Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 787 - 858]South Indian Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Rahim H K and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 787Anish Anand v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 788Shijo Mon Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 789Kerala State Medical Councils v Daleel Ahmmed and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 790Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 787 - 858]
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
Judgments/ Orders This Month
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 28th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
Case Title: Dhinil Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 852
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 30) 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.
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.
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.”
Case Title: Lazar Chakkola And Ors. Vs. Sudarsanan Pillai.G And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 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.”
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 dismissed the plea.
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
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to the accused in an alleged bribe demand case of ₹5,000 for effecting mutation of property and payment of land tax,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.