Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699 - 786]Parimal Sahu v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 699Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 700Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699 - 786]
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
Judgments/ Orders This Month
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.”
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.
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).
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.
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 1st 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.