Kerala High Court Elaborates on ‘Partial Restraint’ under Section 55 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Allowing Grievance Redressal Without Instituting a Lawsuit

Kerala High Court Elaborates on ‘Partial Restraint’ under Section 55 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Allowing Grievance Redressal Without Instituting a Lawsuit

Case: Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.

Coram: Justice P. Somarajan

Case No.: OP(C) NO. 2704 OF 2023

Court Observation: “A partial restraint imposing a condition to be complied with before institution of a suit is normally intended to avoid unwarranted litigation and to provide an opportunity to the proposed defendant to address the grievance of the proposed plaintiff and is resting on a different pedestal apart from the complete restraint/bar with equal and efficacious remedy. In short, for a complete bar, equal and efficacious remedy should be provided. Likewise, even in the case of partial bar, there should be provision to address the grievance of proposed petitioner by way of any urgent or immediate relief. Normally, partial restraint is to give an opportunity to the proposed defendant/respondent to redress the grievance without institution of a particular suit”.

“Postponement or adjournment of a legal remedy under any statute is not permissible if it offends the valuable right of a litigation, unless it provides an alternative measure to redress any grievance by way of immediate or urgent relief. In other words, the provision should strike a balance by providing an alternative remedy to meet urgent and immediate relief without which there cannot be any partial restraint under the guise of any condition precedent to be complied with for the institution of the suit,”

“The bar in instituting the suit must be understood pertaining to the matters, which would come under the purview of that particular enactment viz., Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, unless the context otherwise says. It may not have any application pertaining to a suit enforcing an individual civil right other than the one dealt under the special enactment. Hence, the “cause of action” and “relief sought” incorporated under that provision stands for a matter which is dealt under the special enactment,”

Previous Posts

AP High Court overturns a troubling conviction under the NDPS Act, stating that it was unfair to place the burden on the accused to prove they did not own the cultivated land

High Court Grants Bail to Two Individuals, While One Faces Denial in Rahul Solanki Murder Case Related to Delhi Riots

Delhi High Court Clarifies that Contempt for ‘Wilful’ Disobedience Excludes Casual or Bona Fide Acts and Does Not Encompass Negligent Actions

Mandatory Notice Under Municipalities Act Waived in Title Declaration and Permanent Injunction Suit Against Town Municipal Council: Karnataka High Court

If there’s a delay in carrying out a detention order without a clear explanation, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court suggests it casts doubt on whether the detaining authority was genuinely satisfied

Keywords

Kerala High Court Elaborates on ‘Partial Restraint’