Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232 - 251]Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235Moosantepurakkal Manaf...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232 - 251]
Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
Musthafa v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
Vinu Vikraman v. State of Kerala and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Anil N v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
K.N. Ambika v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devswom Board and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Pradeep Bharathan. K v. The State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
P.K. Lakshmi and Ors. v Gopi and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v Vernin Varkey @ John, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Joseph @ Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
Sreerosh Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to challenge orders that imposed penalty 'disproportionate' to charges even if appeal remedy available.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a plea preferred by the former Head of the Department (Department of Engineering and Maintenance) of Malabar Cancer Centre challenging his dismissal from service.
Case Title: Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the results of a tender process for the purpose of conducting tourism activities in Kanjirapuzha dam.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. noted that the participants of the tender had accepted the results and the present PIL preferred by a stranger to the tender process amounted to a 'proxy litigation', intended to delay the project. It went on to impose exemplary costs on the litigant.
Case Title: Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
The Kerala High Court recently held that public authority cannot initiate eviction proceedings over areas offered for recreational purposes through housing scheme, by citing expiry of lease deed.
Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 for evicting persons of the Mavelipuram Residents Association from the recreation hall constructed by them.
Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked When Contract Provides Arbitration Remedy: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly arbitration, will ordinarily dissuade courts from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering the judgment in a writ appeal challenging the termination of an EPC contract by the Cochin Port Authority.
Case Title: Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the manner of attack and injury of the victim are relevant for ascertaining if the accused had intention or knowledge that the same would cause death.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that causing only one injury on the shoulder of the victim would not be sufficient to conclude that an accused intended to cause murder to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Case Title: Musthafa v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, refused to set aside a conviction in a POCSO case that was challenged alleging anomaly in the prosecution case due to minor discrepancies regarding the date of occurrence.
The appellant before Justice A. Badharudeen had contended that since the child victim failed to disclose the actual date of occurrence in FIS and in statement before Magistrate but disclosed later in his chief examination before court, the prosecution case was doubtful.
Case Title: Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who was accused of stealing a case bundle from the trial court.
Justice C.S. Dias noted that the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint, which was filed by a third party, when the statutory mandate under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was for the officer of the Court or an authorised person to do so.
Case Title: Vinu Vikraman v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 5) directed the Sub-Registrar/Marriage Officer of Mavelikkara to process and solemnize the marriage of an Indian man and a Sri Lankan woman as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without insisting on an NOC from the Embassy.
Justice Easwaran S. relied on a 2019 decision of the High Court [Saranya R. A. v. State of Kerala and Others], wherein it was clarified that there is no prohibition under the Special Marriage Act to solemnize a marriage between an Indian and a foreigner.
S.377 IPC Continues To Apply In Cases Involving Minors: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction For Oral Sex
Case Title: Anil N v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 377 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) for committing sexual offences on an 11-year-old girl, reaffirming that the provision continues to apply in cases involving minors.
Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering the judgment in a criminal appeal filed against conviction under Sections 450 (house-trespass to commit offence), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 377 (unnatural offences) IPC.
Case Title: K.N. Ambika v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that family pension cannot be denied to the wife of a deceased employee merely because she is employed or receiving another pension.
Justice P.M. Manoj observed that as per the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), if the surviving wife has not remarried, she is entitled to receive family pension whether or not she was dependent on her deceased husband.
'Insensitive Attitude Of Few Erode Entire System': Kerala High Court Denounces RDO's Conduct But Vacates 10K Costs Imposed On Him
Case Title: The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, expressed strong disapproval towards the careless manner in which a government official handled a citizen's application for changing the nature of her property.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal against a Single Bench's order imposing Rs. 10,000 costs upon a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO).
Case Title: Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the Ombudsman for Local-Self Government Institutions has a duty to conduct a proper and effective enquiry into complaints regarding maladministration and losses caused to panchayat, and it cannot relegate the same to courts.
Justice P.M. Manoj set aside an order of the Ombudsman that relegated, to the Rent Control Court, a complaint raising issues of maladministration and loss caused to the Panchayat due to renting of a premise at a lower rate than that offered by the petitioner association.
