific details and the failure to meet the criteria of a decree, the award is deemed as executable. Without the necessary information and clarity, it becomes challenging to enforce the obligations outlined in the award.

Judgement :

Based on the analysis above, the court dismisses the Matrimonial Appeal. No order is given regarding costs.

“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 – ANVITHA RAO

0

Shajan Skaria’s appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail in an MLA’s complaint under the SC/ST Act is dismissed by the Kerala High Court.

Blog

Case Title : Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

Bench : V.G.ARUN JUDGE

CRMC 1684/2023 

Date : 30th June 2023 

Facts:

  1. The appellant is the first accused in Crime No. 899 of 2023, registered at Elamakkara Police Station, for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
  2. The appellant is accused of intentionally humiliating the second respondent through false allegations and derogatory comments made in a video uploaded on the appellant’s online news channel.
  3. The appellant’s pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Special Court, citing that the publication of the video containing derisive and derogatory comments is sufficient to attract the alleged offences.

Analysis:

The appellant is the first accused in a criminal case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and the Kerala Police Act. The charges are based on allegations that the appellant intentionally humiliated the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, through a video uploaded on the appellant’s online news channel.

The Special Court has dismissed the appellant’s application for pre-arrest bail, citing the publication of the video containing derogatory comments as sufficient evidence to support the alleged offences. The court relied on Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which limits the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act.

The appellant’s defence argues that as an elected MLA, the second respondent is open to criticism, and the video only criticised certain actions without specifically targeting the second respondent’s caste. They contend that the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are not applicable in this case.

The prosecution maintains that the video contained unsubstantiated allegations, insults, and insinuations, specifically targeting the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. They argue that the intention behind the video was to insult and humiliate the second respondent based on his caste.

The defence relies on Supreme Court decisions to argue that insults or intimidations do not constitute offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless they specifically target a person based on their caste. The prosecution emphasises the specific allegations made by the second respondent in the complaint, claiming that the intention to insult and humiliate based on caste is evident.

The court’s judgement is still pending, and it will determine whether the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are applicable based on the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

Judgments and Arguments:

  1. Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, representing the appellant, argues that the allegations raised against the second respondent were only criticism of certain actions and do not specifically target the second respondent’s caste. They contend that the offences under the SC/ST Act require insult or humiliation based on caste, and mere insult or humiliation is not enough.
  2. Senior Advocate T.A. Shaji, the Director General of Prosecution, argues that the appellant’s video contained intentional insults and humiliated the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. They argue that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) is attracted when a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is intentionally insulted with the intent to humiliate them.
  3. Adv. P.K. Varghese, representing the second respondent, argues that the appellant’s video contained unsubstantiated allegations, insults, and insinuations against the second respondent, intending to insult and humiliate them as a member of the Scheduled Caste. They rely on previous court decisions to support the claim that such videos can attract offences under the SC/ST Act.
  4. The court notes that the Act aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the amendment in 2019 was made to address their vulnerability. The court finds that the video is intended to insult and humiliate the second respondent, based on the allegations and circumstances presented. The court opines that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) can be attracted even without explicit reference to the caste status of the victim.

click here to view judgement

“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 ANVITHA RAO

0

The Kerala High Court allows Transfer Petition filed by the wife on grounds of convenience in divorce case

Blog ,

Case Title : Rajam Babu V Babu K.K 

Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran 

Date : 21/06/2023

Transfer Petition No. 76 of 2023 

Introduction:

In this case review, we explore a legal matter involving the transfer of a matrimonial dispute. The case revolves around a wife’s request to move her divorce case from one court to another for her convenience. Let’s take a closer look at the facts, analysis, and judgement of this case, which highlights the importance of considering the convenience of the parties involved.

