R. Thilakan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 601

P.N. Suresh Kumar and Others v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 602

K.C. Dileep Kumar v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 603

State of Kerala v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 604

Muhammed Shammas P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 605

Abdullakutty Haji v H Musthafa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 606

Kulathoor Jaisingh v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 607

XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 608

Jaice John and Ors. v. The Director of Mining and Geology and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 609

Abdul Khader v. Arumugan and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 610

Shareefa v. The Sub Collector, Tirur and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 611

Athul Dini and Anr. v. The District Registrar and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 612

X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 613

In the matter of M/s.Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 614

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 615

Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 616

R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617

Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 618

K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 619

Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 620

TGN Kumar v The Secretary, MInistry of Corporate Affairs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 621

X v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 622

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 623

Abdul Majeed C.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 624

Sivananda Prabhu and Ors. v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu & Brothers and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 625

Jinto P.D. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 626

Kizhakkayi Dasan v. Kuniyil Cheerootty and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 627

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Haripreetha T. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 628

Twenty 20 Party and Anr. v. State Election Commission, Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 629

Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v Varghese P Kuriakose and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 630

Lakshmi R. Menon v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 631

Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 632

V.G. Usha Devi v. State of Kerala and connected matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 633

Abdul Muneer v. The Superintendent and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 634

Kerala Public Service Commission v. The National Human Rights Commission and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 635

Under Graduate Medical Education Board and Anr v V N Public Health And Educational Trust and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 636

Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 637

State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638

Baby V.J. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 639

M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 640

Somasundaram v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 641

A.K. Rajendran v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 642

Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643

Rajasimhan v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644

P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645

Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646

Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647

Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648

Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649

Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650

Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651

State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652

SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653

Shinoj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654

Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655

P T Babu v Vijaya Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657

Anu C.R. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658

Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660

Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661

M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662

Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 663

CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664

Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665

Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666

Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667

Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668

Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669

Rameshan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670

James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671

M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672

X X v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673

Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674

Selvan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675

Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676

Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677

Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678

Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679

Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680

XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681

Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682

XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683

Hirandas V.M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 684

Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 685

Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686

P V Mathew v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 687

M/S Thiruvonam Industries and Others v Hero Fincorp Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 688

Moosa Thiruvangoth v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 689

Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 690

V Chandran v Aliamma George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 691

Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Ors and connected matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 692

Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 693

Usman Kunju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 694

State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 695

Harish V. v. T.C. Mathew and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 696

Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 697

N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698

Parimal Sahu v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 699

Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 700

Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701

Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 702

Shahabeen Hameed v. Muhammed Ajnas A.B., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 703

Sivadasan Nair K.G. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 704

Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 705

S. Jayasree. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 706

Public Eye Trust Rep. By its General Secretary v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 707

XXX v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 708

Anil K. Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 709

State of Kerala v. Sameer Navas and Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 710

Suo Motu v. The Government of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 711

M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 (Ker) LiveLaw 712

Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvilla v. Annie Varghese and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 713

M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 714

Midhun Mohan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 715

Bhavesh Anil Kumar v. The Assistant Labour Officer and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 716

Jose v. Jose and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 717

T.K. Vasudevan Nair and Ors. v. T. Vrij Mohan and Ors. , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 718

Abdul Hakkim v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 719

Shareena v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 720

Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 721

Venugopal K Veloth v Mahilamani and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 722

Thangam v. V.V. Haridasan and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 723

Rifa Fathima v. Salim and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 724

Sigmatic Nidhi Ltd. V Suresh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 725

Manu S v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 726

Jatin v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 727

Pramod Prasannan v. State of Kerala and Jishnu Reghu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 728

Glenny C.J. and Anr. v. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 729

Jissy S. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 730

Farookh v Kayyakutty @ Kadeeja, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 731

Roopesh T.R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 732

Aneesh v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 733

Vinumon C v The District Collector and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 734

Janvin Cleetus v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 735

Mini R K v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 736

M/S Amal Neerad Productions LLP v Union of India, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 737

Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 738

State of Kerala v. The Election Commission of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 739

Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 740

Mathew K. Cherian v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 741

M/S Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 742

V. Shyamohan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 743

Ramesh K. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 744

Pradeep v. Station House Officer and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 745

Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 746

Liyakhat Ali v. The Commissioner, State GST Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 747

Jomon Jacob and Anr. v. State Election Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 748

K.N. Anand Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 749

M/s Shree Contractor v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 750

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v Mini Devdas and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 751

Jibin Shaji v Kerala Forest Department and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 752

Saleena Shaul Hameed v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 753

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 754

V.M. Vinu v. State Election Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 755

Lalachan V.M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 756

M/s Ridha Polymers v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 757

M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 758

Ly Nandana and Anr. v. Union of India & Suresh Raj @ Suresh v. NIA and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 759

P.N. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 760

Prasad K. and Anr. v. Land Revenue Commissioner and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 761

Al. Anwarsha v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 762

Sumesh A. v. Babija Balakrishnan M., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 763

Abdul Azeez v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 764

Anish Thomas v. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 765

State of Kerala v. Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 766

C.R. Neelakandan v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 767

Musthafa K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 768

Vyshna S.L. v. State Election Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 769

Natural Wood & Veneers Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 770

Pranav Mohanan v The District Geologist and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 771

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 772

Rajeevan M. v. Rantin P. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 773

Muhammed Nashif U. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 774

Mohammed Abbas v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 775

Devaki and Ors. v. The Managing Director, KSRTC and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 776

Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 777

Jimmy Ellias v The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 778

Kerala Private Hospitals Association and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 779

Vappinu v Fathima and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 780

Kannada Anwar Salih v Safeekhath and Anr. and connected matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 781

Manoj@ Pambu Manoj v State of Kerala and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 782

M/S P K Chandrasekharan Nair & Co. v M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 783

Down Victor v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 784

State Bank Of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 785

Safia P M v State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 786

South Indian Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Rahim H K and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 787

Anish Anand v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 788

Shijo Mon Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 789

Kerala State Medical Councils v Daleel Ahmmed and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 790

Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 791

X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 792

M/S Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v Reserve Bank of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 793

Tomon v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 794

S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Anr. and S. Jayasree v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 795

Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 796

M/s Escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 797

N. Prakash v. The Cochin Devaswom Board, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 798

P.P. Paul v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 799

XXX v. District Legal Services Authority of Kottayam and Ors. , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 800

Shiju R v. Sunil Kumar V. , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 801

P.T. Vincent v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 802

M/S National Timbers v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 803

Raju K.K. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 804

Shimwas Hussain v. The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 805

Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 806

Aspinwall and Company Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 807

Thekkee Cherupillil Sarada v. Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 808

Rajeev K.P. v. Unais K.K., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 809

M/s K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. The Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 810

V.R. Sudheer v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 811

Jiostar India Private Limited (Formerly known as Star India Pvt Ltd) v. Competition Commission of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 812

Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 813

Manoharan D. and Ors. v. and Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation and Ors. connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 814

Mohan Abraham v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 815

M/s T P Trading Company v. The Transport Commissioner (Kerala State), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 816

Sajid Pasha And Ors. V.S.Abdunnasir. P And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 817

James Varghese v. Pala Municipality, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 818

Indira Gandhi Co-Operative Hospital and Ors and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 819

Koshy Phillip v Thomas P Mathew and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 820

Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas and Ors. & Union of India and Ors. v. Juby Thomas and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 821

Vishnu N P v State of Kerala and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 822

The Managing Director, KSFE v Mathew P Babu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 823

B.K.N. Pillai @ B.K. Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 824

V.P. Abdurahiman v. C. Safiya, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 825

The Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank and Anr. v. Sheela Francis Parakkal and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 826

The South Indian Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 827

Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 828

Pazhassi Motors v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 829

Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshna Samithi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 830

Ashika Beegam S. and Ors v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 831

XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 832

K.S Baiju v. State of Kerala and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 833

T. Beena v. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 834

Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited v. Keltron Power Devices Ltd. & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 835

Shanavas S.N. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 836

Assembly Of Christian Trust Servies v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 837

Davi Ntemi Kilekamajenga and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838

Ayana Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 839

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 840

M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 841

M/s Agro Indus Credits Limited v Mangalan @ Jagan Magalan And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 842

Joseph T.J. v. Alex Abraham and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 843

Fifa Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 844

M/s Taj Garden Retreat v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 845

Venugopalan C v The Tahsildar (Land Records), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 846

Apple Barua v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 847

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 848

Leo L.K. and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 849

Sujatha Krishnan and Ors v Radha Mohandas and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 850

A.K.Sukumaran Vs. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 851

Dhinil Babu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 852

Alexander Vadakkedom v Land Revenue Commissioner and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 853

Abhijith B. v. Bank of Maharashtra and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 854

Binu Thankappan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 855

Lazar Chakkola And Ors. Vs. Sudarsanan Pillai.G And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 856

Smitha P.G. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 857

Jiby Mathew M v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 858

Kerala Co-Op Societies Rules | Person Proposing Nomination Of Another Candidate Not Disqualified From Contesting Elections: High Court

Case Title: R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617

The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no provision under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules that disqualified a person from contesting in an election merely because he proposed the nomination of another candidate in the same constituency.

The judgment was rendered by Justice K. Babu, who was considering a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature in election to the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323 at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.

Voluntarily Filed Returns Cannot Be Revised Through Additional Evidence Under Rule 29 ITAT Rules: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 618

The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963).

Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as income from other sources, at the belated stage of the second appeal to the Tribunal, if the venture of the appellants is accepted, that would lead to the revision of the returns voluntarily filed, which is not possible under the statute.

Revisional Powers U/S 56 KVAT Act Are Limited, Clarificatory Orders Have Only Prospective Effect: Kerala High Court

Case Title: K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 619

The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by the Commissioner under Section 94(2) of the Act is independent of the power of the authority to issue clarifications.

'Defeats Purpose Of Life Insurance': Kerala High Court Expresses Concern Over LIC's Denial Of Medical Claims On Trivial Grounds

Case Title: Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 620

The Kerala High Court has set aside the Life Insurance Corporation of India's (LIC) decision to repudiate medical insurance, holding that repudiation of medical claims by insurers cannot be sustained when based on unrelated pre-existing conditions or when raised beyond the statutory bar under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

Justice P.M. Manoj, delivered the judgment in two connected writ petitions, and quashed LIC's orders that had restricted and later rejected claims for the hospitalization and treatment of the petitioner's wife under LIC's Health Plus Plan (Table 901). The Court directed LIC to honour the claims without further delay, stressing that arbitrary repudiations defeat the very object of insurance.

Denial Of Medical Insurance Claim Amounts To Violation Of Right To Life Under Article 21 : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 620

The Kerala High Court has held that denial of insurance claim for medical treatment amounts to violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice P.M. Manoj, delivering the judgment in a writ petition, ruled that once an insured person has undergone treatment or surgery based on the expert opinion of a qualified medical professional, the insurer cannot arbitrarily reject the claim. Such rejection, the Court said, amounts to denial of treatment and infringes upon the citizen's fundamental right to life and health.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Against CIAL's Decision To Conduct Online AGM, Says Centre Can Exempt Physical Meeting U/S 96 Companies Act

Case Title: TGN Kumar v. The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 621

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) to conduct its Annual General Body Meeting (AGM) through online modes.

Rejecting the petitioner's contention that the AGM has to be held either at the registered office of the Company or some other place within the city, town or village, Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition.

Lessee In Possession Can't Be Charged With House Trespass Under Section 450 IPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 622

The Kerala High Court has clarified that a lessee in lawful possession of a house cannot be charged with or convicted for house trespass under Section 450 IPC.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal filed by the accused in an acid attack case while setting aside conviction under 450 (House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life) of IPC. The bench however upheld his conviction under Section 326A (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.).

Mere Presence Of Alcohol In Accident Victim's Blood Not Enough To Exclude Liability, Insurer Must Show Evidence Of Impairment: Kerala High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 623

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that evidence of the mere presence of alcohol in the victim's blood is not enough for an insurer to exclude liability in accidental deaths when the exclusion clause specifically excludes deaths caused under the influence of alcohol.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. further observed that the insurer must prove that the accident occurred while the victim was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to trigger the exception clause.

Kerala High Court Orders Re-Tender For Collecting Offerings In Sabarimala, Raps Travancore Devaswom Board For 'Casual' Conduct

Case Title: Abdul Majeed C.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 624

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment partially setting aside the tender notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board relating to tenders for three items, including collection of coconuts and flowers offered by pilgrims and devotees in Sabarimala. It further asked the TDB to conduct a re-tender for these.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering the petitions filed by the unsuccessful participants in the tender process.

Separate Property Acquired By Mitakshara Hindu Who Died Before 1956 Completely Devolves Upon Son: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sivananda Prabhu and Ors. v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu & Brothers and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 625

The Kerala High Court has held that the separate property acquired by a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law, who died before 1956, will completely devolve upon his son.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment ) Act, 1929 did not affect the son's absolute right to inherit his father's property.

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Bigg Boss Malayalam Winner Booked In Alleged Gym Theft Case

Case Title: Jinto P.D. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 626

The Kerala High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to bodybuilder and the winner of 'Bigg Boss Malayalam 6' Jinto P.D., booked in an alleged case of theft after trespassing into a gym “Jinto Body Craft”.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that there was a profit-sharing agreement between the petitioner and de-facto complainant in connection with the conduct of the gym.

Customary Practice Of Divorce Can Be Proven In Evidence Even If Hearsay, Upon Satisfying Conditions U/S 32 Evidence Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kizhakkayi Dasan v. Kuniyil Cheerootty and Anr.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 627

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a customary practice of divorce can be proven in evidence if the same is hearsay, if the statement satisfies the conditions under Sections 32(4) and 48 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar was considering a matrimonial appeal challenging the decision of the Family Court declaring the respondents as the wife and daughter of the appellant.

LIC's Cancer Cover Valid Only If 'First Diagnosis' Occurs After Waiting Period, Not Expert Confirmation: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Haripreetha T. and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 628

The Kerala High Court allowed Life Insurance Corporation's appeal against direction to pay insurance coverage claim of a cancer patient, holding that LIC's coverage for cancer care would apply only if the first diagnosis–which does not include confirmation by expert, occurred after waiting period of 180 days.

Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. relied on Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary's definition of 'diagnosis'.

Kerala High Court Closes Plea Challenging Proposal To Set Up Polling Booth At Mosque, Notes Site Shifted To Anganwadi

Case Title: Twenty 20 Party and Anr. v. State Election Commission, Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 629

The Kerala High Court has closed a writ petition moved by Twenty 20 Party challenging the proposal to fix a Mosque (Madrasathul Islamiya) as the polling booth for the upcoming local body elections, after the District Election Officer proposed a nearby Anganwadi for the purpose

When the matter came up for hearing before Justice C.S. Dias, the judge was informed that the polling station had been shifted to a nearby Anganwadi.

Ill Treatment Of Children By Spouse Constitutes Cruelty Under Section 10(1) Divorce Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v Varghese P Kuriakose and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 630

The Kerala High Court has held that the ill-treatment of children by a spouse constitutes mental cruelty towards the other spouse and can be a valid ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, dismissed the wife's appeal against a Family Court judgment granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty, while partly allowing her revision petition seeking enhanced maintenance.

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Actress Lakshmi Menon In Abduction Case

Case Title: Lakshmi R. Menon v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 631

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 8) allowed the anticipatory bail plea of actress Lakshmi Menon in alleged abduction and assault case.