Case Title: Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
The Kerala High Court has held that the Malabar Devaswom Board cannot invoke its general supervisory powers under Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act to effectively take over temple administration by appointing a full-time Executive Officer.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, issued the order in a writ challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer by the Malabar Devaswom Board in a temple managed under a hereditary trusteeship scheme.
Case Title: Pradeep Bharathan. K v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a donee of an undivided share in a co-owned property becomes a co-owner and would be entitled to seek registration of a deed partitioning the property by paying stamp duty applicable to partition deeds.
Justice Basant Balaji was considering a writ petition challenging the refusing of registration of a partition deed executed by a co-owner and the son of another co-owner, who had received the undivided share in the property by a gift deed.
Case Title: M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 22C of the Legal Services Act, Permanent Lok Adalats must comply with the mandate of conciliation before adjudicating a dispute on merits and that delay in remitting costs to set aside ex parte order cannot be cited to forego conciliation.
Justice P.M. Manoj further observed that the Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute which is already seized by a court.
Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court recently held that the State Minority Commission cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court to pass eviction order against a person belonging to a minority community.
Justice Easwaran S. remarked:
“what is attempted is to bypass the civil remedy by filing an application before the Commission and that the Commissioner has overstepped its jurisdiction and issued…order requiring the petitioner to be evicted from the premises… Still further, the extent of overstepping of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is evident from the fact that the Commissioner has gone ahead and instructed the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take such steps to evict the petitioner. The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court.”
Case Title: P.K. Lakshmi and Ors. v Gopi and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has held that a life estate granted to a Hindu widow under a Will enlarges into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It further noted that the absolute ownership would render any subsequent bequest in the same Will ineffective.
Justice Easwaran S., was delivering the judgment in a batch of connected second appeals.
The dispute arose over the management rights of the Mooriyad Central Upper Primary School in Kannur district. Under a 1955 Will executed by Koran Gurukkal, management of the school was first vested in his wife, Bachi @ Janaki, during her lifetime, with a further clause providing that the right would pass to their son Gopi after her death.
Case Title: Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v Vernin Varkey @ John
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The Kerala High Court has held that a Family Court cannot refuse a decree of divorce by mutual consent merely because spouses state that they are living separately “without any reason,” so long as both parties continue to consent to dissolution of marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen delivered the judgement in matrimonial appeal, and set aside a Family Court order that had rejected a joint plea for divorce by mutual consent.
Case Title: Joseph @ Sabu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court has held that in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), conviction may be sustained even in the absence of documentary proof of age when the oral testimony of the child victim and her mother regarding the age of the Victim remain unchallenged during trial.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Sreerosh Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the District Disaster Management Authority or its Chairperson cannot issuse a stop memo to a person barring all construction activities under the Disaster Management Act.
The court was considering whether the Disaster Management Authority or the Chairperson invoking the powers under Section 26(2) can issue direction or stop memo in exercise of the powers under Section 30(2)(v) of the Act. Section 30(2)(v) underlines power of the District Authority to give directions to different authorities at the district level and local authorities to take such other measures for the prevention or mitigation of disasters as may be necessary.
Justice C. Jayachandran held that the Act does not confer any powers upon the District Authority or its Chairperson, the District Collector, to directly take any measures but only to give necessary directions to the competent authorities.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case No: Crl.A 609/ 2026
Case Title: Dr. M.Kodanda Ram v. State and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 5) issued notice on the criminal appeal preferred by Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, who is arrayed as the prime accused in the suicide abetment case of Dental College student Nithin Raj.
The appeal has been filed against the order of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, which had dismissed his bail application while granting pre-arrest bail to the second accused Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar.
When the matter came up for consideration today, the vacation bench of Justice P.V. Balakrishnan admitted the appeal and issued notice to the parties.
Case Title : Baiju Paul Mathews v. State of Kerala and connected case
Case No : WP(C) 7858/ 2025 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Friday (8 May) has directed State authorities to closely monitor a wild elephant identified as “KM1” following concerns over its movement near Aralam Farm and adjoining tribal settlements in Kannur district.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Easwaran S passed the interim order while considering a batch of writ petitions concerning the human-wildlife conflict in Wayanad and Aralam.