Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE DO NOT CONTROL THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OR ORDER IN A WRIT PETITION – Kerl. HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala has asserted its wide powers of review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, stated that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not control the court's jurisdiction to review a judgment or order in a writ petition. The court emphasized that the Procedure Code is merely a guiding principle and not applicable to review petitions filed under Article 226 and 227.

Justice Kunhikrishnan said, "The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to review a judgment is wide and not controlled by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the contention of the review petitioner that a portion of the judgment/order cannot be reviewed is unsustainable."

The court further clarified that a portion of a judgment or order can be reviewed under Article 226 and 227, as long as it does not contradict other findings in the same judgment or order. This highlights the expansive nature of the court's review powers, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the legal and factual aspects of a case.

In the judgment, the court also addressed several other important issues. It rejected the contention of the review petitioner regarding the commission of misconduct, but emphasized that when disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the disciplinary authority should decide the matter independently without being influenced by any previous observations made in the judgment.

The court left open the question of the maintainability of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings and allowed the review petitioner to raise the issue separately in the preliminary inquiry. This decision allows for a separate examination of the applicability and merits of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings in the case at hand.

Moreover, the High Court of Kerala declared that it has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of district courts and subordinate courts in the Lakshadweep Islands. As the district courts and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under the supervision of the High Court of Kerala, it clarified that the High Court has the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against these officers.

The court modified the disciplinary authority, stating that the additional third respondent is the High Court of Kerala, and directed consequential corrections to be made in the judgment accordingly. Until the High Court passes the consequential order, the review petitioner is deemed to be under suspension.

This landmark judgment by the High Court of Kerala reaffirms the court's expansive review powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, establishing a significant precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 21 June 2023

CHERIYA KOYA  vs T.ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP

Latest Legal News