The parties had submitted before the Court that their disputes have been settled and that the complaint was filed based on misunderstanding. The de facto complainant had filed an affidavit in this regard.

In view of the submission, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted bail to the actress.

Income Tax Act | Assessee Can Challenge Cash Credit Addition U/S 68 In Remand Proceedings; Tribunal's Direction Not Binding: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 632

The Kerala High Court held that the assessee is free to challenge the cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in remand proceedings; the tribunal's directions are not binding.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the observation made by the Tribunal is not to be taken as a positive-binding direction on the assessing authority after the remand. An assessment with reference to the provisions of Section 68 is required to be made only when the assessee has no explanation as regards the cash credits in his books of accounts. In the case at hand, the appellant-assessee seems to have offered explanations, with reference to its dealings with the Company, which are more or less business transactions between parties.

Forgery Conviction Cannot Be Sustained On Sole Testimony Of Person Claiming Familiarity With Accused's Handwriting: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: V.G. Usha Devi v. State of Kerala and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 633

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that conditions under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be satisfied to sustain the conviction for forgery or related offences, and the sole testimony of a witness claiming familiarity with the handwriting of the accused do not suffice.

Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing appeals challenging a conviction in corruption cases concerning the alleged falsification of records and misappropriation of Panchayat funds in Konnathadi Panchayat during 1993–94.

Kerala High Court Permits Convict To Attend Daughter's Enrolment Ceremony As Lawyer

Case Title: Abdul Muneer v. The Superintendent and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 634

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) allowed the plea of a convict to be granted parole to attend the enrolment ceremony of his daughter.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan referred to the decision in Bindhu K.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., where it was clearly held that emergency leave cannot be granted in all circumstances. The judge prima facie opined that the petitioner is not entitled to emergency leave.

However, the Court felt that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it has to look into the matter from the perspective of the petitioner's daughter as well.

Kerala High Court Directs Public Service Commission To Provide Accessible Exam Centres For Candidates With Disabilities

Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. The National Human Rights Commission and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 635

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) set aside a 2019 order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that had recommended the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to pay an amount of ₹1,000 each to 290 physically challenged candidates.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji accepted the contention of the KPSC that the NHRC order was a blanket direction, made without considering the nature or degree of disability of each candidate. It also opined that the order is difficult to implement since none of the beneficiaries of the order were made parties before the NHRC or the High Court.

Courts Should Not Order Provisional Admissions To Medical Colleges Unless Cast-Iron Case Made Out: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Under Graduate Medical Education Board and Anr v V N Public Health And Educational Trust and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 636

The Kerala High Court has held that interim orders permitting provisional admissions to medical courses cannot be granted as a matter of course, even in writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed:

“In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, an interim order permitting provisional admission to medical or dental courses should not be granted as a matter of course merely because the writ petition is admitted. Such relief may be granted only if the Court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case bound to succeed, or if the error is so manifest and apparent that no other conclusion is possible.”

Kerala High Court Directs Nodal Agency To Consider Inclusion Of Non-Resident Returnees In NORKA-CARE Health Insurance Scheme

Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 637

The Kerala High Court has directed NORKA Roots to consider the inclusion of Non-Resident Keralite (NRK) returnees in its recently launched NORKA-CARE Group Health and Accident Insurance Scheme.

NORKA Roots is a nodal agency for all matters concerning collaboration with the government of Kerala to address grievances on Non-Resident Keralites.

Justice N. Nagaresh gave the directions while disposing a writ petition filed by Pravasi Legal Cell and two individuals challenging the exclusion of returnee NRK's who have permanently settled back in Kerala, from NORKA-CARE insurance scheme. The scheme was launched through a tripartite agreement between NORKA Roots, New India Assurance Company Limited and Mahindra Insurance Brokers Limited.

Munambam Waqf Land Dispute: Kerala High Court Allows State's Appeal Against Quashing Of Inquiry Commission

Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 10) allowed two appeals filed by the State Government challenging a March 17 order cancelling the appointment of an Inquiry Commission set up by the State to resolve the land dispute between residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board.

A division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM while pronouncing the order said, "Both writ appeals are allowed".

Munambam Land Dispute | Waqf Board Didn't Come Forward, Litigants Opposing Inquiry With 'Ulterior Purpose': Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 10) observed that the litigants who had approached the court challenging appointment of inquiry commission by the state in the Munambam land dispute were only masquerading for certain other interested parties having "ulterior purposes".

On the issue of locus of petitioner— Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi as well as the parties in the connected writ petition to maintain its pleas, a division bench Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM said that the petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, projecting the writ petitioners as 'person aggrieved' however, they failed to show how they were affected by appointment of the commission.

Kerala High Court Says Munambam Land Was Not Intended To Be Waqf

Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638

The Kerala High Court has held that the 1950 endowment deed executed by Mohammed Siddique Sait in favour of the Farooq College Managing Committee was not a waqf deed but a simple gift deed, never intended to create a permanent dedication of property in favour of Almighty God.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed thus while allowing two writ appeals filed by the State government against a Single Bench order that had quashed a government notification constituting a Commission of Inquiry to resolve the Munambam land dispute between residents and the Waqf board.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 70-Year-Old Man Booked For Allegedly Hunting & Killing Leopard In Reserve Forest

Case Title: Baby V.J. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 639

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) granted regular bail to a 70-year-old man, who is accused of killing a leopard in a reserve forest by laying a cable trap.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the petition taking into consideration the period of custody undergone, the absence of antecedents and the advanced age of the petitioner.

Printing Digital Images/Letters On Paper Constitutes Services, Attracts 18% GST Not 12%: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 640

The Kerala High Court has held that printing digital images/letters on paper constitutes services, and attracts 18% GST not 12%.

The question before the bench was to determine whether the assessee's printing activities ie. converting the figures, letters, photographs etc., in a digital form, into physical format by printing it on paper were liable to GST at 12% or 18%.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examines both HSN Code 4911 and SCN 998386 and noted that HSN Code 4911 mainly refers to the supply of goods in the form of printed materials, whereas, the SCN 998386 refers to the photographic and videographic processing services, where the printing of images from film or digital media is specifically included therein.

S. 263(1) & S. 269(1) BNSS | Court Cannot Prepare Format Of Charge & Merely Fill Details Of Case In Vacant Space: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Somasundaram v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 641

The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of a Magistrate Court, which had framed the charges in printed format with the name and other details of the accused inserted in writing.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the framing of charges ought to have been done in writing, in accordance with Sections 263(1) and 269(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/ Sections 240(1) and 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

High Courts Cannot Reduce Sentence Below The Statutory Minimum: Kerala High Court

Case Title: A.K. Rajendran v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 642

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that High Courts cannot reduce the sentence for a criminal offence below the minimum punishment prescribed by a statute.

Justice A. Badharudeen relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra to observe that such an action would be overstepping into the legislature's domain.

Kerala High Court Closes Plea Seeking Conduct Of Enrollment After Bar Council Of Kerala Enrols New Batch Of Advocates

Case Title: Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643

The Kerala High Court has closed a plea seeking to conduct enrollment of law graduates to the Bar Council of Kerala.

Justice N Nagaresh closed the matter after the counsel for the petitioner told the court that the enrollment for the new batch of advocates had been conducted on 11 and 12th October 2025.

The Court has previously invoked Section 58 of the Advocates Act to protect the interests of law graduates awaiting enrollment and has directed the Bar Council of Kerala to conduct enrollment of advocates.

Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Arundhati Roy's 'Mother Mary Comes To Me'

Case Title: Rajasimhan v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644

The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 13) dismissed the Public Interest Litigation filed seeking action against author Arundhati Roy's book 'Mother Mary Comes To Me' for having a photo of the author smoking on the cover. The petitioner had sought a stay on the book's sale without a statutory label.

The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivered the judgment.

"Authorities Must Prevent Unauthorised Constructions": Kerala High Court Orders Restoration Of Mangrove In Kunhimangalam

Case Title: P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645

The Kerala High Court has observed that the state Authorities are under a statutory mandate to ensure unauthorised constructions are prevented in protected zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications.

The observations were made by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, while delivering judgment in a public interest litigation filed by an agriculturist from Kannur who alleged large-scale destruction of thick mangroves classified under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) I A and I B in Kunhimangalam Village by two private individuals for commercial real estate development.

Violation Of Mandate U/S 53A & S.38 Abkari Act Gives Benefit Of Doubt To Accused: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646

The Kerala High Court has recently held that when there is a violation of the mandate under Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court was considering an appeal preferred by two persons, who were convicted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Act.

Justice Johnson John observed: “As noticed earlier, in this case, there is violation of the mandate of Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act and there is also no satisfactory evidence to establish a fool proof chain of custody to prove that it was the sample taken from the contraband liquor which ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a fool proof condition and therefore, I find that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.”

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Forcible Possession Of Elephant Obtained By Suppressing Material Facts About Earlier Cases

Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment setting aside an ad-interim injunction granted against the defendants from taking forcible possession of an elephant in the plaintiff's custody after noting that the impugned order was obtained through suppression of material facts regarding earlier litigation.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim further opined that since the plaintiff came before court with unclean hands, he is not entitled to a relief of fresh consideration by the trial court. He also clarified that the trial court has to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations in the judgment.

[SARFAESI Act] HC Cannot Interfere In Commercial Matters When Relief Is Available Before DRT: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648

The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that the interference of the High Court in commercial matters under Article 226 was not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S were delivering the judgment in a writ appeal filed by Kerala Bank against a single judge decision which allowed an instalment relief and return of possession of a mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act.

Family Courts Must Evaluate Oral Evidence In Background Of Normal Human Behaviour Without Generalising Or Stereotyping: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649

The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that family courts must avert evaluation of testimonies in the background of normal human behaviour without generalisation or stereotyping when there is hardly any evidence other than oral evidence.

It further held that Family Courts should also weigh the oral evidence and resort to preponderance of probabilities.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a wife against the dismissal of her plea for divorce from the respondent husband.

“Descriptive & Generic”: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Granted Over Use Of 'Metal Industries' Trademark

Case Title: Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650

The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an injunction granted to government company Metal Industries Limited against use of trade mark 'Metal Industries' after noting that the words metal and industries are generic and descriptive.

Even though the company was the registered owner and long-term user of the trade mark 'Metal Industries', Justice C. Pratheep Kumar found that there was no ground to grant relief to it under infringement or passing off.

'Colourable Exercise Of Power': Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring KSRTC Bus Driver Over Bottle Row

Case Title: Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 16) set aside the order transferring KSRTC (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) bus driver Jaimon Joseph, who came to limelight following the 'bottle' row involving State Transport Minister, K.B. Ganesh.

After a detailed hearing, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that Jaimon's transfer from Ponkunnam in Kottayam district to Pudukkad in Thrissur district was punitive in nature since there was no justifiable reason for the same.

No 'Inflexible Rule' Of Holding Test Identification Parade In Every Case To Rely Upon Identification Made By Witness: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652

The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no stringent rule which requires holding of a test identification parade (TIP) in every case in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness.

A division bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:

“There is no inflexible rule that, in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness, there must invariably, be a test identification parade. If the accused is already acquainted with the witnesses, identification for the first time in the dock would be sufficient. Likewise, if the witness had sufficient opportunity to see the accused, at the time of the incident, and the court is satisfied about the credibility of such identification, the absence of a test identification parade would not, by itself, render the evidence unreliable”.

Global Ayyappa Sangamam: Kerala High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Conduct Of Event

Case Title: SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 17) dismissed all petitions related to the conduct of 'Global Ayyappa Sangamam' which was held on September 20 in the premises of Sabarimala Shrine and at the banks of the River Pamba.

The petitions had claimed that the event was a political and commercial one, veiled as one related to devotion, tourism and secular promotion.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar orally noted:

“All these writ petitions were preferred challenging the conduct of the Ayyappa Sangam on the bank of River Pamba. By order dated 11.9.2025, this Court had refused to grant the interim prayer. The matter was taken up before the Apex Court and it refused to interfere. The Sangamam was held on September 20. In that view of the matter, we do not think there is absolutely any reason to retain these petitions on file. These petitions are dismissed."

Electronic Document Must Be Produced In Entirety To Be Admissible Even If Supported By Certificate U/S 65B Evidence Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shinoj v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that a person relying on an electronic document must produce the same in its entirety even though only parts of it is relied on. It also made it clear that the specific portions of the document can be marked.

Justice Gopinath P. referred to Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act and observed:

“redacted portions of a conversation cannot be admissible in evidence even if they are supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act...It is evident from the provisions referred to above that any information contained in an electronic record printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed a document. Consequently, all the provisions applicable to a document shall also apply to an electronic record printed on paper or stored in any other form such as pen drives, discs, magnetic tape and so on. While it may be permissible for a person relying on a document to mark specific portions of it, it is beyond cavil that a document must be produced in its entirety.”

Kerala High Court Dismisses BCI's Review Plea Against Order Limiting Power Of State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee

Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the Bar Council of India against the order confining the power of the State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee to the completion of the verification process.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V. M., delivered the judgment.

“No case for review is made out. Review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed” the bench orally stated while dismissing the review petition.

Limitation Act | S.14(2) Does Not Apply To Cases Where Court With Jurisdiction Erroneously Declines To Entertain Plea: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P T Babu v Vijaya Bank

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend to a case where the Court, which possesses jurisdiction, erroneously declines to entertain the proceeding on a mistaken perception or wrong application of legal principles.

For context, Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with the exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a case arising from a suit for recovery of money passed on January 2, 2002,by the first respondent bank.

Kerala High Court Aids Youth With Substance Abuse Disorder To Secure College Admission, Pay Tuition Fees

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657

The Kerala High Court recently aided a youngster suffering from substance abuse disorder and other mental illnesses to secure admission in the college of his choice. The Court also ensured that his course fee was paid.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering the plea by the youth's father seeking the Court's direction for ensuring proper medical treatment and protection for his son, a 'Person in Need of Care'.

[S.5 BSA] 'Photos Of Place Where Crime Occurred Is Relevant Document While Cross-Examining Witness': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658

The Kerala High Court has held that a defence lawyer may confront a prosecution witness with relevant documents such as photographs or site plans during cross-examination if those materials are connected to the facts in issue

Justice G. Girish delivered the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who refused to allow the defence lawyer in a case of rape under the false promise of marriage and cheating to confront a prosecution witness with two documents, which included a photograph of the alleged scene of the offence and a site plan prepared by the Village Officer. The trial court stated that these documents did not originate from the witness and thus were outside the scope of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

Special Court Can Order Further Investigation After Submission Of Final Report: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659

The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the power of a Special Court to direct further investigation even after a final report has been filed by the investigating agency concluding that no offence was made out against certain public servants.

Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered the judgment in a petition challenging the order of the Special Court directing further investigation in a case involving alleged loan fraud against the State Bank of India.

Income Tax Act | Non-Production Of Form 3CL Isn't Material Suppression; Not Grounds To Reopen Assessment U/S 147: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660

The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Alleging Large-Scale Corruption By State Cashew Board

Case Title: Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661

The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a plea alleging large-scale corruption in the import of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) by the Kerala Cashew Board Ltd. (KCB)

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, said that the petition was devoid of merits.