Facts:

  1. The appellant, who is the wife, filed a Transfer Petition (C) No.76 of 2023 seeking to transfer O.P.No.2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thrissur.
  2. The Transfer Petition was dismissed on 25.05.2023.
  3. The appellant and the respondent are Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  4. O.P.No.2752 of 2019 is a petition for divorce filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam.
  5. The appellant had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, O.P.No.1119 of 2019, before the Family Court, Thrissur.
  6. The appellant sought the transfer of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 based on her convenience and the requirement for a joint trial of the two cases.

Analysis:

  1. The court refers to previous judgments, including Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, which held that divorce and restitution of conjugal rights petitions between the same parties should be heard and decided together to avoid conflicting decisions.
  2. Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the transfer of petitions in certain situations. Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 21A allows for the transfer of a petition presented later to the district court where the earlier petition was presented.
  3. The court cites previous judgments, including Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, and Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, which emphasize the importance of considering the convenience of the wife in deciding a petition for transfer of a matrimonial dispute.
  4. The court notes that the wife’s convenience should be given priority, and the husband should ordinarily take proceedings in the court where the wife resides to minimise inconvenience and avoid delay.

Judgement:

  1. The court concludes that the appellant’s request for the transfer of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 from the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Family Court, Thrissur should be allowed.
  2. Considering the appellant’s age (69 years), the respondent’s age (72 years), and the principles established in previous cases, the court finds that the transfer is necessary and fair.
  3. The appeal is allowed, and the Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to transmit the records of O.P.No.2752 of 2019 to the Family Court, Thrissur.

click here to view judgement

“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- ANVITHA RAO

0

Appeal by Village Officer convicted for accepting bribe dismissed by the Kerala High Court

Blog ,

Case Title: M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Bench : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Date : 16/06/2023 

Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2013

Facts:

This case involves an appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the judgement of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant, while working as a Village Officer in 2006, accepted a bribe of ₹650/- from the complainant for providing a location map.

Analysis:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification and that the evidence of acceptance was not convincing. The defence claimed that the appellant was framed by the complainant, who put the marked currency notes in the appellant’s pocket. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant (PW1), an independent witness (PW2), and the investigating officer (PW9) to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Judgement:

The court noted that the appellant admitted to receiving the possession certificate and issuing the location map to the complainant. The prosecution’s evidence, including the marked currency notes recovered from the appellant, supported the allegation of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. The appellant was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Conclusion:

The court found the appellant guilty of accepting a bribe as a public servant and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, along with the recovery of the marked currency notes, were considered strong evidence against the appellant. The court’s decision reflects the importance of combating corruption and holding public servants accountable for their actions.

click here to view judgement

“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- ANVITHA RAO

0

THE KERALA HIGH COURT SAYS AGAIN THAT MAGISTRATE CANNOT IMPOSE CONDITION TO DEPOSIT CASH SECURITY WHILE GRANTING BAIL

Blog ,

Bench – THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

Case Title – RAJESH V STATE OF KERALA

Case No – CRL.MC NO.  3385 OF 2023

Date – 30/05/2023

FACTS – 

  1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1103/2022 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station.
  2. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
  3. The final report was not filed within the statutory period, so the petitioners applied for statutory bail.
  4. The learned magistrate granted statutory bail but imposed a condition that the accused must deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cash security for appearance.
  5. The learned magistrate justified this condition by relying on the judgments in Sumit Mehta v. State [2013 (2) KLD 677] and Lekha v. State [2019 (3) KLJ 825].
  6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the judgments relied on by the magistrate relate to anticipatory bail and are not applicable to the present case.
  7. The counsel cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Saravanan v. State [2020 (9) SCC 101], which states that no cash security can be imposed while granting default bail.

JUDGEMENT – 

  1. The court considered the submissions and reviewed the records.
  2. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Saravanan v. State, which clarifies that no condition of depositing the alleged amount involved can be imposed while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
  3. The court held that the judgments relied on by the magistrate were not applicable to the present case.
  4. The court set aside Condition No. 2 in Annexure-1 order (which required the cash security deposit) and allowed the petition.
  5. All other conditions imposed by the magistrate remained unchanged.

click here to view judgement

“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 – ANVITHA RAO

1 … 7 8 9 10