A Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and KV Jayakumar was considering a matter arising from the Sabarimala Special Commissioner's report on the audit accounts of the event, Agola Ayyappa Sangamam or the Global Conclave of Ayyappa Devotees.

The event was organised by the TDB as part of its platinum jubilee celebrations with support from the State government and was intended to project Sabarimala as a global pilgrimage centre to promote the message of 'Thathwamasi', religious harmony and global unity.

The Court, while examining the audit report, observed that the issues highlighted in the audit pointed at deeper, recurring problems in the management of the financial affairs of the board.

"These deficiencies have far-reaching consequences on financial governance, statutory compliance, and overall transparency in the functioning of the institution," the Court added.

It also found that the audit report disclosed delays in finalising of accounts, lack of proper documentation and gaps in maintaining records of assets, liabilities and statutory dues.

Other issues highlighted in the report included the improper classification of expenditure, non-recognition of certain transactions and reliance on a cash-based system, all of which pointed at the serious irregularities in the financial management of the board.

The audit report indicated that the board had delayed statutory compliance like filing of returns, settlement of dues etc. which could expose them to penalties and legal complications.

Significantly, the Court also observed that due to the absence of updated accounts, the board was unable to ascertain its actual financial position or track its obligations accurately.

Taking note of these findings, the Court emphasised on the need for comprehensive reforms and issued a series of directions including the implementation of a fully centralised and computerised system for the board.

It further directed the board to prepare a proper data migration plan, including standardising of data formats, verifying existing records, ensuring the accuracy of legacy data before shifting it all to the new system and the preservations of such data before any transition is carried out.

The Court suggested a phased implementation of the system, starting with selected temples, so that practical issues could be identified and addressed before full rollout.

In addition, it stressed the importance of training staff and putting in place strong internal controls such as audit trails and access systems to improve accountability.

More importantly, the Court stated that the directions regarding the computerisation should be placed before the Project Implementation Unit of the board as well as Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd (KITFRA), so that the suggested reforms can be incorporated into the ongoing process of digitisation.

The matter will be heard next on May 28.

Advocate G Biju appeared for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Senior government pleader S Rajmohan appeared for the State.

Advocate Sayujya Radhakrishnan appeared as amicus curiae for the Sabarimala Special Commissioner.

[Read Order]

Justice Girish Kathpalia made this observation while declining bail to a person accused under the POCSO Act who had later married the victim after she lodged criminal case against him.

“Of course, as per documents on record, on 12.02.2026, the accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix through Nikahnama. But that does not absolve the accused/applicant of his repeated acts of rape when the prosecutrix was minor in age,” the Court said.

The victim/ prosecutrix in the case had complained to police that the accused repeatedly raped her on false assurance of marriage when she was sixteen years of age. She became pregnant and had to undergo abortion twice.

It was alleged that after she turned eighteen, the man refused to marry her and started beating her. This prompted her to file a police complaint. 

The accused stated that he is entitled to bail since he married the girl after she registered the police complaint. 

The Court observed that it was only after the man was arrested and lodged in jail that he agreed to marry the victim-girl.

“Clearly, the marriage was performed by the accused/applicant simply as a ploy to get himself bailed out, having committed repeated rapes of a minor girl, as alleged by her in the FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC,” the Court stated. 

Before the High Court, the victim retracted her statements made in the complaint. She stated that the contents of the FIR against the accused were not known to her. The investigating officer opposed the bail plea and also emphasised that the victim is a law student and not an illiterate person. 

The Court agreed with the prosecution submission and observed that the prosecutrix-victim, being a law student, could not have signed the complaint without reading it.

“It would be significant to note that the prosecutrix is a law student and prima facie, I find it difficult to believe that she is so gullible that she would simply sign such a serious complaint and give it to the local police, that too after getting the same translated from English to Hindi without reading its contents,” the Court said.

Further, it observed that the prosecutrix’s testimony before itself appears to be false, on the face of it.

“From testimony of prosecutrix, I find credence in the argument of the prosecution that prima facie, her testimony appears to be false, though on this aspect, the trial court shall take an independent view and this observation is being made only to deal with the argument advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix.”

Therefore, the Court dismissed the man’s bail application.

Advocates Hemraj Murmu, Arun Kumar Bharti and Tanay Jareda appeared for the accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal appeared for State.

[Read Order]

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan clarified that while co-operative societies are not barred from participating in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) as resolution applicants, their eligibility is conditional upon compliance with statutory restrictions governing investment of funds.

"Section 64(d) of the 2002 Act permits an MSCS to invest or deposit its funds in two distinct categories of institutions: (a) a subsidiary institution, and (b) any other institution in the same line of business," the Court held.

The case arose from the corporate insolvency resolution process of Morarji Textiles Ltd. with Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. having submitted a resolution plan. The resolution professional declared the society ineligible on the ground that its bye-laws did not permit such investment and that it was not in the same line of business as the corporate debtor.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld this view. The appeal before the Supreme Court was later withdrawn, following which the Court proceeded to clarify the legal position without deciding on the merits of the dispute.

The Court explained that the IBC framework itself does not exclude co-operative societies from acting as resolution applicants. However, any such participation must satisfy Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC which mandates that a resolution plan must not contravene any law in force.

In this context, the Court underscored that the MSCS Act governs how a multi-state co-operative society can deploy its funds, including when it seeks to acquire a corporate debtor through a resolution plan.

Referring to Section 64(d) of the MSCS Act, the Bench noted that such societies may invest only in a subsidiary institution or in an entity engaged in the “same line of business”.

This requirement operates as a substantive restriction when a co-operative society seeks to participate in the corporate insolvency resolution process, the Court said.

The Court further explained that the phrase “same line of business” was introduced through the 2023 amendment to the MSCS Act to curb misuse of funds and prevent speculative investments by co-operative societies.

It also emphasised that the line of business of a co-operative society is determined by its bye-laws, and any investment must align with those governing documents.

Accordingly, the Court clarified that while co-operative societies may participate in insolvency resolution under the IBC, their eligibility as resolution applicants is conditional upon compliance with the MSCS Act and their own bye-laws.

Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-operative Society was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Rajiv Shakdher and advocates Amit Pai, Honey Satpal, R Prashant Reddy, Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Aniruth G Purusothaman, Abhiyduaya Vats and Keshav Sehgal.

Ravi Sethia was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Jain with advocates Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Deepanjal Chaudhary, Rishi Chauhan, Likivi K Jhakalu and Azal Aekram.

Shriniwas Spintex Industries Pvt Ltd was represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul along with advocates Himanshu Satija, Jatin Kumar, Neha Mehta Satija, Raghav, Harsh Saxena, Shevaaz Khan and Anshul Rao.

Committee of Creditors was represented by Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa along with advocates Rajesh J, Dhrupad Vaghani, Yashwardhan Agarwal, Guruprasad Naik, Md Arsalan Ahmed, Gajendra Singh Negi and Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon.

Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies was represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aastha Singh, Mayank Pandey, Rajat Nair, Santosh Ramdurg and Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.

[Read Judgment]