Change In Form Or Rephrasing Of Relief Cannot Defeat Principle Of Constructive Res Judicata: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that changing the form or rephrasing of a relief prayed for cannot defeat the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was considering a writ petition filed by a registered MSME (Micro, Small and Media Enterprise) that had sought protection under the Central Government notification, which mandates banks and financial institutions to refer stressed MSME accounts for corrective measures.

Limitation Under Rule 68B Of Income Tax Act Does Not Apply To RDDB Act Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 663

The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.

Ex-CISF Personnel Entitled To Purchase Liquor From CAPF Canteens : Kerala High Court

Case Title: CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors.; Syam Mohan S.A & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664

The Kerala High Court has held that retired personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) are entitled to purchase liquor from canteens operated by other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) such as CRPF and BSF, through the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS).

The bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the denial of this benefit to retired CISF personnel, when the same facility is extended to retirees of other CAPFs, constitutes hostile discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Remedy For Non-Payment Of Revised Maintenance Is Execution Of Order Before Magistrate, Not Contempt Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the appropriate remedy for non-payment of maintenance ordered as per criminal revision petition before the High Court is to execute the order before the Magistrate court. It also observed that contempt proceedings before the High Court would not be maintainable in such circumstances.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar dismissed a contempt case initiated by a wife against the husband for failing to comply with the order of the High Court in a criminal revision preferred against the Sessions Court's order enhancing maintenance ordered by the Magistrate.

O.XI R.14 CPC | Co-operative Arbitration Court Can Order Any Party To Produce Documents In Its Possession: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has observed that the Co-Operative Arbitration Court conducting a trial in an election petition has the power to invoke provision under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to order any party to produce documents in his possession as it deems necessary.

Referring to Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Justice K. Babu clarified that the Arbitration Court is bound to follow the procedure for trials provided under the CPC and must adjudicate dispute based on the pleadings before it. For doing that, it must allow parties in the dispute to lead relevant evidence.

Power Granted Under Street Vendor's Act Overrides Municipality Act Even If Vendor Is Operating Without License: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the power granted under Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 overrides the powers under Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, even when the street vendor is operating without a license.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that any municipal action against a street vendor, even one operating without a license, must conform to the procedural safeguards under the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, framed under Section 38 of the 2014 Act.

No Essential Religious Practice That Temple Priest Must Be From Particular Caste Or Lineage : Kerala High Court Approves 'Thanthra Vidyalayas'

Case Title: Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 22) dismissed a writ petition filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam (AKTS) challenging the accreditation and recognition granted to certain institutions described as 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).

The petitioners also challenged the notifications issued by KDRB prescribing a certificate from the Tantra Vidya Peetoms recognised by it as one of the qualifications to be appointed as part-time shantis(priests) in various temples.

While dismissing the petitions, the Court held that there was no essential religious practice that a temple priest must be from a particular caste or lineage.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar refused to accept the petitioners' argument that appointment of shanthis(temple priests) ought to be in accordance with traditional practice and cannot be diluted by subordinate legislation.

'School Teacher Can Enforce Discipline, Correct Pupil': Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Teacher For Caning Student

Case Title: Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a school teacher for beating his students with a cane.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar referred to various precedents, which discussed the extent of corporal punishment that can be inflicted on a child by a teacher.

[S.351 BNSS] Accused Exempted From Personal Appearance Can Answer Questions Virtually Or In Writing: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rameshan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670

The Kerala High Court has held that an accused person exempted from personal appearance may answer questions under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). either through a written statement or via video linkage.

Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment and set aside a trial court order that had rejected the accused's plea to allow his counsel to respond on his behalf during the Section 351 examination.

Kerala High Court Quashes Ownership Certificates Issued To Actor Mohanlal For Possessing Ivory

Case Title: James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) held that the ownership certificates issued by the Kerala Government to Malayalam actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory are illegal and unenforceable in law.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian struck down the Government Orders and ownership certificates dated January 16, 2016, and April 6, 2016, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Wildlife in favour of the actor. The Court held the Government orders to be "void" and the certificates to be "illegal and unenforceable."

Executive Magistrates Cannot Invoke S.130 BNSS In Purely Private Disputes: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672

The Kerala High Court has held that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in matters arising from purely private disputes, such as allegations of cheating or breach of trust, unless there is a demonstrable threat to public peace or tranquillity.

Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment in a petition filed challenging the order and summons issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Sections 126 (Security for keeping peace in other cases), 130 (Order to be made), and 132 (Summons or warrant in case of person not so present) of the BNSS.

Kerala High Court Closes Complainant's Plea Challenging Police's Notice Of Appearance In Sexual Harassment Case Against Rapper Vedan

Case Title: X X v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 23) closed a petition filed by de-facto complainant challenging a notice directing to appear before Ernakulam Central Police for recording her statement in a case filed against Rapper Vedan.

Justice C. Pradeep Kumar, closed the petition, when it was informed by the public prosecutor that the Station house Officer (SHO) withdrew the impugned notice.

S.187 BNSS | Period Of Release On Interim Bail Not To Be Computed As 'Detention Period' For Granting Statutory Bail: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674

The Kerala High Court recently held that the period during which an accused is released on interim bail cannot be included while calculating period of detention for the purpose of granting statutory bail.

Justice K. Babu observed that only the actual period of detention undergone can be considered, adding together continuous or broken periods of custody.

S.27 Evidence Act | Information Given By One Accused Leading To Discovery Can't Be Used To Connect All Accused: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Selvan v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the information leading to discovery that was received from one accused person cannot be used to connect all the accused persons to the alleged offence.

In the present case, the prosecution had placed reliance on Exhibit P7(a) confession but the Court felt that it cannot be relied on since the exact information given by each of the accused persons is not separately recorded or proved.

Justice P.V. Balakrishnan remarked that it is impossible to believe that all accused persons spoke simultaneously and in one voice in such a case.

Kerala High Court Orders Constitution Of Committee To Vet Registry's Standard Checklist For Scrutiny Of Newly Filed Cases

Case Title: Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment ordering the constitution of a committee to vet the standard checklist prepared by the Registry compiling the requirements at the time of filing different categories of cases.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a suo motu Judicial Practice and Procedure (JPP) initiated at the instance of the High Court Registry.

Kerala High Court Closes Plea Against DDE Order In Hijab Row Case After Student Withdraws Admission

Case Title: Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) closed a plea by St Rita's School challenging a notice by Deputy Director of Education (DDE) Ernakulam to permit a girl student to attend classes wearing a headscarf, after the court was informed that her parents had decided to withdraw her admission.

After hearing the submission made by the student's counsel the State said that it does not want to precipitate the issue.

Justice V.G. Arun thus closed the matter noting that better sense had prevailed wherein "fraternity"–the foundational principles on which the edifice of the Constitution is built, "remains strong".

“Debt Due” U/S 18(1) SARFAESI Act Includes Future Interest Accrued Till Filing Of Appeal: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678

The Kerala High Court has held that “debt due” under the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) includes not only the amount claimed in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2), but also interest accruing thereafter up to the date of filing the appeal.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. delivered the judgment in a petition challenging orders of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejecting his application for waiver of pre-deposit and consequently dismissing the statutory appeal.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Levy Of Parking Fees At Lulu Mall Kochi

Case Title: Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679

The Kerala High Court on Saturday (October 25) dismissed a plea, which had challenged the collection of parking fees from vehicles parked in the parking area of Lulu Shopping Mall at Edappally in Kochi.

Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a writ appeal preferred against the Single Bench's judgment. The Single Judge had held that the building owner can determine whether or not to charge customers for parking their vehicles while using the shopping facility and services offered in the building.

NHAI Concessionaires Holding Work Orders Prior To March 2024 Don't Need Environmental Clearance For Earth Extraction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680

The Kerala High Court held that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) concessionaires holding valid work orders issued prior to March 21, 2024, do not need to obtain separate Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction, sourcing, or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines.

The division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, passed the order while answering an intra-court reference.

'If She Really Is An Advocate, It's Alarming': Kerala High Court Slams Woman For Misconduct, Casting Aspersions On Judges

Case Title: XXX v YYY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681

The Kerala High Court has reprimanded a litigant claiming to be an advocate–who appeared in person to challenge her divorce decree–for her (mis)conduct in Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha was hearing the petitioner's plea seeking to invalidate a divorce decree and judgment of Family Court Ernakulam.

Return Of 'Mahar' Can Be Ascertained From Statement Of Parties, Not Merely From 'Khula Nama': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that return of 'mahar' (consideration given by husband to wife in marriage) can be ascertained not just from the 'Khula Nama' but also from the statement of parties while considering a Muslim wife's petition for declaration of divorce by 'khula'.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by the husband challenging the divorce granted by the Family Court.

Suspicious Husband Can Turn Matrimonial Life Into Living Hell: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce To Woman Suspected Of Infidelity

Case Title : XXX v YYY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683

While granting divorce to a woman, the Kerala High Court observed that an unfounded suspicion of a husband amounts to a serious form of cruelty.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering the judgment in a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife against the decision of Family Court, Kottayam which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.

Kerala High Court Eases Bail Conditions Imposed On Rapper Vedan In Sexual Harassment Case, Paves Way For International Tour

Case Title: Hirandas V.M. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 684

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 30) modified two bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court on Rapper Vedan, while granting him anticipatory bail in a sexual harassment case.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar deleted the conditions requiring the rapper to not leave Kerala and to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday.

Magistrate Could Not Have Taken Cognizance After 15 Yrs: Kerala High Court Quashes Outraging Modesty Case Against Film Director Ranjith

Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 685

The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings against Malayalam film director Ranjith in an FIR alleging that he tried to outrage the modesty of an actress by inappropriately holding her hand and attempted to touch her body with sexual intent.

The FIR was registered against the Director under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to Woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).

Justice C Pratheep Kumar, allowed the petition to quash the proceedings presently pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.

S.36(1)(vii) Income Tax Act | Closing Individual Debtor Accounts Not Mandatory For Bad Debt Deduction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686

The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, after referring to the case of Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, opined that there is no requirement for the individual debtor's account to be closed for claiming a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.

Kerala High Court Explains Concept Of 'Contradictions' Under Indian Evidence Act & Pre-Trap Verification In Corruption Cases

Case Title: P V Mathew v State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 687

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified what constitutes a contradiction in law and under what circumstances an omission can be treated as a contradiction under the Evidence Act.

Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in the corruption case of a former village office under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court examined the concept of “Contradiction” under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Constitutional Remedy Cannot Be Invoked By Litigant To Avoid Approaching Tribunal Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S Thiruvonam Industries and Others v Hero Fincorp Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 688

The Kerala High Court has observed that a litigant cannot use the constitutional remedy of writ petitions as an alternative to avoid approaching the Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, which would require the payment of fees.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S was considering a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by Hero Fincorp Ltd., a private Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

Citing SC Observation, Kerala High Court Refrains From Hearing Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed Directly Without Approaching Sessions Court

Case Title: Moosa Thiruvangoth v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 689

The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain an anticipatory bail plea filed directly before it, without approaching the Sessions Court first.

In doing so, Justice K Babu cited the Supreme Court's observation in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala (2025), issuing notice to the Kerala High Court for "bypassing" the Sessions Court.

S.263 Income Tax Act Can Be Invoked When AO Fails To Address Core Issue In Assessment Order: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 690

The Kerala High Court held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked where the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to address a core issue in the assessment order.

The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon opined that the main issue does not appear to have been addressed by the assessing authority while issuing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the assessment order does not appear to have addressed the issue with reference to the competing provisions, exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act was justified.

Limitation Period Begins To Run On The Date 'Continuous Breach' Of Contract Ceases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V Chandran v Aliamma George

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 691

The Kerala High Court has said that under Section 55 of the Limitation Act where a contract is breached and if the breach is continuous, the limitation period begins to run from the date the breach ceases.

A division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment in an appeal filed against a trial court order dismissing suit for damages for breach of contract.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Review Petition Against Body Donation Of Deceased CPI(M) Leader MM Lawrence

Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Ors and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 692

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 29) dismissed a review petition filed by the daughters of deceased veteran CPI(M) leader M M Lawrence, against rejection of their appeal challenging an order permitting donation of their father's body.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu delivered the judgment.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea To Cancel 'India Gate' Trademark; Says Only Delhi HC Has Jurisdiction Since Mark Was Registered At Delhi

Case Title: Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 693

The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a special jurisdiction case filed before it under the Trade Mark Act seeking to cancel the registered trade mark 'INDIA GATE' belonging to the 1st respondent KRBL Limited.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that the rectification petition filed by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act was not maintainable before the Kerala High Court but before the Delhi High Court since the subject trade mark was registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry.

S.68F NDPS Act | Power To Seize Illegally Acquired Property Exercisable Only If 'Reason To Believe' Based On Cogent Materials: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Usman Kunju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 694

The Kerala High Court recently held that the power of seizure under Section 68F of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act can be exercised by an officer only when there are cogent materials based on inquiry, investigation or survey leading to a reason to believe that the property was illegally acquired.

Justice V.G. Arun clarified that the 'reason to believe' should not be merely on assumptions.

2013 Adhithi Murder Case: Kerala High Court Sentences Father, Step-Mother To Life Imprisonment For 6-Yr-Old's Death

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 695

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 30) allowed the State's appeal and reversed the Sessions Court decision, which had found the father and step-mother of 5 ½ year old Adhithi Namboothiri to be not guilty of her murder.

The Sessions Court had sentenced the two accused persons only for the lesser offences under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the finding of acquittal by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Court allowed the appeal and reversed the finding of acquittal for the offences under Section 300 IPC read with Section 34. It imposed life imprisonment for the offence and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.

Kerala High Court Sets Aside 2015 Judgment That Quashed Vigilance Case Against Office Bearers Of Kerala Cricket Association

Case Title: Harish V. v. T.C. Mathew and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 696

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 31) allowed the writ appeals preferred challenging a 2015 decision of the Single Bench, which had held that Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) is not a public office and therefore, vigilance cases cannot be preferred against its office bearers.

The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian pronounced in open court:

"Allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petitions as devoid of merits."

Kerala High Court Upholds 2025 Court Fee Hike; Says It Is Correlated With Cost Of Justice Administration

Case title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 697

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 31) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the increase in Court Fees and imposition of Ad-Valorem fees without an upper limit, through an amendment in the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivering the judgment said,

"State legislature has the legislative competence to enact the impugned amending act…The revision of Court fee has not taken place in the State of Kerala for more than two decades...A broad correlation between collection of court fee and expenditure of administration of justice is all that is necessary. Mathematical exactitude not required…."

2025 Local Body Polls: Kerala High Court Directs Election Commission To Ensure Voter Comfort, Suggests Real-Time Queue App

Case Title: N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698

The Kerala High Court has suggested the State Election Commission to develop a Mobile App to ensure that all voters, especially senior citizens and persons with disabilities, are able to cast their votes comfortably and without undue delay during the upcoming local body elections.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the Election Commission's decision to cap the number of voters at 1,200 per polling booth in Panchayats and 1,500 in Municipalities.

Kerala High Court Acquits Assam Migrant Labourer Who Was Sentenced To Death In Rape-Murder Case Of 60 Yr Old

Case Title: Parimal Sahu v. State of Kerala and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 699

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 31) acquitted Parimal Sahu, the migrant labourer from Assam, who was accused of the rape and murder of a 60-year-old widow in Puthanvelikkara Grama Panchayat in Ernakulam district in 2018.

