Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838 - 848 ]Davi Ntemi Kilekamajenga and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838Ayana Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 839Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 840M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838 - 848 ]
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
Judgments/ Orders This Week
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.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Keral
Case Nos: Bail Appl. 14761/2025 and Bail Appl. 14762/2025
Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan, one of the accused persons in the high-profile Sabarimala gold theft case, has moved the Kerala High Court seeking bail.
He is arrayed in both the crimes registered by the Crime Branch regarding the misappropriation of gold from the dwarapalaka idols and the doorframes/lintels of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala.
In his bail plea, Govardhan has stated that he had no role in the misappropriation and that in June 2019, he had donated 184 grams of gold (valued at approximately 9 lakhs) to gold-plate the frame.
On Tuesday (December 23), Justice Muralee Krishna S. adjourned the cases for the public prosecutor to get instructions. It is posted on December 30 for further consideration.
Case No: WP(C) No. 20485 of 2024 and connected case
Case Title: Prasad Somarajan v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
The Kerala High Court recently directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to give publicity to the newly introduced feature in its mobile application 'Rajmargyatra' that permits citizens to submit grievances under the head 'Non-conformity regarding Indian Roads Congress Standards for the Pedestrians.'
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was seized with two public interest litigations.