Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: August 2023 [Citations: 363-440]
Live LawNominal Index S. Surendran v. State of Kerala and K. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw 363R.S. 2023 LiveLaw 437 Chandi Samuval V Saimon Samuval 2023 LiveLaw 438 Karthik S Nair V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw 439 Zulu Haris v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw 440 Judgments/Orders This Month Monson Mavunkal Case: Kerala High Court Allows Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed By Congress MP K.Sudhakaran, Ex-DIG S. Surendran MV Act | Insurance Company Can Recover Compensation From Insured If Clear Breach Of Policy Conditions Proved: Kerala High Court Party Seeking Action For Perjury May Approach Forum Where False Evidence Given, No Private Complaint To Jurisdictional Magistrate: Kerala HC Antiquities Act Doesn't Restrict Right Of A Person To Own Or Possess An Art, Artifact Or Antiquity: Kerala High Court Case Title: Greik Xavier V Sub Inspector Of Police Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 433 The Kerala High Court quashed a 12 years old cruelty case against husband, observing that the parties have settled their disputes and the victim does not want to prosecute the matter further. “Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.” Appellate Body Must Reconsider Cases Of Disciplinary Proceedings With No Evidence, Not Merely Reiterate Previous Orders: Kerala High Court Case Title: Dr Raju Antony V Kerala State Council For Science, Technology And Environment And Connected Cases Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 436 The Kerala High Court recently held that when there is no evidence linking the accused to the incident in disciplinary proceedings, the appellate authority must reconsider the case by addressing specific contentions without merely reiterating the previous orders. Merely for the reason that the legislation had only provided measures for the award of prospective maintenance, that cannot result in denial of the claim for past maintenance.” S.311 CrPC | Witness To Be Recalled Only For Strong & Valid Reasons, Not To Prejudice Accused: Kerala High Court Case title: Karthik S Nair V State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 439 The Kerala High Court held that recalling a witness under Section 311 CrPC must be done only when there is a strong and valid reason to do which should be recorded by the competent authority.