The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian reversed the finding of guilt by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur and refused to uphold the death sentence passed.

Kerala High Court Upholds Applicability Of TDS On Interest Paid By Primary Co-operative Societies To Members

Case Title: Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anr v Union of India and Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 700

The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on interest payments made by primary co-operative societies to their members.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several co-operative banks and credit societies challenging the proviso to Section 194A (3) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Court Fee Is Payable Only On Principal Relief U/S 6(1) Kerala Court Fees Act, Not Consequential Reliefs: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701

The Kerala High Court has held that when multiple documents on same property are challenged, the declaratory relief against a subsequent document is only ancillary to the challenge of an earlier instrument, and the court fee need to be computed only on the principal relief under Section 6 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959,

Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment while setting aside the Munsiff Court's direction that the plaintiff must amend the plaint and remit court fee based on the higher consideration reflected in a subsequent document.

No Fruitful Intervention: Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL With 'Wide Ranging Prayers' For Resolution Of Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Case Title: Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 702

The Kerala High Court recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation containing "wide-ranging prayers" for peaceful resolution of wildlife conflict in the State, among others.

The petitioner submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. that it was not possible to make amendments as suggested by the Court.

The Court, thereafter, said,

“We are not inclined to entertain the petition with such wide ranging prayers. Entertaining the petition with such prayers will not lead to any fruitful intervention".

Family Court's Order Dismissing Order IX Rule 9 Application To Restore Suit Appealable, Original Petition Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shahabeen Hameed v. Muhammed Ajnas A.B.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 703

The Kerala High Court recently refused to entertain an Original Petition filed before it challenging a Family Court's order dismissing a restoration application. According to the Court, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that has to be pursued.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Snehalatha M.B. noted that the Family Court had dismissed an application preferred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoring a suit that was dismissed for non-appearance.

Words Need Not Compel Victim To Commit Suicide; Suggestive 'Instigation' Sufficient For Abetment: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sivadasan Nair K.G. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 704

The Kerala High Court recently held that to satisfy the requirement of 'instigation' leading to the offence of abetment of suicide, the words of the accused need not be such as to compel the victim to commit suicide and it would be sufficient if the same is suggestive of the consequence.

Justice V.G. Arun was considering a plea to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for commission of the offences under Sections 306 [Abetment to suicide] and 113 [Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor] of the Indian Penal Code.

'Few Battles Won But Can't Rest Yet': Kerala High Court Directs District Collector's Committee To Oversee Canal & Drainage System In Kochi

Case Title: Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 705

The Kerala High Court has vacated its earlier judgment in the writ petition relating to the upkeep of Perandoor Canal, to direct the District Collector's Committee to oversee the City's Canal and Drainage system instead of the 'High Level Committee'.

Justice Devan Ramachandran, in his earlier judgment dated 27 August had directed the High Level Committee constituted by the Court to oversee the Canal and Drainage system.

'No Exceptional Circumstances': Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain Ex-TDB Secy's Anticipatory Bail Plea In Sabarimala Gold Theft Case

Case Title: S. Jayasree. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 706

The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to entertain the anticipatory bail plea of former secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board and Thiruvabharanam Commissioner, who is booked in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

In view of the Supreme Court's observation in Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala, Justice K. Babu remarked that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the petitioner to directly approach the High Court before going before the Sessions Court.

Kerala High Court Closes PIL Seeking Increase In Honorarium Of ASHA Workers As State Informs Of ₹1000 Hike

Case Title: Public Eye Trust Rep. By its General Secretary v State of Kerala & Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 707

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (4 November) closed a public interest litigation seeking increase in honorarium paid to Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA workers).

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., closed the writ petition on being informed by the State Attorney that the monthly honorarium has been increased by Rs. 1000/- from November 1, 2025.

First Wife Must Be Heard Before Registering Muslim Man's Second Marriage, Parties Should Be Sent To Court If She Objects: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 708

The Kerala High Court recently held that the first wife must be given an opportunity of hearing by the statutory authorities while registering the second marriage of a Muslim man in accordance with the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that even though the Muslim personal allows a second marriage to a man in certain situations, if the marriage is to be registered, the law of the land would prevail. Then, religion becomes secondary to constitutional rights.

Trial Court May Simultaneously Add Charges Under Ss. 409, 420 IPC If Facts Unclear As To Which Offence Committed: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anil K. Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 709

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a trial court may incorporate charges under both Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code when it is doubtful as to what offence has been committed.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath pronounced the decision while considering an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. A journalist, who was a stranger to the proceeding before the trial court challenged the order dismissing a petition under Section 239(1) of the BNSS seeking addition of a charge.

Oral Allegations Alone Can't Sustain Bribe Charges Against Ministers, Persons Holding High Posts: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sameer Navas and Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 710

The Kerala High Court has observed that when an allegation of demand of bribe by a Minister is raised, the same cannot be merited merely on the basis of oral statements and it would require thorough scrutiny.

Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while dismissing three connected criminal revision petitions filed by the State of Kerala challenging the discharge of former Minister Adoor Prakash, his then private secretary V. Raju, and other officials accused in a vigilance case related to alleged irregularities in the grant of a wholesale ration depot licence.

'Mere Enactment Not Enough': Kerala High Court Issues Directions For Effectively Implementing Juvenile Justice Act, SC Guidelines

Case Title: Suo Motu v. The Government of Kerala and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 711

The Kerala High Court has issued a comprehensive set of directions to ensure the effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Sampurana Behura v. Union of India [2018 (4) SCC 433].

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, issued the directions while delivering the judgment in two connected cases, one suo motu petition and a public interest petition filed by Bachpan Bachao Adolan, an NGO founded by Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi and its programme director Sampurna Behura.

Income Tax Act | Revisional Power U/S 263 Cannot Be Invoked When AO Allows Deduction U/S 32AC After Proper Inquiry: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 712

The Kerala High Court stated that revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deduction under Section 32AC after proper inquiry.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that merely for the reason that AO extended the deduction claimed after carrying out investigations, the exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act is not required. At worst, the revisional authority can correct the error, if any, committed by the AO, by holding that the extension of the benefit of deduction was erroneous, with reference to the purchase of the assets during the previous years.

S. 144 BNSS/S.125 CrPC| Unmarried Major Christian Daughter Not Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Father: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvilla v. Annie Varghese and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 713

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the scheme of the provision under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not contemplate maintenance claim by a major daughter unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath also noted that unlike in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [HAMA] and the Muslim personal law, there is no provision in personal law applicable to Christians for maintaining an unmarried daughter who has attained majority.

Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Appellate Order Against AMMA, Directs Fresh Consideration

Case Title: M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 714

The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), against the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), holding that the appellate authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Income Tax Act.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by rejecting AMMA's appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, without addressing the merits of the case as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Kerala High Court Quashes Abduction Case Against Actress Lakshmi Menon After Recording Settlement Between Parties

Case Title: Midhun Mohan and Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 715

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 7) quashed the abduction case initiated against actress Lakshmi Menon in view of the settlement entered into between the parties.

Justice C.S. Dias allowed the Crl.M.C. filed by all the four accused persons, including the actress, and quashed the FIR registered and all further proceedings in Crime No. 346 of 2025 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station as against the petitioners.

MD Of Company Can Be Treated As “Employer” For Proceedings U/S 20(2) Of Minimum Wages Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Bhavesh Anil Kumar v. The Assistant Labour Officer and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 716

The Kerala High Court has held that the Managing Director of a Company can be treated as an “employer” under Section 2 (e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for proceedings initiated under Section 20(2) of the Act.

Justice K. Babu, was delivering a judgment in a writ petition filed by the former Managing Director of Southwest Motorcorp India Pvt. Ltd., who challenged an order issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kannur under Section 20(3) of the Minimum wages Act.

Cheque Dishonour | Accused Can Rebut Presumption Of Debt By Referring To Particular Circumstances Of Case: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jose v. Jose and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 717

The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that a person accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can refer to particular circumstances of the case in order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 and prove non-existence of debt or liability by preponderance of probabilities.

The appeal before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was preferred by the complainant in the case seeking to assail the acquittal of the accused in the case.

Decree For Partial Specific Performance Not Permissible When Defendant Retains Undisputed Title Over Entire Property: Kerala High Court

Case Title: T.K. Vasudevan Nair and Ors. v. T. Vrij Mohan and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 718

The Kerala High Court has clarified the limits of granting specific performance for part of a contract under Section 12(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, stating that a decree for part performance for a lesser extent should not be granted if the defendant holds the entire extent of the property.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in an appeal filed against a decree for specific performance granted by the Sub Court, Koyilandy.

Kerala High Court Acquits Man Over Possession Of Fake Dollar Bill, Says No Conscious Possession Or Intent To Use

Case Title: Abdul Hakkim v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 719

The Kerala High Court recently acquitted a person, who was found guilty of the offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code [Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes], for possessing a counterfeit 100 Dollar bill.

Justice Johnson John relied on the 2005 decision of the Supreme Court in K. Hasim v. State of T.N. to find that the offence under the provision is not restricted to the possession of Indian currency but applied to American dollar bills also.

Complainant/ Legal Heirs Must Be Informed When Probe Against Accused Named In FIR Is Dropped: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shareena v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 720

The Kerala High Court has directed the State Police Chief to issue necessary instructions to investigating authorities in criminal cases to issue notices to the de facto complainants or their legal heirs when a person named as an accused in the FIR is removed from the list of accused during the course of investigation.

The division bench comprising Dr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, issued the directions while dismissing an appeal against the judgment of a single judge.

Disclosure Of Income & Payment Of Income Tax Do Not Bar Proceedings Under Benami Transactions Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 721

The Kerala High Court has held that disclosure of income and payment of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not preclude initiation of proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that the fact that the assessees have disclosed the income in the return and the same was proceeded against under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere with the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

'Melpattam' Right Confers Only Usufructuary Interest, Not Ownership Over Land: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Venugopal K Veloth v Mahilamani and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 722

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a 'melpattam' arrangement does not create ownership or a transferable interest in the land itself.

The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal challenging a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Sub Court, Vadakara.

Accused Can Rebut Presumption U/S 139 NI Act By Furnishing Evidence To Dispute Financial Capacity Of Complainant: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thangam v. V.V. Haridasan and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 723

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the trial court's finding of acquittal in an appeal preferred by the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonour of a cheque by the accused.

Analysing the precedents laid down, Justice Johnson John observed that when the defence evidence to dispute the transaction as well as the financial capacity of the complainant was sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act regarding existence of a valid debt.

Father's Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached For Child's Maintenance, S.60(1)(g) CPC Exemption Won't Apply: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rifa Fathima v. Salim and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 724

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a court can attach a father's retirement benefits for maintaining his child. It further clarified that the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that stipends and gratuities of pensioners are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, would not apply in such cases.

Distinguishing the Supreme Court decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009), the Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that a minor daughter claiming maintenance cannot be equated with a creditor.

Arbitration Agreement Is Valid Even Without Signature If Parties Acted Upon It: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sigmatic Nidhi Limited v Suresh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 725

The Kerala High Court held that written agreement need not to be signed by the parties if the consensus ad idem and intention to arbitrate is reflected from the conduct of the parties and documentary evidence.

Justice S. Manu allowed the application seeking reference to arbitration holding that an arbitration agreement in writing may exist even without signatures provided there is a clear evidence that both parties acted upon it.

'Free Flow Of Opinions Essential To Democracy': Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Man Over Facebook Comment Against CMDRF

Case Title: Manu S v State of Kerala and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 726

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal charges against a man who faced prosecution for a Facebook comment allegedly critical of contributions to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF).

Justice V.G. Arun, delivering the judgment observed:

“Free flow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. Fear of setback to Government's initiatives, due to expression of opinion or dissent by a citizen, cannot result in Article 19(2), restricting the freedom of speech and expression, being brought into play.”

'Cultivating' Cannabis Plant An Offence Under NDPS Act Whether Planted In Pots Or In Earth: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jatin v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 727

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that cultivation of cannabis plant is an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and that it does not distinguish between cannabis plants grown in pots or in the earth.

Justice C.S. Dias observed,

“the expression 'cultivate any cannabis plant' used in Sections 8 (b) and 20 (a) of the Act encompasses any act of planting, tilling, raising, growing, farming or gardening a cannabis plant with the mens rea, whether such cultivation is carried out in the earth or in a pot. The statute does not distinguish between planting in the earth or growing in pots. The essence of the offence lies in the conscious act of planting and nurturing a cannabis plant in contravention of the provisions of the Act.”

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Booked For 2021 Murder Of CPI(M) Leader Sandeep Kumar

Case Title: Pramod Prasannan v. State of Kerala and Jishnu Reghu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 728

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (November 11) granted bail to two persons, who are accused of the murder of the CPI(M) leader Sandeep Kumar in Pathanamthitta district, alleged to have been committed on December 2, 2021.

Justice K Babu, allowed the bail pleas and released the petitioners on bail, imposing stringent conditions. It further directed the Additional Sessions Court to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months.

DRAT Need Not Mandate 50% Of Debt Due As Pre-Deposit To Entertain Appeals, Must Consider Subject Matter: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Glenny C.J. and Anr. v. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 729

The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no mandate under law that the pre-deposit amount should always be 50% of the debt due, while entertaining appeals under Section 18 SARFAESI [Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest] Act, challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Justice C Jayachandran, while delivering the judgement clarified that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), while determining the amount to be deposited, shall take into consideration the subject matter of the appeal.

'No Evidence Of Control Or Exploitation': Kerala High Court Quashes Child Labour Case Under Juvenile Justice Act

Case Title: Jissy S. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 730

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against the licensee of a rubber band manufacturing unit, who was booked under Sections 75 [Punishment for cruelty to child] and 79 [Exploitation of a child employee] of the Juvenile Justice Act for engaging child labourers.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar relied on the Apex Court decision in Narang S.C. v. State (2025) and the Kerala High Court decision in Nizamudhin A. v. Station House Officer (2017) to come to the conclusion that from the facts, the offences alleged were not made out against the petitioner.

S.144 BNSS | Mother Can Claim Maintenance From Children Even If Her Husband Maintains Her: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Farookh v Kayyakutty @ Kadeeja

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 731

The Kerala High Court has held that the right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is independent of her husband's obligation to maintain her.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed,

“The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation under Section 144(1) (d) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) to support his mother if she needs it.”

UAPA Convict Writes Book In Jail, Kerala High Court Asks State To Expeditiously Decide If It Can Be Published

Case Title: Roopesh T.R. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 732

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to consider a prisoner's application for permission to publish his book and to communicate its decision to him, within 3 months.

Justice V.G. Arun observed that incarceration or conviction does not take away the fundamental rights of a person completely and that the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 does not curtail the prisoners' right to read and write.

Mentioning Contraband's Quantity In Millilitres Instead Of Grams Doesn't Vitiate NDPS Case If Chemical Report Shows Equivalent Weight: Kerala HC

Case Title: Aneesh v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 733

The Kerala High Court has held that specifying the quantity of the contraband seized under NDPS Act, 1985 in millilitres instead of grams does not vitiate the prosecution, provided the chemical analysis report establishes the equivalent strength in weight as prescribed under the law.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, made the observation while delivering judgment in a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed under NDPS, Act.

'We Know How To Deal With Such Attitude': Kerala High Court Fines Officer For Non-Speaking Order In Paddy Land Case

Case Title: Vinumon C v. The District Collector and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 734

The Kerala High Court has imposed ₹10,000 fine on a former Revenue Division Officer (RDO) for passing a "stereotypical" order on a landowner's application to remove his land from the data bank of paddy and wetland, despite repeated judgments directing the authorised officers to pass speaking orders in such cases.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan remarked that the authorised officers are seemingly passing such orders based on a "standard order", forcing the litigants to approach the High Court every time, and in turn forcing the High Court to pass stereotypical judgments.

Exclusion Of Transgender Persons From NCC Not Unconstitutional Under Present Law: Kerala HC Urges Legislative Amendment For Inclusivity

Case Title: Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 735

The Kerala High Court has held that the exclusion of transgender persons from the National Cadet Corps (NCC) does not currently violate the Constitution, as the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, in its present form, restricts enrollment to students of the male and female sexes. The Court, however, urged the Union Government to consider amending the law to ensure inclusivity.

Justice N Nagaresh, delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by a transgender student whose application for enrollment in NCC was rejected on the basis of gender identity.

Remarriage Of Widow No Bar To Claim Compassionate Appointment Under Kerala Education Rules: High Court

Case Title: Mini R K v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 736

The Kerala High Court has held that the remarriage of a widow does not extinguish her statutory right to appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA Kerala Education Rules, 1959.

Justice N Nagaresh held that compassionate appointment under Rule 51B is a vested statutory right and cannot be denied based on executive instructions applicable to government servants.

Kerala High Court Directs Centre To Decide Amal Neerad Productions' Plea To Submit 'Bougainvillea' For National Film Awards

Case Title: M/S Amal Neerad Productions LLP v Union of India

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 737

The Kerala High Court has directed the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, to consider a representation made by Amal Neerad Productions LLP, the production house of the Malayalam movie Bougainvillea, that was allegedly unable to complete its online application for 72nd National Film Awards, 2024,due to a technical glitch on the official submission portal.

Justice V G Arun, gave the direction in a writ petition filed by the production house of 'Bougainvillae' malayalam movie.

Kerala High Court Asks CBFC To Reconsider Haal Movie Certification Issue, Filmmakers Decide To Delete Beef Biryani Scene, Few Dialogues

Case Title: Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 738

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 14) asked the makers of Shane Nigam starrer 'Haal' to re-approach the Central Board of Film Certification.

Justice V.G. Arun allowed the plea and quashed the CBFC's decision. The Court observed:

"In the case at hand it is clear that, instead of judging the film as would be done by an ordinary prudent person, the Board's focus was on whether the film will ruffle a few oversensitive feathers. Even accepting the contention of the learned ASGI that the Censor Board is involved in the act of balancing the freedom of the movie maker with the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such balancing act cannot be carried out by overlooking the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity which are the bedrock of our great democracy...Upon viewing the film from the perspective of an ordinary person, this Court found the theme of the film to be in tune with the foundational principles enunciated in our Constitution."

'Christian Girl Wearing Muslim Attire Not Immoral Or Capable Of Inciting Violence': Kerala High Court Allows Plea Against Cuts To 'Haal' Movie

Case Title: Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 738

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 14) observed that a scene in Shane Nigam starrer 'Haal' movie depicting a Christian girl wearing a Muslim attire in a dance sequence, cannot be termed as indecent, immoral or capable of inciting violence.

The observation was made by Justice V.G. Arun while allowing a plea by the makers, challenging the A-certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as well as the cuts suggested by it.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Defer SIR, Says State May Approach Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. The Election Commission of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 739

The Kerala High Court today refused to defer the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State, ahead of elections to Local Self Government Institutions.

Justice V G Arun said similar matters are already pending before the Supreme Court and hence, judicial discipline demands the High Court to refrain from hearing the matter.

'No Proof Of Snooping': Kerala High Court Refuses To Order Removal Of Neighbours' CCTV Cameras

Case Title: Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 740

The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the installation of a CCTV camera by neighbours, holding that the right to privacy under Article 21 cannot override another person's right to security unless unlawful intrusion is clearly established.

Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment and observed: “Right to privacy of one and the right to security, which is an element of right to life of another, are to be balanced delicately when they are in conflict with each other.”

Individual Investment Is Not 'Commercial Transaction'; Investor Is Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mathew K. Cherian v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 741

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that when an individual invests in a company in his individual capacity, the same cannot be termed as a 'commercial transaction' and he would be treated as a consumer as per the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was considering a petition preferred by the Managing Director of Kosamattam Finance against the orders of the District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions.

Kerala High Court Clears Acquisition Of Tea Estate Land For Wayanad Victims' Rehabilitation; Says Compensation To Be Settled Between Companies

Case Title: M/S Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 742

The Kerala High Court has recently disposed of a writ appeal and three connected writ petitions filed by M/s Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. and M/s Padhoor Plantations Pvt. Ltd., related to the acquisition of land for the rehabilitation of 2024 Wayanad Landslide victims under the Disaster Management Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon upheld the earlier directions of a Single Judge permitting the State to take over 64.4075 hectares of plantation land for disaster rehabilitation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, while ensuring that landowners are compensated in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013).

'Mode Of Access To Temple Not Essential Religious Practice': Kerala High Court Declines Early Opening Of Traditional Forest Route To Sabarimala

Case Title: V. Shyamohan v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 743

The Kerala High Court recently refused to allow a lawyer's plea for opening the traditional forest route (Kanana Patha) to Sabarimala ahead of the date announced by the authorities.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that the deferment of opening of the Kanana Patha does not infringe upon the petitioner's fundamental right.

Kerala High Court Rejects Plea To Temporarily Shift Courtroom To Ground Floor For Diabetic Advocate, Permits Cross-Examination Via VC

Case Title: Ramesh K. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 744

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court rejected a plea to temporarily shift courtroom from the 1^st floor to the ground in order accommodate a diabetic advocate, who cannot climb stairs, to conduct cross-examination in trial.

Justice C.S. Dias opined that courts must be sympathetic to the difficulties faced by advocates and practical alternatives can be devised so as not to disrupt the administration of justice.

Man Starting New Marriage For 'Greener Pasture' Won't Turn Prior Consensual Relationship Into 'Rape': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pradeep v. Station House Officer and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 745

The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that if a man starts a new marriage in search of 'greener pasture', the same by itself, would not turn his prior, consensual sexual relationships into 'rape' as per the Indian Penal Code.

Justice G. Girish clarified that in such cases, consent for earlier sexual relationships cannot be said to have been obtained on false promise to marriage.

Income Tax Act | Co-operative Societies Not Engaged In Banking Not Entitled To TDS Exemption U/S 194A(3)(iii): Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 746

The Kerala High Court has held that co-operative societies not engaged in banking are not entitled to TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) exemption under section 194A (3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was dealing with a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the proviso to section 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposed a restriction, based on the gross receipts or turnover of the Societies, in the matter of exemption from the obligation to make TDS from the income as the interest on deposits.

Frozen Chicken Billed At 0% Instead Of 5% GST: Kerala High Court Directs Department To Investigate Alleged Tax Evasion

Case Title: Liyakhat Ali v. The Commissioner, State GST Department

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 747

The Kerala High Court has directed the GST Department to take action on alleged tax evasion involving frozen chicken being sold at 0% GST instead of the applicable 5%.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. recorded that the petitioner, who is a chicken meat dealer, had highlighted serious allegations of tax evasion in sale of frozen chicken in Kerala.

Inmates Of Mental Health Rehab Centre Can Vote In General Elections Unless Declared Disqualified By Competent Court: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jomon Jacob and Anr. v. State Election Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 748

The Kerala High Court recently paved way for the inmates of a mental health rehabilitation centre to vote in the ensuing 2025 general elections.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan rejected a plea arguing that such persons are incompetent to cast their votes according to their will.

CSR Funds Scam: Kerala High Court Allows Consolidated Bail Bonds For Accused Facing Over 1300 Cases

Case Title: K.N. Anand Kumar v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 749

The Kerala High Court recently (November 13) allowed an accused, facing over 1,300 criminal cases across the State in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Scam, to secure his release on bail by executing single district-wise surety bonds, instead of separate bonds in each case.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while allowing the petition filed by K.N. Anadakumar, who has been in judicial custody since his arrest on February 11, 2025.

Contractor Can Claim Increased GST During Work, Even If Bills Were Paid Before Rates Increased: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Shree Contractor v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 750

The Kerala High Court has held that a contractor can claim increased GST (Goods and Services Tax) during work, even if bills were paid before the rate increase.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that at the time of execution of the contract, the rate was only 5% and the increase took place during the execution of the work. Thus, the assessee is entitled to a differential amount of tax.

Motor Accidents | Standard Multiplier Need Not Be Applied Mechanically When Victim Dies Due To Unrelated Causes: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v Mini Devdas and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 751

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified the appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing the disability compensation when an injured claimant in a motor accident claims, dies from causes unrelated to the accident and injury.

The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgement while considering a batch of petitions of Motor accident claims appeals.

Govt Obligated To Disclose All Statutory Restrictions On Re-Registration Of Vehicles Auctioned By It: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jibin Shaji v Kerala Forest Department and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 752

The Kerala High Court has held that the Government and its instrumentalities have an obligation to disclose all statutory bars, restriction, or limitations on re-registration of vehicles auctioned by them.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that the obligation of the government flows from the constitutional mandate of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness embedded in Articles 14 and 298 of the Constitution of India.

Cancelled GST Registration Cannot Be Restored Solely To Claim ITC Benefit U/S 16(6) CGST Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Saleena Shaul Hameed v. The State Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 753

The Kerala High Court has held that a cancelled GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim the ITC (Input Tax Credit) benefit under Section 16(6) CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017).

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that Section 16(6) does not envisage a fresh cause of action in respect of the taxpayers, whose registration is cancelled, for getting the restoration of the registration, only for the purpose of availing the benefit of Section 16(6).

Only Officers Of Integrity Should Serve At Sabarimala: Kerala High Court Flags Pending Crime, Departmental Action Against Recent Appointee

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 754

The Kerala High Court recently highlighted the need to appoint officers of integrity and good service record for duty in the control rooms at Sannidhanam in Sabarimala.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar flagged the crime and departmental proceedings pending against the recently appointed Police Controller, Sri. Krishnakumar R.

'No Preference To Celebrities': Kerala High Court Rejects Film Director's Plea To Include His Name In Voters List Ahead Of Elections

Case Title: V.M. Vinu v. State Election Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 755

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 19) dismissed the plea filed by renowned film director, V.M. Vinu, seeking to include his name in the voters list of Kozhikode Corporation.

Vinu's counsel told Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan  that the director's name was deleted from the voters list because of political rivalry and he pleaded for the Court's indulgence. However, the Court was reluctant to entertain the plea.

Kerala High Court Decries Simultaneous Bail Pleas Before Different Courts, Mandates Undertaking In All Future Bail Applications

Case Title: Lalachan V.M. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 756

The Kerala High Court has deprecated the practice of filing simultaneous bail applications before different courts and directed that all future bail petitions must include a mandatory undertaking confirming that no other bail plea is pending before any District court.

Justice A. Badharudeen issued the directions while considering the bail application of the Superintendent at Kochi Corporation who is accused of corruption.

Affidavit Of Cost Accountant In Personal Hearing Cannot Be Ignored When Facts Are Admitted By State Tax Officer: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Ridha Polymers v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 757

The Kerala High Court has held that an affidavit by professionals, such as a cost accountant, given during a personal hearing, cannot be ignored, especially when a state tax officer admits facts referred therein.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that when a professional swears an affidavit before this Court, highlighting the matters that transpired during the course of the hearing, the same cannot be simply ignored, particularly in a situation where, to some extent, there is an admission forthcoming from the part of the State Tax Officer with regard to the matters referred to in the said affidavit. Therefore, the assessee can be granted one more opportunity to be heard.

KVAT Act | Permission For Compounding Tax Cannot Be Cancelled For Suppression; Only Suppressed Turnover Can Be Taxed: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 758

The Kerala High Court has held that under the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003), the assessing authority cannot cancel permission to pay tax at compounding rates for suppression in the same year it was opted, and only the suppressed turnover can be taxed at normal rates.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim opined that cancellation proceedings are still pending, and the cancellation is not carried out, and the assessment is not concluded on a best judgment assessment basis. In such a case, Section 25AA(5) is applicable, and the option of compounding shall not be cancelled, and the suppressed turnover alone shall be assessed at the scheduled rate applicable to the goods. In view of Section 25AA(5), the Notices proposing to cancel the permission to pay at a compounded rate are clearly unsustainable.

Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Two Foreigners Caught On Indian Waters Aboard Srilankan Boat With Heroine, Bulk Arms

Case Title: Ly Nandana and Anr. v. Union of India & Suresh Raj @ Suresh v. NIA and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 759

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 19) dismissed the bail pleas of two Srilankan nationals, who were caught by the Indian Coast Guard in 2021 near Lakshadweep aboard the Srilankan fishing vessel 'Ravi Hansi' carrying 300 kg of heroine, and rifles with 1000 rounds of Pakistani ammunition. It also denied bail to the Indian citizen, who is accused of being involved in the transnational smuggling.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmdhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed that since the materials collected by the investigating agency constitute a prima facie case against the accused person and the trial is set to begin in February next year, there are no grounds to grant bail to the accused.

'Over-Crowding In Guruvayur Temple Is A Civic Challenge': Kerala High Court Orders Formation Of Multi-Departmental Committee

Case Title: P.N. Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 760

The Kerala High Court yesterday (November 21) passed a detailed judgment outlining comprehensive guidelines for managing the high number of pilgrims that visit the Sreekrishna Temple, Guruvayur every day.

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Raja Raghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar also ordered the formation of a permanent, 7-member multi-departmental Committee including the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, District Medical Officer, Devaswom Managing Committee member, Secretary of Guruvayur Municipality, Pollution Control Board Environmental Engineer, and Suchitwa Mission Co-ordinator.

Highway Authority Can't Re-Evaluate Site Suitability After Granting Provisional Permission For Petrol Pump: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prasad K. and Anr. v. Land Revenue Commissioner and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 761

The Kerala High Court has held that the Highway Administration cannot reconsider compliance with Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) at the stage of final access permission, when a valid Provisional Permission for establishment of Petroleum Retail Outlet has been issued earlier under Section 28 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed:

“It is not legally permissible for the Highway authorities to check the suitability of the site and access after issuance of the Provisional Permission again at the time of processing the Application for Final Permission.”

Kerala High Court Quashes Three Rape FIRs Lodged Against Youth Citing Consensual Relations, Settlement Between Parties

Case Title: Al. Anwarsha v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 762

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against a young man that was based on three rape FIRs filed by the same prosecutrix in three different districts.

Examining the facts and the records available, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed that the complainant went to the house of the petitioner on her own volition and that they entered into sexual relationship with consent.

Maintenance | Loan EMIs, Insurance Premiums, Savings Can't Be Deducted While Calculating Husband's Income: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sumesh A. v. Babija Balakrishnan M.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 763

The Kerala High Court has held that payments towards loan, insurance premiums, and other savings contributions cannot be reduced for calculating the net income of the husband for the purpose of quantifying the maintenance to be paid to the wife or children.

Justice A. Badharudeen, observed:

“In fact, the above payments are to be reckoned as personal savings and those items shall not be reduced from the actual income to quantify the amount of maintenance.”

'Banks May Impose Immediate Debit Freeze On Suspicious Accounts': Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines, Asks RBI To Frame SOP

Case Title: Abdul Azeez v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 764

Kerala High Court has issued a detailed set of guidelines authorising banks to temporarily freeze suspicious customer accounts, even without prior notice, while simultaneously directing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to frame a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Banks to deal with suspicious accounts.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim delivered judgment while disposing of two writ petitions filed by account holders of South Indian Bank whose accounts had been frozen on the grounds of unusual transactions not matching their declared income profiles. Both petitioners claimed legitimate business activity and challenged the bank's action as arbitrary.

Assessee Missed Hearing Due To Faulty VC Link & Hearing Email Sent At 3AM: Kerala High Court Quashes CIT(A) Order

Case Title: Anish Thomas v. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 765

The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding that the assessee missed the hearing due to the non-functional video-conference link (VC link) and because the hearing link was emailed at an odd hour, i.e., at 3:13 a.m. CDT (Central Daylight Time) while he was in the U.S.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the assessee could not utilise the opportunities for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the assessee can be granted another opportunity for a hearing.

Kerala High Court Expunges Special Court's Derogatory Remarks Against CM Pinarayi In Disproportionate Assets Case Against ADGP

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 766

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 21) allowed the State's plea to expunge derogatory remarks made against government authorities and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan by a Special Court.

The Special Court had said there is every probability of "executive intrusion" that led to favourable report against ADGP M.R. Ajith Kumar in a disproportionate assets case.

Justice A. Badharudeen set aside the impugned observations.

Kerala High Court Quashes Special Judge's Order To Proceed Against ADGP Ajithkumar In DA Case, Relegates It To Pre-Cognizance Stage

Case Title: M.R. Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 766

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 21) set aside the order of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram that had decided to proceed against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) M.R. Ajith Kumar in an alleged disproportionate assets case.

Partially allowing Ajithkumar's plea, Justice A. Badharudeen refused to quash the private complaint preferred by Nagaraj and relegated the complaint to pre-cognizance stage. This means the Special Judge can proceed further on the complaint after getting sanction.

Kerala High Court Directs FSSAI To Consider Representation On Microplastic Contamination In Bottled Drinking Water

Case Title: C.R. Neelakandan v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 767

The Kerala High Court on Friday (21 November) directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to examine a representation alleging microplastic contamination in packaged drinking water.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. thus disposed of a PIL seeking judicial intervention on the issue.

Street Vendors Act Not Applicable In Panchayat Areas, No Protection Orders Can Be Passed: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Musthafa K v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 768

The Kerala High Court has held that Panchayat does not come under the definition of 'Local Authority' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., delivered the judgment in a petition filed by a street vendor seeking issuance of a certificate of vending in Thamarassery Grama Panchayat.

SEC Restores Congress Candidate's Name In Voters List, Kerala High Court Closes Her Plea

Case Title: Vyshna S.L. v. State Election Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 769

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (November 20) closed the plea preferred by 24-year-old Vyshna, the Youth Congress candidate of Muttada Division of Trivandrum Corporation, regarding deletion of her name from the voters list.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was informed that the State Election Commission (SEC) had passed dated 19.11.2025 by which it had set aside the decision and notice issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, regarding deletion of her name.

Forklifts And Crane Used Inside Factory Are “Motor Vehicles”, Must Be Registered Under MV Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Natural Wood & Veneers Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 770

The Kerala High Court has held that forklifts and cranes used exclusively within private factory premises still qualify as “motor vehicles” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore require mandatory registration and payment of motor vehicle tax.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. delivered the judgment while dismissing a challenge to a direction issued by the Motor Vehicles Department prohibiting the petitioner-company from operating two forklifts and a hydraulic crane without registration and insurance.

Mines Act | Loading Mineral Initiates “Transportation”, Actual Movement Of Vehicle Not Necessary To Effect Seizure: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pranav Mohanan v. The District Geologist and Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 771

The Kerala High Court has held that actual movement of a vehicle is not necessary to constitute “transport” of minerals under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The Court ruled that the very act of loading minerals into a vehicle marks the commencement of transportation, thereby attracting the provision permitting seizure.

Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment while dismissing the petition filed by a goods-carriage owner whose vehicle had been seized by the District Geologist for alleged illegal transport of granite.

Seizure And Prosecution Will Be Initiated Against Sabarimala Stalls Violating Legal Metrology Act: Kerala High Court Told

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 772

The Kerala High Court was on Monday (November 24) informed that directions have been issued to carry out seizure, search and prosecution against stalls in Sabarimala that are found to be violating provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu matter initiated on the basis of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner's report.

S.144 BNSS | Wife Not Disentitled To Claim Maintenance From Husband If Income From Her Temporary Job Insufficient: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rajeevan M. v. Rantin P. and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 773

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a wife would not be disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC/ Section 144 BNSS even if she has a temporary job providing her some income, if she asserts that such income is insufficient.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering petitions filed by a wife against her husband challenging the quantum of maintenance ordered to her two children and the rejection of her claim by the Family Court. The husband had also challenged the quantum awarded to the children.

Not Producing Accused Before Magistrate Within 24 Hrs Renders Arrest Illegal; Rearrest From Prison Premises Impermissible: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Nashif U. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 774

The Kerala High Court recently exercised its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to set aside a remand order and to grant bail to an NDPS accused.

Justice C.S. Dias observed that since the accused was not brought before the jurisdictional magistrate within the 24-hour period mandated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution, his arrest stood vitiated and he ought to have been granted bail.

'Forgery Need Not Cause Monetary Loss': Kerala HC Upholds Conviction For Fake University Certificates, Cites Harm To Academic Integrity

Case Title: Mohammed Abbas v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 775

The Kerala High Court has held that forgery under Section 465 IPC can be established even in the absence of pecuniary loss, so long as the act causes non-pecuniary injury analogous to harm to body, mind, or reputation.

Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the judgment while upholding the conviction of a man found in possession of forged university certificates.

Christian Man's Parents, Siblings Need Not Be Arrayed In Motor Accidents Claim Petition If He Left Behind Widow, Children: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Devaki and Ors. v. The Managing Director, KSRTC and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 776

The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that the non-lineal kindred of an intestate Christian male need not be arrayed as respondents in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if he has left a widow and his children.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that when the deceased in a motor accident is a Christian male, then his legal representatives, as defined under Rule 2(k) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, can be determined as per the Indian Succession Act.

'Prima Facie Money Laundering Made Out': Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Businessman Accused In Cashew Import Scam

Case Title: Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 777

The Kerala High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of businessman/cashew dealer Aneesh Babu, who is accused of money laundering and cheating a total of around ₹25 crores from multiple persons promising to deliver them imported cashews.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the bail plea observing that a prima facie case of money laundering has been made out against Babu. The Court felt that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case since the amount involved is huge and there is possibility of witnesses being influenced.

Buyer–Seller Credit Dealings Not “Mutual, Open & Current Account” Under Article 1 Of Limitation Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jimmy Ellias v The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 778

The Kerala High Court has held that a buyer–seller account involving credit sales does not constitute a “mutual, open and current account” under Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963, unless reciprocal and independent obligations exist on both sides.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in regular first appeals arising from a money decree obtained by Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO) against its dealer, Pattasseril Cement Marketing.

'Hospitals Must Display Rates, Mustn't Deny Emergency Care For Not Paying Advance' : Kerala High Court Upholds Clinical Establishments Act

Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 779

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 26) dismissed the appeals preferred by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Kerala Private Hospitals Association against a Single Bench's order upholding the provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishment Act and Rules.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. upheld the law, which was implemented in a phased manner from 2019, and dismissed the challenges to it being vague, arbitrary, impractical and disproportionate.

Muslim Man Can't Avoid Maintenance To First Wife Citing Duty To Maintain Second Wife: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vappinu v Fathima and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 780

The Kerala High Court has observed that a Muslim husband who has contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage cannot contend that he has no means to maintain his first wife.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, was delivering the judgment in the revision petitions filed by the husband challenging a Family Court order which granted maintenance to the first wife and dismissed the petition for maintenance against the son.

Right To Maintenance Under Muslim Women Protection Act Not Defeated By Wife's Remarriage During Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kannada Anwar Salih v. Safeekhath and Anr. and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 781

The Kerala High Court has held that the prolonged pendency of a petition filed under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 cannot deprive a woman of the benefits that accrued to her on the date of divorce, even if she remarried during the proceedings.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment while dismissing a revision petition and an original petition filed by the former husband, challenging orders directing him to pay maintenance and fair provision to his divorced wife and their minor daughter.

Renjith Johnson Murder: Kerala High Court Confirms Life Term Of 5, Acquits 2; Says TIP Not Needed If Witness Sufficiently Saw Accused

Case Title: Manoj@ Pambu Manoj v State of Kerala and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 782

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (27 November) upheld the conviction of five accused in the 2018 abduction and murder of Renjith Johnson, after observing that the failure to hold a test identification parade would not make testimony of Johnson's mother inadmissible who was stated to have seen the accused.

The court thus said that prior TIP is not needed when the witness has had sufficient and ample opportunity to see the accused. The court however acquitted two accused due to insufficient evidence against them.

The division bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the judgment.

Single Partner In A Firm Cannot Invoke Arbitration Without Explicit Authority From Other Partners: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S P K Chandrasekharan Nair & Co. v M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 783

The Kerala High Court has held that one partner of a partnership firm cannot, without explicit authorisation from the other partners, invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice S. Manu, delivered the judgment in an arbitration request.

Kerala High Court Recalls Witnesses Cross-Examined By Accused Himself After Lawyer Quit, Cites Violation Of Right To Fair Trial

Case Title: Down Victor v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 784

The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, allowed a prayer for the recall of two prosecution witnesses, who were cross-examined by the accused himself without a counsel present.

Justice V.G. Arun opined that the trial court ought to have made the accused aware of his right to be defended by a State-appointed lawyer when his former lawyer relinquished vakalath.

Income Tax Act | SBI Not 'Assessee In Default' U/S 201 For Not Deducting TDS While Obeying Court's Interim Order: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State Bank Of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 785

The Kerala High Court has held that the State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments, as it was bound by an interim order which prohibited such deduction.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the SBI, having been restrained by an interim order of the High Court from deducting TDS, could be held to be an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments.

Applications Filed Under Muslim Women's Divorce Act Subject To 3-Year Limitation Period: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Safia P M v State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 786

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to applications filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

The division bench comprising Dr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, delivered the order in an Intra-Court Reference initiated after a Single Judge questioned the correctness of the earlier precedent in Hassainar v. Raziya (1993 (2) KLT 805), which had held that a three-year limitation period governs claims for fair and reasonable provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the 1986 Act.

Rescheduling Payment Under OTS Amounts To Rewriting Contract, High Court Can't Do It In Writ Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: South Indian Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Rahim H K and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 787

The Kerala High Court has held that the High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reschedule payments to be made by a borrower under One Time Settlement (OTS).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. thus sett aside a Single Judge order that had granted borrowers the facility to clear loan arrears in instalments and restrained coercive recovery under the SARFAESI Act.

Further Probe Under S.173(8) CrPC Permissible Only By Agency Which Conducted Original Investigation: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anish Anand v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 788

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that further investigation under Section 173 (8) CrPC must be conducted by the same agency that has conducted the original investigation and not a different agency.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by the accused in pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta.

Invoking Bank Guarantee For Interim Release Of Vehicle Seized For Alleged Sand Transport 'Unjustifiable': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shijo Mon Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 789

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a condition, which required furnishing of bank guarantee to get interim custody of a vehicle that was alleged to be caught transporting river sand from forest, is onerous.

Justice C.S. Dias observed that the Apex Court decision in Shihab etc. and another v. State of Kerala and another [2016 (4) KHC 183] holds the field when it comes to similar cases.

Kerala High Court Upholds Requirement Of Clinical Clerkship For Foreign Medical Grads Who Faced Break In Course During COVID

Case Title: Kerala State Medical Councils v Daleel Ahmmed and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 790

The Kerala High Court on Monday (1 December) upheld the requirement of clinical clerkship for Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs) who faced a break in the course during the pandemic and joined the college and did a compensatory course.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held that the FMGs, who had completed medical courses in China during the COVID-19 pandemic, had not “sufficiently compensated” the period of online study as required by the National Medical Commission (NMC).

Revisional Power U/S 263 Income Tax Act Cannot Be Upheld By Tribunal On Grounds Not Taken By Commissioner: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 791

The Kerala High Court has held that a tribunal cannot travel beyond the grounds not cited by the commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 Income Tax Act.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that only one reason was highlighted by the Commissioner for exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal having found the said reason as not a valid one, the Tribunal should have stopped there rather than making further observations as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the extension of the benefits under Section 11 of the Act through the assessment order.

Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient Proof Of Adultery To Defeat Wife's Maintenance Claim: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 792

The Kerala High Court has recently held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the factum of 'living in adultery' to defeat the claim for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, was delivering a judgment in a revision petition filed against the Family Court decision which had granted maintenance to a woman despite evidence produced by the husband alleging that she was “living in adultery.”

Kerala High Court Applies Henderson Principle, Says Withholding Claims To Re-Litigate Later Is Abuse Of Process

Case Title: M/S Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 793

The Kerala High Court has recently observed that when a party deliberately withholds certain claims or issues in one proceedings with the intention to raise them in a subsequent litigation disguised as a distinct or separate remedy or proceeding from the initial one, such subsequent litigation will fall under the 'Henderson Principle'.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an appeal preferred by M/s M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against SARFAESI proceedings initiated by Dhanlaxmi Bank.

Lack Of Independent Witnesses Does Not Dilute Cruelty Allegations In S.498A IPC Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Tomon v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 794

The Kerala High Court has held that the absence of independent witnesses in cases arising under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot, by itself, weaken the prosecution's case. The Court stressed that evidence from close relatives is not to be discarded merely because of their relationship with the victim.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha, was delivering the judgment in a criminal revision petition filed by the husband challenging the conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Former Devaswom Board Officials

Case Title: S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Anr. and S. Jayasree v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 795

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (December 4) denied pre-arrest bail to S. Sreekumar, the former Administrative Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who is arraigned as the 6th accused in the high-profile Sabarimala gold theft case.

The Court also rejected the anticipatory bail plea of TDB's former Secretary, S. Jayasree, who stands arrayed as the 4th accused.

Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order today, dismissing the bail pleas.

Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Quashes Magistrate Order Denying FIR Copy To ED; Says Fresh Application Must Show Proceeds Of Crime

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 796

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (December 03) set aside the Ranni Magistrate court's order denying the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) access to the First Information Report and First Information Statement before the Crime Branch in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that in the ED's application before the Magistrate, there was no mention regarding "proceeds of crime", which was necessary to invoke jurisdiction under PMLA. Thus, the Court felt it appropriate that a fresh application be made.

Ayurvedic Treatment Centre Classified As 'Hospital', Not 'Hotel', Luxury Tax Cannot Be Imposed: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 797

The Kerala High Court has held that an Ayurvedic Treatment centre is to be classified as a 'hospital' and not 'hotel', and therefore, luxury tax cannot be imposed.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the Ayurvedic Treatment Centre admits patients undergoing prescribed Ayurvedic treatment for a minimum duration, without offering hotel amenities, it qualifies as a hospital and luxury tax is not liable under the Luxury Tax Act.

Kerala High Court Directs Devaswom Board Not To Engage Security In 'Bouncer' Attire Inside Temple Precincts

Case Title: N. Prakash v. The Cochin Devaswom Board

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 798

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (03 November) directed the Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB) to refrain from engaging personnel wearing inappropriate attire, including T-shirts bearing the word “bouncer,” for security during temple festivals or within the temple precincts.

The division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, delivered the judgment while disposing of a petition challenging the engagement of security personnel, wearing T-shirt with the word “bouncer”, to control devotees in the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thrippunithura, during the Temple Festival.

SVLDRS Benefits Cannot Be Denied If Payment Falls Within SC's COVID-19 Extended Limitation Period: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.P. Paul v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 799

The Kerala High Court held that payments made under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) are valid if they fall within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. found that SVLDRS proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and hence covered under Supreme Court's suo moto extension orders.

Kerala High Court Directs KeLSA To Pay ₹5 Lakh Interim Compensation To Acid Attack Survivor For Treatment Expenses

Case Title: XXX v. District Legal Services Authority of Kottayam and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 800

The Kerala High Court recently directed the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) to disburse an amount of ₹5 lakhs as interim compensation to a victim of an acid attack to meet her urgent requirement for treatment.

The plea before Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was preferred by an acid attack victim, who was attacked by two persons in 2016 when she was getting down in front of her house from a car. She had suffered serious burn injuries on her face and lost sight of her left eye.

No 'Perversity': Kerala High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Dissolving 'Zephyr' Coaching Institute

Case Title: Shiju R v. Sunil Kumar V.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 801

The Kerala High Court on 28^th November, 2025 dismissed an appeal sought to challenge an arbitral award that dissolved a coaching partnership firm, ruling that courts can neither re-examine expert valuations nor can the parties introduce fresh evidence at the appellate stage under section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that “no case whatsoever under Section 34” was established to set aside the award passed in 2014 and affirmed by the District Court in 2016. Emphasising the limited scope of judicial interference, the Bench reiterated that the appellate power under Section 37 is “akin to that of superintendence”, confined merely to examining whether the court acted within its statutory limits.

Kerala Building Tax Act | Increased Plinth Area Due To Additional Construction Justifies Building Tax Reassessment: High Court

Case Title: P.T. Vincent v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 802

The Kerala High Court held that once the plinth area of a building increases due to additional construction, a fresh building tax assessment must be carried out under the Kerala Building Tax Act.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., after examining the documents produced by the assessee, stated that the assessee had carried out additional constructions after the initial construction, which was subjected to assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act.

Lower Conversion Factor Applicable For Timber Imports Before 11.5.2012: Kerala High Court Allows Refund Of Additional Customs Duty

Case Title: M/S National Timbers v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 803

The Kerala High Court has held that a lower conversion factor is applicable for timber imports made before 11.05.2012.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined the issue regarding the refund of additional customs duty paid for the import of timber from Myanmar and other foreign countries.

Availability Of Bail Cancellation Doesn't Bar Preventive Detention Under PIT-NDPS Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Raju K.K. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 804

The Kerala High Court has held that there is no illegality in passing a detention order under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), even when the remedy of bail cancellation is available against the detenu.

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian were delivering a judgment in a writ petition filed against the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act.

Classification Of Goods Is Factual Issue, Not For Writ Court To Decide: Kerala High Court Upholds Seizure & Provisional Release Conditions

Case Title: Shimwas Hussain v. The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 805

The Kerala High Court has held that the classification of 'Nata de Coco' is a factual matter that must be decided by the adjudicating authority through statutory proceedings and not by the writ court.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that since it is a statutory proceeding contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, which should be followed from the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act, the question as to be sustainability of the classification cannot be considered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This is because the adjudication of the dispute involved, being a factual aspect, it has to be examined by the competent authorities, and this Court cannot conduct a parallel enquiry in connection with the same.

Income From Public Religious/Charitable Trusts Not Eligible For Exemption U/S 10(23BBA) Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 806

The Kerala High Court has held that income derived from public religious/charitable trusts is not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that income derived from properties belonging to the deity or temple does not become the income of the administrative body merely because the body manages the institution. The administrative body must independently establish that the income claimed is its own statutory income in order to attract the exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.

Interest On Delayed Agricultural Income Tax Not Deductible U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aspinwall and Company Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 807

The Kerala High Court has held that interest on delayed agricultural income tax is not deductible under Section 37 Income Tax Act.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the interest paid on account of the delayed payment of Agricultural Income Tax is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Income Tax Appeal Cannot Be Rejected Solely For Assessee's Non-Appearance Before CIT(A): Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thekkee Cherupillil Sarada v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 808

The Kerala High Court has held that an Income Tax Appeal cannot be rejected solely for the assessee's non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that none of the provisions in Section 250 of the Income Tax Act permit the appellate authority to reject the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the assessee/appellant, without going into the merits of the case.

Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection To 'Bokashi Bucket' Mark, Bars Sale Of Identical Compost Bins

Case Title: Rajeev K.P. v. Unais K.K.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 809

The Kerala High Court has put a temporary restraint on a Kozhikode-based business from making or selling compost bins using the name “Bokashi Bucket,” after finding that the term is a registered trademark owned by Global Pharmaceuticals.

A single bench of Justice S. Manu passed the order on November 18, 2025, overturning an Additional District Court order refusing to grant protection to the company.

CGST | Dept Must First Proceed Against Supplier Before Issuing Show Cause To Recipient For ITC Mismatch: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 810

The Kerala High Court has held that the department cannot proceed against a recipient for ITC mismatch without first initiating proceedings against the supplier.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that no proceedings had been initiated against the suppliers before the issuance of notice under Section 73 of the CSGT Act. This amounts to the failure on the part of the department in following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 42.

'Polling Day Should Be A Day Of Peace, Not War': Kerala High Court Directs Robust Security Measures Ahead Of Local Body Elections

Case Title: V.R. Sudheer v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 811

The Kerala High Court recently issued detailed directions to the police and the State Election Commission (SEC) for the peaceful conduct of elections in the wake of upcoming general elections to the local bodies.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a batch of writ petitions filed apprehending law and order problems and, therefore, seeking deployment of additional police force, web casting/videography in the respective polling booths.

CCI Can Probe Anti-Competitive Practices In TRAI-Regulated Markets: Kerala High Court In JioStar's Appeal

Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited (Formerly known as Star India Pvt Ltd) v. Competition Commission of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 812

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has full authority to investigate allegations of discriminatory pricing and abuse of dominance in the broadcasting market even though the sector is regulated by TRAI.

A bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M. said the Competition Act is an independent enactment that operates in parallel with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

Kerala High Court Asks Inspector General Of Police To Consider Film Producer's Complaint Alleging Improper Behaviour By DySP

Case Title: Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 813

The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 5) directed the Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam range to consider the representation made by film producer Sheela Kurian seeking action against Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhu Babu, alleging improper behaviour by him when she visited his office in connection with a criminal complaint.

When the matter came up for consideration before Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, Sheela's counsel submitted that though representations were made before several authorities to action with respect to the incident that occurred around 10 months ago, nothing has yet been taken.

Receiving Welfare Fund Benefits Not A Bar To Statutory Gratuity: Kerala High Court Upholds Abkari Workers' Right Against BEVCO

Case Title: Manoharan D. and Ors. v. and Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation and Ors. connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 814

The Kerala High Court has held that retired abkari workers of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (KSBC) who were already paid terminal benefits under the State Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act, are entitled to receive gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a statutory right.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. allowed a batch of writ appeals filed by the abkari workers challenging the decision of the Single bench.

Kerala High Court Orders Criminal Courts To Obtain Accused's Endorsement Confirming Supply Of Materials Before Trial Begins

Case Title: Mohan Abraham v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 815

The Kerala High Court has recently directed all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary to obtain an endorsement in the proceedings sheet of the case from the accused or his counsel on the Compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice in Kerala, 1982, (CRP) before scheduling the case for examination of witnesses.

Justice A Badharudeen, delivered the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case seeking compliance of Rule 19(4) of CRP.

Kerala High Court Upholds Over ₹15 Lakh Motor Vehicle Tax Demand On Puducherry-Registered Car Found Used In Kerala

Case Title: M/s T P Trading Company v. The Transport Commissioner (Kerala State)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 816

The Kerala High Court upheld the motor vehicle tax demand on a car registered in Puducherry after finding no evidence that it was actually used there.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon noted that the NIL returns do not reflect any business being carried out by the assessee from Puducherry.

The bench opined that the onus shifts to the assessee to show that the vehicle was not being used in Kerala to attract tax.

S.11 Arbitration Plea Not Maintainable Without Valid S.21 Notice; Email Suggesting Arbitrator Appointment Insufficient: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajid Pasha And Ors. v. S. Abdunnasir. P And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 817

The Kerala High Court dismissed an arbitration request filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the applicants failed to send a valid notice under section 21 which is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction of the court for appointment of an arbitrator.

Justice S. Manu held that email relied upon by the applicants merely asking the respondents to suggest an arbitrator did not mention any specific dispute, any arbitration clause or even which partnership deed was being invoked.

Municipality Must Accept Only Tax Component, Penal Charges Not Required For Filing Appeal Under Municipal Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: James Varghese v. Pala Municipality

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 818

The Kerala High Court held that under Section 509(11) of the Municipality Act, only the tax component shown in the demand notice is required to be paid for filing an appeal. The bench clarified that the Municipality cannot insist on payment of penal interest or any other additional charges for entertaining the appeal.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that the obligation of the assessee while submitting an appeal is only to make the payment of the tax component in the demand and nothing more. As far as the penal interest and other charges are concerned, the same can be enforced by invoking the appropriate proceedings, subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal.

Co-operative Societies Rules | Managing Committee Can't Oust Co-Opted Member At Pleasure; Must Invoke No-Confidence Procedure: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Indira Gandhi Co-Operative Hospital and Ors and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 819

The Kerala High Court has recently held that co-opted members of a managing committee cannot be removed at the “pleasure” of the elected board. The Court held that the only lawful method of removing any member of a managing committee, elected or co-opted, is the statutory process under Rule 43-A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules.

Justice K. Babu delivered a common judgment disposing of two connected writ petitions concerning the removal of a co-opted 'Professional Director' from the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital Society.

Review Petition Can't Be Entertained Against Order Refusing To Appoint Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Koshy Phillip v Thomas P Mathew and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 820

The Kerala High Court held that review petitions challenging orders passed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) are not maintainable, reiterating that the arbitration act is a self contained code and does not permit substantive review unless expressly provided.

Justice S. Manu dismissed a review petition filed against an order passed by the court refusing to appoint the arbitrator, holding that the High Court becomes functus-officio after deciding the petition under section 11 and cannot revisit the merits of such orders through review.

Kerala High Court Rejects Appeals By Centre, Catholic Congress Against 'Haal' Movie

Case Title: Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas and Ors. & Union of India and Ors. v. Juby Thomas and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 821

The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 12) dismissed appeals filed by the Union Government and the Catholic Congress challenging the Single Bench's decision quashing the A-certification and cuts to the movie 'Haal'.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Arvind Sushrut Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the verdict.

'Statutory Right Of Appeal Can't Be Curtailed On Technicalities': Kerala High Court Directs Registry To Accept Appeals U/S 5C Cinematograph Act

Case Titles: Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas and Ors. & Union of India and Ors. v. Juby Thomas and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 821

The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 12) directed its Registry to accept and entertain appeals under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act as a miscellaneous first appeal with the nomenclature MFA (Cinematograph Act).

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Arvind Sushrut Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan made the suggestion while dismissing the writ appeals challenging the movie 'Haal'.

'Arrest Illegal If Grounds Not Conveyed To Arrestee As Soon As Possible': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vishnu N P v State of Kerala and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 822

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to be released in Bail.

Justice K. Babu made the observation while delivering a common order in four bail applications.

“If the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If a person is not informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to violation of fundamental right rendering the arrest illegal.” Court noted

Employers Must Deposit Gratuity & Interest Before Filing Appeal U/S 7(7) Of Payment Of Gratuity Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Managing Director, KSFE v Mathew P Babu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 823

The Kerala High Court has held that employers challenging gratuity awards under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must deposit both the gratuity and the accrued interest as a condition precedent for admission of an appeal.

Justice K Babu was delivering a judgment in a writ petition filed by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE).

Authorities Bound To Effect Transfer Of Registry, Change 'Patta' Based On Decree Of Competent Civil Courts: Kerala High Court

Case Title: B.K.N. Pillai @ B.K. Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 824

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the authorities are bound to effect transfer of registry based on the decrees of competent courts and that title deeds can be revised from time to time based on judicial decisions.

Justice Viju Abraham was considering a plea filed seeking a direction to the District Collector to issue the title deed of 'pokkuvaravu patta' in the name of the petitioner and to allow him to pay land tax for a property.

S.125 CrPC | Valid Re-Marriage With Ex-Husband Presumed Only If Dissolution Of Muslim Woman's Intervening Marriage Proved: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.P. Abdurahiman v. C. Safiya

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 825

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a presumption under Section 125 CrPC of a valid re-marriage between a Muslim man and his ex-wife can arise only if her subsequent marriage, its consummation and dissolution are proved even though they have been co-habiting for long.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering a revision preferred by a Muslim man challenging the Family Court's award of maintenance to his first wife, who claimed that he remarried her subsequent to the dissolution of her second marriage with another man.

Private Banks Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Sets Aside ₹50K Cost Imposed On South Indian Bank

Case Title: The Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank and Anr. v. Sheela Francis Parakkal and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 826

The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Single Bench's order that imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on South Indian Bank, a private commercial bank, which had not returned the original title deeds of its customers 9 years after the closure of their joint loan account.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Arvind Sushrut Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the writ petition was not maintainable since the private bank was not amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Bank Not 'Assessee In Default' For Not Deducting TDS On Interest After Accepting Form 15H From Senior Citizens: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The South Indian Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 827

The Kerala High Court held that once a bank accepts valid Form 15H declarations from senior citizen depositors under Section 197A(1C) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for non-deductions of TDS (deduct tax at source) on interest income.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the bank (appellant) has to be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct TDS on interest income paid to senior citizens who have furnished declarations in Form 15H.

Income Tax Act | Upkeep & Maintenance Expenses For Rubber Replantation Are Revenue Expenditure, Deductible U/S 37: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. State Of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 828

The Kerala High Court held that expenditure incurred on the upkeep and maintenance of rubber trees, including expenses relating to replantation and replacement, is revenue in nature and therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon were examining the issue regarding the entitlement of the assessee for deduction of the expenditure incurred by it for replantation/ replacement of rubber trees as well as their upkeep with reference to the provisions of the AIT Act, read with the provisions of Rule 7A of the Income Tax Rules,1962.

CGST Act | Once Returns Are Filed Within Time Period U/S 16(5), Limitation U/S 16(4) Loses Significance: Kerala High Court Allows ITC Claim

Case Title: Pazhassi Motors v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 829

The Kerala High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017), being a non-obstante provision, overrides the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) once returns are filed within the cut-off date specified therein.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that ……..Section 16(5) starts with the wording “notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection 4.” This would indicate that, once the taxpayer submits the return within the period stipulated in Section 16(5), the time limit contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST loses its significance.

Reviewing Court Must Defer To Scientific Wisdom Of Authorities, Ensure Only Procedural Compliance In Environmental Matters: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshna Samithi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 830

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (16 December) observed that the role of the reviewing court must be limited to ensuring the procedural compliance by the statutory authority while considering environmental litigation which involves compliance by statutory authority.

The court made the observation while upholding the environmental clearance granted to the proposed Anakkampoyil–Kalladi–Meppadi twin-tube tunnel road project in Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of the State.

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, were delivering the judgment in a public interest litigation challenging the environmental clearance, granted by the Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala for construction of Twin Tube Unidirectional Tunnel Road.

Kerala High Court Declines To Advance Bar Council Enrolment Dates, Allows Graduates To Seek Protection Of Seniority

Case Title: Ashika Beegam S. and Ors v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 831

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 16) disposed of a batch of pleas preferred by law graduates seeking to prepone enrolment to the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK), which is presently scheduled to be held on January 10-11, 2026.

Justice V.G. Arun observed that since there is no statutory requirement that the Bar Council must conduct enrolment within stipulated periods, the prayer to prepone the enrolment cannot be allowed.

Kerala HC Entertains Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Taking Non-Acceptance Of Vakalath By Any Lawyer Before Sessions Court As Exceptional Circumstance

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 832

The Kerala High Court recently entertained an anticipatory bail plea preferred by a lawyer, who had not first approached the Sessions Court, since no lawyer practicing therein was willing to accept his vakalath.

Justice K. Babu was considering a pre-arrest bail application of a lawyer practicing in Palakkad.

Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Ex-Devaswom Board Officials

Case Title: K.S Baiju v. State of Kerala and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 833

The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 19) dismissed the bail applications preferred by former Travancore Devaswom Board officials Murari Babu, N. Vasu, and K.S. Baiju who are arrayed in the cases relating to misappropriation of gold from Sabarimala temple.

Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order.

Civil Court Cannot Grant Injunctions In NCLT Matters, High Court Can Set Them Aside: Kerala High Court

Case Title: T. Beena v. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 834

The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits in matters that fall within the exclusive domain of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The court held that injunctions granted in violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are "patently illegal" and liable to be struck down.

The ruling was delivered by a single bench of Justice K. Natarajan in an order dated December 12, 2025, while dismissing a review petition filed by T. Beena, a claimant against Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd, a company under liquidation.

Kerala High Court Revives Two KELTRON Subsidiaries After Two Decades, Recalls Winding Up Orders

Case Title: Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited v. Keltron Power Devices Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 835

The Kerala High Court has recalled its winding up orders against two subsidiaries of Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd (KELTRON), allowing the revival of Keltron Power Devices Ltd (KPDL) and Keltron Rectifiers Ltd (KRL). The court noted that there was no legal or procedural bar to reopening the companies in view of changed circumstances and fresh government approval.

A bench of Justice Viju Abraham passed the order on December 11, 2025, while allowing applications filed by KELTRON seeking recall of the winding up orders, discharge of the official liquidator and approval of a revival plan for the two companies.

Kerala High Court Flags Crippling Lack Of Funds & Staff In State Ground Water Authority, Directs Chief Secretary To Fix Deficiencies

Case Title: Shanavas S.N. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 836

The Kerala High Court  has recently (11 December) underscored that the State has a mandatory statutory obligation to ensure that the Kerala Ground Water Authority (KGWA) functions as an effective and independent regulator, and that failure to provide it with funds, staff and infrastructure defeats the very purpose of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. made the observation while disposing of a PIL filed highlighting various issues regarding ground water in Kerala, such as contamination, unsustainable drawal, and the unregulated collection by tankers from unauthorised and unregulated collection by tankers from unauthorised and substandard water-vending points causing serious health hazards.

Elappully Brewery Case: Kerala High Court Quashes Govt Order Granting Preliminary Sanction To Private Company To Set Up Ethanol Plant

Case Title: Assembly Of Christian Trust Servies v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 837

The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 19) quashed the government order that gave preliminary sanction to M/s Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. to set up a brewery plant in Palakkad's Elappully grama panchayat.

The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar today allowed a batch of public interest litigations filed by the residents of Elappully.

NDPS Act | Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Tanzanian Nationals, Cites Lack Of Materials Connected To Offence Except Financial Transaction

Case Title: Davi Ntemi Kilekamajenga and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838

The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to two Tanzania nationals, who are accused under the NDPS Act after noting that they have no criminal antecedents and that the only material produced by prosecution in the Final Report to connect them with the offence was financial transaction.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the rigour under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act were diluted in the said circumstances. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused, and that they have already undergone 270 days in custody were also factors considered by the Court.

Sabarimala Greenfield Airport: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Land Acquisition Steps For Non-Compliance With 2013 Act Safeguards

Case Title: Ayana Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 839

The Kerala High Court recently set aside the government's preliminary notification and other steps taken for acquiring 2570 acres of the land for the Sabarimala Greenfield Project.

Justice C. Jayachandran allowed the writ petition preferred by the Ayana Charitable Trust and its Managing Trustee challenging the notification as well as the Social Impact Assessment report, Expert Group Appraisal report and the other government orders to acquire their land and that belonging to other persons.

Customs Act | Penalty Cannot Be Sustained Solely On S. 108 Statements Without Compliance Of S. 138B: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 840

The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108 in evidence. When the safeguards under Section 138B have not been complied with, no question of proceeding under the provisions of the statute arises.

Levy Of Service Tax On 'Access To Amusement Facilities' Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 841

The Kerala High Court held that the levy of service tax on 'access to amusement facilities' is unconstitutional, as the entire activity squarely falls within the State's taxing power under Entry 62 of List II (entertainments and amusements) of the Constitution of India.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act also seek to impose tax on the entire consideration received by the assessee from their clients/customers. The question of the Union imposing tax on the very same transaction in such a scenario would be unconstitutional.

Fresh Arbitration Notice is Mandatory For Second Round Of Arbitration After Earlier Award Is Set Aside: Kerala High Court

Case Title:M/s. Agro Indus Credits Limited v Mangalan S @ Jagan Managalan and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 842

The Kerala High Court has held that a fresh arbitration notice under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is mandatory for initiating a second round of arbitral proceedings after an earlier arbitral award has been set aside even when the award was declared as a nullity due to invalid appointment of the arbitrator.

Justice S. Manu while dismissing the Arbitration petitions held that once an arbitral award is issued, the arbitration proceedings stand terminated under section 32 and therefore fresh arbitration proceedings cannot commence without issuing a fresh arbitration request.

'Pedantic Literalism': Kerala High Court Directs Tribunal Not To Insist On Separate Petitions For Exempting Court Fees & Legal Benefit Fund

Case Title: Joseph T.J. v. Alex Abraham and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 843

The Kerala High Court recently directed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to number a claim petition without insisting on separate petitions for exemption from payment of court fees and legal benefit fund (LBF).

The plea before Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was preferred by a person claiming around Rs. 15 lakhs for an injury sustained in a motor accident.

“In matters of social justice adjudication, the courts must further ensure that access to justice remains litigant-centric, transparent, and unencumbered by unwarranted procedural impediments. Procedural barriers and technical requirements that are not contemplated by the statute cannot be allowed to defeat substantive rights. Where a conflict arises between substantive justice and hyper-technicalities, the former must necessarily prevail.…Courts cannot remain indifferent to the constitutional mandate of social justice, nor can they permit pedantic literalism or so-called "semantic luxuries" to frustrate the realisation of welfare objectives embodied in what are essentially "bread and butter" statutes.” the Court observed.

Cheque Dishonour| Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Set Aside Conviction & Sentence At Post-Revision Stage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Fifa Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 844

The Kerala High Court recently held that the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita cannot be invoked to set aside a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act once the High Court had already finally decided the case in revision.

The plea before Justice C.S. Dias was preferred by a private company and its Managing Director. They were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. This was concurrently confirmed in appeal before the Sessions Court and in revision before the High Court.

Penalty U/S 45A KGST Act Cannot Be Initiated Beyond 'Reasonable Time' Despite No Prescribed Limitation Period: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Taj Garden Retreat v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 845

The Kerala High Court held that even though Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) does not prescribe any limitation period, penalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.

Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since the notice was issued with reference to the assessment year 2011-12, the period of five years had come to an end on 31.03.2017. The notice was issued admittedly only on 20.12.2018. The above notice is beyond the reasonable period of time of five years, under such circumstances.

Vehicles Owned By Third-Party Contractors Can't Be Mechanically Confiscated Under Conservation Of Paddy Land Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Venugopalan C v The Tahsildar (Land Records)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 846

The Kerala High Court has held that vehicles owned by third-party contractors cannot be mechanically confiscated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, unless there is a finding of knowledge or connivance in the illegal reclamation of paddy land.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon allowed a writ appeal filed by a JCB excavator owner whose vehicle had been confiscated for allegedly being used in unlawful reclamation of paddy land at Mananthavady in Wayanad district.

Bail Can't Be Converted Into Detention: Kerala High Court Quashes Condition Requiring Foreigner To Stay In Transit Home

Case Title: Apple Barua v State of Kerala and Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 847

The Kerala High Court has held that criminal courts cannot impose conditions that effectively detain a foreign national in a transit or detention centre after granting bail.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath held that directions to remain in the detention centre/ transit home while granting bail to a foreign national would amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is released on bail and hence such condition is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

SIM Cards, Recharge Coupons & Value-Added Services Not 'Goods' Under KVAT Act; Kerala High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Airtel

Case Title: M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 848

The Kerala High Court granted relief to Bharti Airtel by holding that SIM cards, recharge coupons, fixed monthly charges and telecom value-added services cannot be treated as 'goods' under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on which any tax can be levied.

Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian addressed a case filed by Bharti Airtel, the assessee, challenging the assessing order both on grounds of limitation and on merits, seeking to clarify that SIM cards, rechargeable coupons, fixed monthly charges and value-added services (towards SMS, ringtones, download music, etc.) do not constitute 'goods' under the KVAT Act.

Applicability Of LARR Act To Power Transmission Lines Over Private Land Must Be Examined By Competent Authority: Kerala HC

Case Title: Leo L.K. and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 849

The Kerala High Court has held that the concerned authority must examine at appropriate proceedings, whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) apply to cases where electricity transmission lines are drawn over private land without acquisition of title.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon made the observation while dismissing two writ appeals filed by residents of Vizhinjam and Venganoor Villages in Thiruvananthapuram.

Deceased's Statements Acknowledging Blood Relationships Are Relevant Under Evidence Act If Made Before Dispute Arose: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sujatha Krishnan and Ors v Radha Mohandas and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 850

The Kerala High Court has held that verbal statements of a deceased person relating to blood relationships are relevant facts under Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act, provided they were made before the dispute arose and the declarant had special means of knowledge.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar were considering a preliminary decree in a partition suit that had excluded one daughter from succession of the scheduled properties which originally belonged to one Krishnan, who died intestate on the ground that she was born within four months after the marriage of her parents.

Forcible Eviction Disputes Not Arbitrable Despite Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement: Kerala High Court

Case Title: A.K.Sukumaran Vs. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 851

The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to eviction of a tenant are not arbitrable even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted by such non-arbitrable reliefs.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed while allowing an Original Petition filed by a retired Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (“BSNL”) employee challenging an order of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, which had referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").

Kerala HC Grants Bail To Asst Director Booked For Allegedly Sexually Harassing Actress Inside Dulquer Salmaan's Production Company Office

Case Title: Dhinil Babu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 852

The Kerala High Court granted bail to assistant director Midhil Babu, who is accused of sexually harassing an aspiring young actress in the office of Wayfarer Films Pvt. Ltd., Dulquer Salmaan's production company.

Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order granting him bail.

Kerala High Court Quashes Rejection Of Arms Licence Renewal Citing Lack Of Reasoned Order

Case Title: Alexander Vadakkedom v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 853

The Kerala High Court has recently quashed orders refusing renewal of an arms licence, holding that the authorities failed to record valid reasons or consider settled legal principles governing such renewals.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner and set aside the orders of the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Land Revenue Commissioner, which had rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of his arms licence.

Bank's Right To Recover Becomes Absolute Once Demand Notice Is Served In Borrower's Lifetime, Fresh Notice To Legal Heirs Not Needed: Kerala HC

Case Title: Abhijith B. v. Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 854

The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that the statutory right of a bank to recover dues from a borrower under the SARFAESI Act becomes absolute once the demand notice is duly served during his lifetime and the mandatory 60-day period expires without the liability discharged.

There was no need for the bank to issue fresh notices under the Act for the legal heirs of the deceased borrower, it was held.

Justice Basant Balaji was considering a plea preferred by the legal heir of a deceased person, who had stood as a guarantor for a loan advanced by a bank to a firm.

Trespass Of Police Stations Covered U/S 442 IPC Since They Are Used For Safekeeping Of Official Records, Weapons: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Binu Thankappan and Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 855

The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that a police station would fall under the definition of 'house' as per Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code as these are used to custody of property, including official records, arms and ammunitions, etc.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:

“Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C defines a police station as “any post or place declared generally, or specially by the State Government, to be a police station...Section 5 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 provides for establishment of police stations while section 6 deals with facilities at police stations. Section 6(2) of the KP Act stipulates that there must be sufficient storage space for the safe keeping of articles in custody, official records and official arms and ammunition and even sufficient facilities for the safe custody of the accused and those in custody. A combined reading of the above statutory provisions makes it explicit that police stations in Kerala can be regarded also as buildings used for the custody of property, thereby satisfying the definition of house under section 442 IPC.”

'AI-Generated Petitions': Kerala High Court Flags Rise In Fraudulent De-Freezing Pleas, Orders Mandatory Impleadment Of Local SHO

Case Title: Lazar Chakkola And Ors. v. Sudarsanan Pillai.G And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 856

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") declining to interfere with an arbitral award dissolving a long-standing partnership and holding that the sale deeds executed between the partners were merely business arrangements, not intended to transfer or create title; consequently, the dispute did not fall outside the ambit of arbitrability, as it involved no rights in rem.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed: “Since the sale deeds thus stand as auxiliary to the partnership agreement and devoid of the character of conveyance transferring title, they do not alter the legal relationship inter se the partners or create any independent or enforceable rights in rem. It follows therefrom that the contentions put forth by the appellants regarding the sale deeds being documents affecting rights in rem and the question of claim being barred by limitation do not arise.”

TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case: Kerala High Court Denies Parole To Life Convict To Conduct Funeral Rites Of Cousin

Case Title: Smitha P.G. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 857

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 30) refused to grant emergency leave to Jyothi Babu, one of the convicts in the T.P. Chandrasekharan murder case, to conduct the funeral rites of his cousin.

Justice Jobin Sebastian remarked that no material was produced to substantiate the claim that Babu was the only person capable of conducting the rituals. It was also found that the deceased was not a close relative, warranting grant of emergency leave.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Caught In ₹5,000 Land Tax Bribery Trap By Vigilance

Case Title: Jiby Mathew M v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 858

In an alleged bribe demand case of ₹5,000 for effecting mutation of property and payment of land tax, the Kerala High Court has granted bail to the accused after noting that the investigation was practically over and the petitioner had been in custody for more than 25 days.

The order was passed by Justice Muralee Krishna S. while allowing a bail application filed by the sole accused in Crime No. VC.22/2025 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam.