Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301 - 600]Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301 - 600]
Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
Asha Verma v. Director General of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
Abjijith M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
Asianet Star Communications Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India and others, and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
Chenthamara @ Kannan and Others v. Meena and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
Sudhin Krishna C. S. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
K.R. Antony v. Kunjumol & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
Zahhad and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
State of Kerala and Others v. T. Rajeev, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
Sharooq Mohammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors & Other Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
State of Kerala v. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt.Ltd. and Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
C. P. Muhammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
Santhosh Warrier v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas and others, and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
Xx v XX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
Xxx v. Xxx & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Binsi and another v. Sandeep Chandran, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
Dipin Vidhyadharan and Another v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
Shafeena P. H. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Korea Chemi & Anr. v. Siluvaipichai Francies & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
Santhosh Kumar N P v. State - Station House Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
XX and Others v State of Kerala and Another & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
Sheela Francis Parakkal and Others v The Authorised Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
Dr Bibilash B. S v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
Devidas C. & Others v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
Sheela George and another v. V.M. Alexander, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
Revathy C. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, ED, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Secretary Cum Manager, Majilis Arts and Science College v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Principal v. Union of India & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
R. Ramesh v. Vijaya Bank & Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
Hussain & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Suresh v. Sree Narayana Smaraka Samathi Trust, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Zeenath and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
Dr. C. M. Aboobacker v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
Moideen Koya & Ors. v. M/S.Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Manju Saud & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
Harisankar S. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
K. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
Kerala Private Hospital Association and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
Noormida v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Jasmin Shaji v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Another v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Dr. K.R. Leela Devi v. K.R. Rajaram and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The State Of Kerala Versus S. Ajayakumar And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
Asgar Ali v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Ison George v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
Suresh M. V. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Vimala Sneham and Ors. v. Babu Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
XXX v. City Police Commissioner, Kochi and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
Thomas Joseph v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
Manjusha K.P v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
George Alexander @ Prince v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
XXX v State of Kerala and batch, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
Sini K.V. vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
Sudha v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre (P) Ltd.& Anr V. State Of Kerala And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Shekhar Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Saju v Shalimar Hardwares and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
State of Kerala v. Hana Fatima Ahinus, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
X & Anr v Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Chandran v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Sathy v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Kerala State United Nurses Association-Teachers Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
Manoj v. Kattappana Municipality & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Hana Fatima Ahinus v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Badusha v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr. v. T. Beena and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
Shanif v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v. Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
Suo Motu v P K Suresh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Beylin Das v The Bar Council of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
Jayasree and Anr. v. Sindhu Ajayan, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
Sivanandan & Ors v Ani and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Kochi Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Nancy Xavier and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
Shifana P.K. v. Director General of Police and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
Beatrice v Babu Louis, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
Manoj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
Kumaran. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
Sajeesh A v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
Suo Motu v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
Antony v. Tata Tea Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
Radhakrishnan Nair v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
Zainul Abideen Karumbil vs. State Of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
RDO and Anr. v. Thomas Daniel and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
Bibin Paulson v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
Seema T.S. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
X v Y, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453
AA v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
Glister Sachet India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
Suresh v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
Koovatt Laila v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
Angels Nair v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Aryadan Shouketh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
Anila and Ors v Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and Anr, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 462
Daleel Ahmmed and Ors. v. National Medical Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
Advocate Boris Paul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
Noorudheen v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Pradeep Kumar P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
C.A.N. Subramoniya Sarma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
SR Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
Thankamma and Ors v Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
Musthafa N P and Anr v The State Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
Suo Motu v R. Rajesh, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
M/s Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. State Information Commission and Ors and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
Ratheesh K G v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Bindhu K P v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
Jose v The Sub Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
S Sheeja v Maintenance Appellate Tribunal and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
Elvin John Mathew v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Gowri Sankari V.S. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
Mariamma Joseph and Others v Director of Local Fund Audit and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Abdulla P. v. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Zubair C.A. and Anr. v. Project Director, NHAI and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
Adv. Richard Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
Appachan v. SI of Police and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
Luckose Joseph v State of Kerala, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 505
Suo Motu v. AAA, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
Muhammed Bilal and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
Dr. Sivaprasad v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
M.K. Aravindakshan and Anr. v. M.R. Pradeep and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
Suo Motu v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
Manilal v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Sulaiman M S and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
A. Chandran v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
T.M. Hariprasad v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
Liviya Jose v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
Bhargavan Pillai and Ors. v District Geologist and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
Sukumaran and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Navas A v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
Santhy Krishnan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Others v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
State of Kerala v. K. Surendran, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Harikumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and connecter Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Treasa K J v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
Cochin Port Trust v State of Kerala and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Kerala Taxi Drivers Organisation v State of Kerala and Anr and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Vishnu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
V.D. Tomy v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor and Anr and Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
C.P. Muhammed v. The Geologist and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
X v Abraham Mathai and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
Aparna Nair v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v. The Superintendent and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
Harrisons Malayalam Limited v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Askaf v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
XX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
M.C. Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
Union of India and Ors. v. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 549
P.S. Vijayakumaran v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
Pamba Boat Race Club Reg No. 98/90 and Anr. v. Pamba Boat Race Club and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
M/s Classic Agencies and Ors. v. The Regional Office, India Overseas Bank and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
Anto Paul Prakash v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Anr v M/S L & T Tech Park Ltd and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
Shawn Anthony and Anr v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
Santosh Karwade v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
Meghna Devi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
Suo Motu v. P.C. Jose and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
Shaji @ Shaiju v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
Dr. A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Rajappan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
Saravanabhava v. The District Collector and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
Shone George v Union of India and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
Jayasree Rajkumar v Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
V.J. Kurian v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
Vishnu v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
Manoj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
Farhana Latheef v Revenue Divisional Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
Marthoma Syrian Church v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
Rajan V K v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
Kumar K.P. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
Anirudh P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
Jubairiya v Saidalavi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
Muhammed Anwarsha v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
The District Collector and Others v Thangal Kunju and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Anoop Paul v. M.P. Cherian and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
Santhosh Kumar v. Syamala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
Sivan and Anr. v. Raju P.V. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
Shiny S Raj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
Sivan and Others v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
National Highways Authority of India v. Lawrence and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co, (P) Ltd v The District Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
The Kerala High Court recently came down heavily on the Sankaracharya University for denying fellowship to a research student.
The Court opined that when the Vice-Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there is no reason for the non–payment of the petitioner's fellowship.
“If the Vice Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there can be no justification for non-payment of the petitioner's fellowship”, observed Justice D. K. Singh
Benefit Of S.14 Limitation Act Can't Be Construed So Liberally Just To Save A Lis: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Kerala High Court has held that the benefit of exclusion of limitation period under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available in the subsequent suit unless all the ingredients under the provision are satisfied. The Court found that the provision cannot be liberally construed, just to save a lis.
A division bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, while hearing the appeal, set aside the trial court order, which decreed the suit in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs), after finding that the respondents' pursuit of an earlier suit can be excluded in view of the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 30) directed the state government to release within two weeks all pensionary benefits due to Dr. Ciza Thomas who retired as Principal of Government Engineering College on March 31, 2023.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John remarked that the Government was harassing Dr. Thomas for accepting the appointment to the VC post.
Case Title: Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (May 28) granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam Movie Director Akhil Marar in the case of allegedly endangering the sovereignty and unity of India by posting a Facebook video about the Pahalgam terror attack and the retaliation by the Indian force.
"Since the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation, I am of the view that this is a fit case to protect the petitioner with an order of anticipatory bail" ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea For Verification Of Migrant Workers, Says It Is For Govt To Decide
Case Title: TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
The Kerala High Court disposed of a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the government to verify the identity, criminal antecedents and other details of migrant workers arriving in the State.
In the petition, it was alleged that most of the migrant workers coming into Kerala have criminal antecedents and have fabricated identity cards.
While considering the matter on Friday (May 30), the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji questioned the petitioner about the source of the information and the data that he is relying on. The counsel for the petitioner stated that reliance is placed on the newspaper reports and a letter written by the petitioner, which are annexed in the writ petition.
Case Title: Asha Verma v. Director General of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
The Kerala High Court today (June 2) disposed of a writ petition filed by an inter-faith couple from Jharkhand seeking police protection against their family members.
Noting that there is no threat from relatives of the petitioners at present, Justice N. Nagaresh granted them liberty to approach the 3rd respondent Station House Officer (SHO), Kayamkulam in case of any further threat from relatives. The SHO was directed to give protection as needed if the couple approached the officer.
Case Title: Abjijith M. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
The Kerala High Court recently refused to stop trial court proceedings against a person who allegedly sent a message to the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister (CM) Pinarayi Vijayan, that he would kill the new CM on the eve of the declaration of the election results, noting that it will send a wrong message to the society.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan noted that the petitioner who is a bank employee and not an illiterate person, should have been aware of the consequences of such a message. The Court said that the valuable time of police is lost in investigating such acts. The court further noted that "social media comments are a menace to society now".
Case Title: Asianet Star Communications Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India and others, and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment clarifying the scope and jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Justice D.K. Singh in his 142 page judgment laid down the position of law while hearing Writ Petitions stating an alleged 'conflict' of jurisdiction between the two regulatory bodies.
Case Title: Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
The Kerala High Court has held that the compendium of Instructions/Guidelines relating to the issue of Passports in India/Abroad cannot go against the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 or the Rules thereon or any other instrument having the force of law.
The judgment was passed by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. while considering a writ petition before the Court. The petition was preferred for a direction to the 2nd respondent (Regional Passport Office, Cochin) for re-issue of passport with date of birth corrected as per the Birth Certificate of the petitioner.
Wife Has Right To Live In Shared Household Even After Husband's Death: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chenthamara @ Kannan and Others v Meena and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
In a significant ruling reaffirming a woman's right to residence, the Kerala High Court has held that a wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home even after the death of her husband.
The decision delivered by Justice M.B. Snehalatha underscores the right of a woman to live in a shared household, ensuring her safety and dignity despite familial opposition.
Kerala High Court Upholds Right To Change Religion & Name In Educational Records Upon Conversion
Case Title: Sudhin Krishna C. S. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld an individual's right to change their religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and to have such changes reflected in educational records.
The order was delivered by Justice D. K. Singh.
Case Title: K.R. Antony v. Kunjumol & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, reaffirmed the principle of strict liability for owners and handlers of dangerous animals.
The court held that they are fully responsible for any harm caused by such animals regardless of negligence or any provocation by third parties. This judgment followed a tragic incident during a temple procession in which an elephant owned by the first defendant attacked and ultimately caused the death of a devotee.
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee's obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.
“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification……” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
The Kerala High Court stated that vessel engaged under SEAIOCM agreement qualified as 'foreign going vessel' for exemption under section 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the issue of whether in the backdrop of the terms of engagement of the vessel under the SEAIOCM Agreement, the vessel can be categorized as a foreign going vessel for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: Zahhad and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
The Kerala High Court while allowing the petition filed by the Zahhad and Ziya, the first transgender parents of the country, to change the description of them in their child' s birth certificate from father and mother to parents observed that the law has to evolve with the changes in the society.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. held that there is no need to take a hyper-technical stand in the case.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v. T. Rajeev
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
The Kerala High Court recently observed that it was the duty of the government as per the Rights of Persons with Disability Act to ensure public places are accessible to differently abled persons and any failure to do so should not be detrimental to a government employee with disabilities.
The Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John made this observation in a case filed by T. Rajeev who has 60% locomotor disability due to post-polio residual paralysis. He was working as a Senior Grade typist in the Motor Vehicle Department. Due to his inability to climb to the upper floor of the building where the office was situated, he sought an inter-departmental transfer as an LD Typist in the Thalappilly Subdivision office of the Irrigation Department which was on the ground floor of the same building. In the request, he had also sought for protection of pay. After multiple rounds of litigation, the government made the transfer as per his request but he was given only the salary of an LD typist which was lesser than the salary he drew as a Senior Grade typist.
Case Title: Sharooq Mohammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors & Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
The Kerala High Court has quashed the State Government's order imposing internship fees on Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs) for completing their compulsory rotatory medical internship (CRMI) in government hospitals. The judgment, delivered by Justice N. Nagaresh, emphasized that only the National Medical Commission (NMC) has the power to regulate internships and that the State Government's action was contrary to NMC's guidelines.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt.Ltd. and Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
In a notable judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed two writ appeals filed by the State and revenue authorities, imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- on them for what the Court described as unreasonable and unfair litigation tactics. The case, heard by Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj, arose from a dispute over the classification of land owned by Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute began when Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Project Manager Joseph Mariadas, approached the High Court seeking correction of revenue records to reflect its land as purayidom (dry land). Although the land was originally classified as paddy land, it had been converted before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, after securing necessary permissions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.
Case Title: C.P. Muhammed and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (4th June) stayed the trial of the murder case of Youth Congress Activist, Shuhaib before the Additional Sessions Court III, Thalassery. The order was made by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in a petition filed by Shuhaib's parents and the witnesses in the case to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct the trial.
Shuhaib was hacked to death allegedly by CPI(M) workers in Mattanur in Kannur district on February 12, 2018. As per the case, there was 29 grievous injuries on him. He died while being taken to the hospital.
Case Title: Santhosh Warrier v. State Of Kerala and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment wherein it held that even the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under S.31A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act cannot collect donations from devotees in connection to 'Para Nirakkal'. It was also held that any collection of money from devotees in connection with annual festival shall be with the prior approval of the Devaswom Board, against sealed coupons issued by the Assistant Commissioner.
The decision was rendered by the Division Bench comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. while considering a writ petition filed by a devotee of Peruvaram Sree Mahadeva Temple.
Case Title: Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no provision of rejecting the appeal merely on non-appearance of assessee and the appellate authority must decide an appeal by strictly following the mandate contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that “evidently, going by Subsection 6 of Section 250, no other meaning can be assigned to the words “points for determination” as it obviously leads to the question that arises for consideration based on the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to refer to the points raised in the appeal, and to determine the same by supplying reasons for such determination.”
Case No: State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas and others, and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
The Kerala High Court has, in a recent judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 28(2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which barred the members of Managing Committees of Credit Societies from contesting in elections after three terms.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar reversed the judgment of the Single Bench, which had struck down the provision in question.
Case Title: Xx v XX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
The Kerala High Court observed that it was not unusual for a wife to close criminal cases filed by her against her husband to save him. The Court said that a wife does so in the expectation that her husband would change.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that a woman will forgive to protect her family.
Case Title: Xxx v. Xxx & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Quashing an FIR against a man on allegations of rape made by his sister-in-law, the Kerala High Court said that non-disclosure of serious allegations in an earlier complaint against the same accused by same de-facto complainant indicated falsity of allegations.
Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing a plea moved by the petitioner, the elder brother of the de facto complainant's husband, who was booked for rape and criminal trespass in an FIR lodged by the police.
Not Necessary To Assess Applicant's Mental Status In Maintenance Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case No: Binsi and another v. Sandeep Chandran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that there is no need to assess the mental status of applicants in a proceedings for maintenance.
Justice A. Badharudheen allowed the Original Petition (Criminal) preferred by wife and minor daughter, and set aside the interim orders passed by the Family Court, Thalassery.
Case Title: Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an application seeking leave to sue under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) concerning the administration of the Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple in Thirupuram Village, Neyyattinkara. In his judgment, Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim underscored that leave under Section 92 CPC is not to be granted automatically and highlighted the importance of satisfying statutory requirements before initiating such a suit.
The court emphasised that The main purpose of S.92 (1) is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. Justice Abdul Hakhim clarified that before granting leave under Section 92 CPC, a court must be satisfied on several counts.
Case Title: Dipin Vidhyadharan and Another v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
The Kerala High Court closed a case of posting defamatory messages against the Chief Minister and other Ministers in the WhatsApp group of the employees of an education society after observing that none of the allegations constituted the offences mentioned.
Justice Kauser Edappagath agreed to the submission of the petitioners. He held that Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act would not be attracted when there is no allegation that the messages have caused nuisance to the complainants or any other person. The Court said that the mere allegation that the messages are derogatory or defamatory is not sufficient to attract Section 120(o).
Case Title: Shafeena P. H. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (10th June) issued an order granting 7 days leave to a convict prisoner for taking admission to his child to 11th standard.
On Court's direction, the mark list of the child was produced before the Court. He had secured 6 A+ and 2 A in SSLC Examination. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan said that it cannot shut its eyes to the request of such a bright kid who is seeking the help of his father to get admission to higher studies after arranging fees and other things.
Case Title: Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Korea Chemi & Anr. v. Siluvaipichai Francies & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
In a ruling clarifying the territorial reach of admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the Kerala High Court has dismissed an admiralty suit against the owners of the vessel M.V. Korea Chemi, holding that the vessel was not within the court's jurisdiction at the relevant time.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while allowing an application filed by the owners (defendants 1 and 2) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruled that the Kerala High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, since the vessel was anchored at Nhava Sheva Port in Mumbai and not within Kerala's territorial waters.
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar N P v. State - Station House Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
The Kerala High Court has said that the procedural bar under Section 198(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on taking cognizance of an offence related to marriage does not apply when a complaint includes serious criminal allegations like cheating and rape.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 6 Juveniles Over Alleged Involvement In Shahabas Murder Case
Case Title: XX and Others v State of Kerala and Another & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (11th June) granted bail to 6 juveniles who were allegedly involved in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas, a class 10 student. The order was pronounced by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
The Court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act does not allow the continued stay of the juveniles in the observation home.
Case Title: Sheela Francis Parakkal and Others v The Authorised Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
The Kerala High Court, in a decision by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, has imposed costs on the South Indian Bank, Aluva Branch, for the illegal retention of documents after the closure of the loan.
Cosmetic Surgery Mishap: Kerala High Court Permits Hospital To Reopen Under Strict Conditions
Case Title: Dr Bibilash B. S v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Kerala High Court has permitted the reopening of Cosmetiq Hospital in Kazhakkuttam, which had been shut down following a tragic case where a woman allegedly lost her fingers and toes after undergoing a cosmetic procedure at the facility.
Justice V.G. Arun issued the order while considering a plea filed by the petitioner, Dr. Bibilash B.S., the proprietor and plastic surgeon at Cosmetiq Hospital, claiming that due to closure it is not possible to even continue the post-surgical treatment to the patients.
Case Title: Devidas C. & Others v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
In a significant order aimed at protecting devotees from online fraud, the Kerala High Court's has directed the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board to maintain constant vigilance over fake digital platforms that impersonate temple services and exploit the public. The order was passed by the division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan.
Case No: Sheela George and another v. V.M. Alexander
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala High Court recently held that a wife who had voluntarily surrendered her right to maintenance is not barred from seeking it at a later stage, when there is a change in circumstances.
The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar. The Court was considering a Matrimonial Appeal challenging a Family Court order that rejected an application for maintenance made by the appellants (divorced wife and son) against the respondent (husband/father).
Case Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country.
Case Title: Revathy C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate Court is not empowered to rule on interim custody of vehicles seized under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2019, if the vehicles were handed over to District Collector.
Justice V.G. Arun conceded that through prior decisions it has been settled that the jurisdictional Magistrate has the power to order interim custody.
Police Cannot Attach Bank Account Under S.107 BNSS Without Magistrate's Approval : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court held that a bank account can be attached under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, only on the orders of the jurisdictional Magistrate and that police cannot uniterally do so.
Section 107 BNSS is a new provision which provides for the attachment of "proceeds of crime."
Justice V.G. Arun was considering a petition filed by Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd., whose account was frozen by Kalamassery Police after funds linked to a cheating case involving Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. were allegedly transferred into its account.
Case Title: Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (June 17) closed the bail application of Aneesh Babu who leveled bribery allegations against the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Ernakulam Office.
The petitioner had been summoned to appear before the Assistant Director, ED Special Investigating Team at New Delhi in connection with Crime No. KCZO/14/2025. As per the notice, he was asked to bring all the documents relating to the Vigilance Case. It is further mentioned in the notice that failure to appear and give evidence will lead to proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and other provisions of BNS, 2023.
NCTE Cannot Penalise Colleges For Its Own Delay In Granting Recognition: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Cum Manager, Majilis Arts and Science College v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala High Court has ruled that colleges cannot be penalised for procedural delays caused by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in processing applications for recognition under the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP).
Justice D.K. Singh observed that as per the binding timeline laid down by the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617, NCTE was required to communicate deficiencies within 45 days and issue recognition by 03 March of the academic year concerned. However, the show cause notice was issued after five months, with no proper explanation offered for the delay.
Writ Petitioner Cannot File Writ Appeal Against Interim Order Granted To Him: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala High Court has observed that a writ appeal is not maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, when the Court has already granted the interim relief sought by the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot claim to be an aggrieved party to file an appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan was considering a writ appeal filed by the Principal of Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre, Kasaragod, challenging the interim order passed by a Single Judge staying further proceedings related to the reallocation of BDS students from the college.
Case Title: R. Ramesh v. Vijaya Bank & Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala High Court has emphasized that banks cannot escape liability after negligently encashing cheques with forged signatures.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals filed by the plaintiffs, all private companies or individuals operating out of Kozhikode, against the dismissal of their suits by the Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode.
Case Title: Hussain & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court has held that a Registrar of Marriages cannot cancel a marriage certificate unless it is proved that the registration was either fraudulent or improperly made.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by petitioners who had jointly applied for the cancellation of their marriage registration, arguing that the marriage was not validly solemnised under any personal or special law.
Case Title: Suresh v. Sree Narayana Smaraka Samathi Trust
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
The Kerala High Court has directed the Rent Control Appellate Authority to reconsider the application for restoration of an appeal preferred by an evicted tenant, that was dismissed for default, i.e. non-appearance of his counsel.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John was informed that the counsel could not appear as the next posting date of the case was not updated on the Case Information System Software.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Zeenath and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no need for an insurance company to send a separate notice of cancellation of policy if the same was cancelled immediately after preparation and if the insured was aware of the factum of cancellation of the policy.
The judgment was passed by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar while considering a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) preferred by the Insurance Company.
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has held that where an arbitral award is set aside on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio and the arbitral proceedings are declared non est, the new arbitrator must initiate proceedings afresh. The question of admissibility of previously recorded evidence is to be decided by the new arbitrator.
Case Title: Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
The Kerala High Court has held that for the presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to apply, a bank's slip must mention the cheque number, date, and amount relating to the dishonoured cheque. If these essential details are missing, the memo cannot serve as prima facie evidence of dishonour.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while setting aside an acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The complainant had filed a case under Section 138 NI Act after a cheque for ₹1,46,000 was dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the accused, pointing out that either in the intimation memo or in the dishonor memo, the number of the cheque dishonored was not disclosed.
Case Title: Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
The Kerala High Court has clarified that mere registration of a crime or pendency of investigation, without filing of a final report or taking of cognizance by a court, does not amount to “criminal proceedings pending” under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.
Justice A. Badharudeen made this observation while considering a petition that sought to renew the petitioner's passport amidst an ongoing vigilance investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Dr. C. M. Aboobacker v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala High Court set aside a POCSO case against an octogenarian paediatrician who was alleged to have committed aggravated sexual assault on a 10th standard student during a medical examination. The doctor had approached the High Court to quash further proceedings in the case, saying that whatever he had done was within the parameters of clinical examination. He had stated that the examination was done in the presence of a close relative of the child.
Justice G. Girish observed that for offences of sexual assault under IPC and POCSO, it was important to show that the act was committed with sexual intention. The Court said that it was hard to believe that the petitioner made sexual advances to the victim in the presence of her mother or sister. The Court also noted that the victim had approached the hospital with complaints of chest pain and abdominal pain, and only after checking with the stethoscope, the doctor proceeded to press her breasts.
Case Title: Moideen Koya & Ors. v. M/S.Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala High Court has recently held that there is no bar under the SARFAESI Act against preferring a consolidated Securitisation Application by tenants under different lease deeds if they are challenging the same secured creditor's action.
The judgment was passed by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. while considering an Original Petition preferred against the order (Exhibit P8) passed by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam.
Foreigners Must Be Heard Before Passing Order Restricting Their Movement: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Manju Saud & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
In a significant ruling that reinforces procedural fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court has held that foreign nationals must be given an opportunity to be heard before orders restricting their movement are passed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Justice C. Jayachandran, delivering judgment in a writ petition, declared the movement restriction orders issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) against three Nepali nationals to be illegal, because they were issued without hearing the petitioners.
IGNOU Degree Not Required To Have Equivalence Certificate From State University : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Harisankar S. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala High Court has recently held that insisting on equivalency certificate from Central Universities that are recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in the prospectus of the State Eligibility Test (SET) is ultra vires the UGC Act.
Justice D.K. Singh passed the judgment while considering a Writ Petition that challenged the decision taken by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology (2nd respondent) with respect to the petitioner's eligibility in the SET.
Case Title: All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to consider the representation made by All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation who have claimed imposition of "unilateral terms and conditions" in the agreement entered with State in order to provide various services to citizens.
The Court noted that the main concern of the petitioner is with respect to an email communication (Exhibit P9) sent by the authorities. In Exhibit P9, it was communicated to the Akshyaya Entrepreneurs that they have to execute a revised agreement, the terms of which are yet not known to them.
Justice N. Nagaresh gave a direction to the 2nd respondent (State's Secretary, Information and Technology Department) to consider the Ext. P8 representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision before finalising the revised agreement.
Case Title: Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Police authorities cannot barge into the house of a history sheeter or any suspect in a criminal case— at night, merely under the garb of surveillance.
Justice V.G. Arun emphasized that every man's house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours.
Case Title: K. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
The Kerala High Court has clarified the position of law under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (NI Act) that a manager of a firm cannot prefer a complaint or prosecute in his personal capacity under Section 138 if the payee of the cheque was the firm.
The judgment was passed by Justice A. Badharudeen while considering a Criminal Appeal preferred by the complainant-manager challenging the acquittal of the accused person by the trial court.
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospital Association and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 23) dismissed a plea challenging various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and the Rules therein, including an objection to the provision which mandates display of fees charged by every clinical establishment for its services.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon in his order observed that the High Court had already in an earlier case–Sabu P. Joseph (Adv). V State of Kerala and Others (2021) issued directions to private hospital in the State to display rates and fees of the service given to the public as per Section 39 of the Act.
Case Title: P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to three of the accused persons (petitioners) in the money scam case of Angamaly Urban Co-operative Society.
Justice A. Badharudeen also expressed displeasure regarding the attitude of the Investigating Officer, who had not yet arrested the petitioners even though their earlier bail applications were dismissed in October 2024.
Case Title: Noormida v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a contractor (1st accused/petitioner) under Section 304A IPC for negligently causing the accidental death of her sub-contractor's worker.
Justice V.G. Arun held that the ingredients under the section would not be attracted if the death was caused by unforeseeable harm and not due to any rash or negligent act of the accused person.
Case Title: Jasmin Shaji v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Observing that "Justice, without the soft hand touch of humanity, compassion, and empathy is not justice", the Kerala High Court granted escort parole to a murder convict–awarded death penalty by sessions court–to meet his bedridden and ailing 93-year-old mother.
Notably, Section 42 of the Kerala Prisons and the Correction Services (Management) Act and Rule 339(2) of Kerala Prisons and Correction Services (Management) Rules categorically deny leave or escort visit to convicts who are sentenced to death.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan opined that while it is true that the convict does not deserve any “humanitarian consideration” because the prosecution case against him and the other accused is that they brutally murdered the victim in front of his mother, wife and child, it however said that a court cannot take such an inhuman stand like the prisoner.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to producers of Malayalam movie 'Manjummel Boys' in an alleged cheating case regarding the production of the film.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that a coordinate bench of the high court had already refused a plea for quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court came to the conclusion that this a case where custodial interrogation is not necessary.
Case Title: Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
The Kerala High Court has held that an unregistered agreement for sale, which is a compulsory registrable document, can be considered as evidence to prove a contract in a suit for specific performance.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Satish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar has clarified the position of law as regards the admissibility of unregistered documents as evidence in suits for specific performance by looking into the interplay between Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court stated that 'decalcified fish scale' import covered under advance authorization scheme; customs cannot deny benefit.
The advance authorization scheme enables duty free import of inputs/raw materials required for manufacture of export goods.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.
Case Title: Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court stated that Section 245C of Income Tax Act does not require prior cut-off date; pending 153A/153C notice sufficient for settlement application.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Section 245C does not prescribe any prior cut-off date for an assessee to satisfy the requirements for filing an application before the Interim Board for Settlement, and the only statutory requirement is that the assessee should have a pending 'case' at the time of filing the application for settlement, then so long as the assessee had a 'live and un-adjudicated' notice under Sections 153A/153C as on the date of filing the application, the application had to be considered on merits by the Board.”
Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Another v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court expressed concern over the fact that 12 out of 13 Universities in the State having the Governor as the Chancellor, are functioning without a regular Vice-Chancellor.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji while saying that this might be due to the disagreement between the members of the Senate and the Chancellor, opined that this was not in the best interest of the higher education.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court held that assessment based on DVO's (Department Valuation Officer) valuation cannot be revised under Section 263 of Income Tax Act in absence of concrete material.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that “as on the date of invoking his power under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner could not have had a 'reason to believe' that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the material to inform that 'reason to believe' did not exist on the date of issuance of the show cause notice. His exercise of power under S.263 was therefore clearly unjustified”.
Case Title: Dr. K.R. Leela Devi v. K.R. Rajaram and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The Kerala High Court has clarified the procedure to be followed for providing proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested, including wills. According to the Court, Section 68 of the Evidence Act lays down the mode to be followed. Section 69 provides an alternative procedure when Section 68 cannot be resorted to.
The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar while considering a Regular First Appeal (RFA) that challenged the validity of a Will.
Case Title: The State Of Kerala Versus S. Ajayakumar And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerela High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has held that when the payment due to the petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court order explicitly directing it as full and final settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner also issued a letter accepting the same, he cannot subsequently claim that the letter was issued under duress or out of necessity.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the same allegations.
Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court on Friday (27th June) directed the Registry to register a suo motu case to look into whether Dr. V. A. Arun Kumar, who is the current Director of Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD) got into the position due to his political connection.
Justice D. K. Singh enquired whether Dr. Arun Kumar has the qualification to be a Director when it was alleged that he was appointed as a clerk of the institution and has not taught a single day. The Court said that the post of Director of IHRD is equivalent to the post of Vice Chancellor of a University. The Court wondered how a person with no teaching experience can be appointed as a Director when as per UGC Regulations, a VC should have 7 years teaching experience.
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court has stated that goods confiscated under Section 130 GST Act can be released during pendency of appeal if not yet auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case where the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against confiscation order passed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, under Section 130 of the GST Act.
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband.
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband..
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
The Kerala High Court has held that the police cannot refuse to register an FIR (First Information Report) if a cognizable offence is made out, even in cases where the complaint was forwarded from a foreign country.
In the judgment, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the concept of 'Zero FIR' has been given statutory recognition by virtue of Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that merely because of the reason that, while ordering the confiscation in the order, the conveyance was not specifically included, it cannot be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
The Kerala High Court stated that luxury tax under Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act is constitutionally valid post 101st Amendment to the Constitution but a demand that extends to more than three years prior to the date of the demand notice cannot be legally sustained.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings' and so long as the charge under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act can be traced to the power of the State Legislature under Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the argument against legislative competitiveness must necessarily fail.”
Case Title: Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
The Kerala High Court had recently observed that the State must frame stringent anti-ragging law with severe punishments for ragging in educational institutions. The Court opined that though the UGC Regulations are stringent, they are not enough to completely curb the practice of ragging.
The observation was made by Justice D.K. Singh while disposing of two writ petitions, which were filed by the Dean of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU), and the Assistant Warden of the Men's Hostel of KVASU.
Case Title: Suresh M. V. v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
The Kerala High Court has disposed of the writ petition that sought investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the Karavannur Bank Scam case.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that the case has been pending before the Court since 2021 and that it cannot be retained indefinitely.
Noting that the final reports in the case are pending before the jurisdictional courts, the Court held that the petitioner may approach the jurisdictional courts to address any grievance if law permits for the same..
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
In a ruling clarifying the territorial reach of admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the Kerala High Court has dismissed an admiralty suit against the owners of the vessel M.V. Korea Chemi, holding that the vessel was not within the court's jurisdiction at the relevant time.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while allowing an application filed by the owners (defendants 1 and 2) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruled that the Kerala High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, since the vessel was anchored at Nhava Sheva Port in Mumbai and not within Kerala's territorial waters.
Case Title: Vimala Sneham and Ors. v. Babu Joseph
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court has recently answered the question of whether a trial court can grant a decree of specific performance when it has not made a declaration that termination of agreement was not binding on the defendant in the suit.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that in suits for specific performance, if the defendant did not specifically terminate a sale agreement but went on to extend the time for performance, then there would not arise any need for a prayer to declare the agreement's termination as illegal. Therefore, just because such a prayer was not made by the plaintiff, the suit or the decree of the trial court would not fail.
Case Title: XXX v. City Police Commissioner, Kochi and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the removal of the name of a person from the rowdy list of Fort Kochi Police Station since he has not been involved in any criminal activity for the past 8 years.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan cited that reformation is the main goal of Indian criminal jurisprudence and hence, a person on the path of reformation need not be retained in the rowdy list of the police.
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Kerala High Court stated that customs cannot rely on Sec. 122A to deny personal hearing mandatory under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Section 28(8) of the Customs Act observed that it is evident that, as far as personal hearing is concerned, it is made mandatory as per the provision. Since this is a special provision deals with the issue on hand, the reliance placed by the department upon Section 122A, which is a general provision, cannot be made applicable to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court stated that service of notice on the adult member of noticee is valid under Section 153 Of Customs Act, 1962.
Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and other communications under the Act and its rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted. The notice was served upon the assessee through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the assessee. By utilizing the said opportunity, the assessee appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice.”
Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Kerala High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Johnson John held that withholding pension without any pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings was illegal. The court held that such actions violate Article 14. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the petition being filed under Article 227. The court noted that constitutional courts cannot refrain from acting when the state exercises its authority arbitrarily.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has recently granted regular bail to a man, who was accused to have enticed a married woman to enter into sexual intercourse with him on a false promise of marriage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressed doubts as to whether an offence under Section 69 can be attracted when the defacto complainant is a married woman.
Proceedings U/S 148A Of Income Tax Act Unsustainable If Escaped Income Is Below ₹50 Lakhs & Notice Is Issued After 3 Years: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to undergo the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate is not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has allowed the settlement application under Section 245A of the Income Tax Act filed beyond cutoff date, while citing Supreme Court's COVID limitation order.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Court in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and stated that the assessee had filed the application for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is well within the time granted by the Supreme Court taking note of the Covid pandemic situation.
Case Title: Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a petition seeking exercise of inherent powers to set aside an interim order passed under Section 12(1) the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act/DV Act) is not maintainable if the same does not suffer from any blatant irregularity or illegality.
Justice G. Girish observed that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, High Courts must exercise restraint in exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
Kerala University Registrar, Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar, on Monday (July 7) withdrew a plea before the High Court, challenging his suspension by the varsity's Vice Chancellor in view of his reinstatement by the Syndicate of the University, in connection with the Bharat Mata portrait row.
When the matter came up for consideration, before Justice D.K. Singh, counsel for the Registrar submitted before the High Court that a withdrawal petition has been filed in light of the reinstatement of the Registrar by the Syndicate of the University.
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: Manjusha K.P v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High court has recently held that the failure to provide legible and readable documents to detained persons will result in the detaining order becoming invalid.
A Division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar held that the supply of unreadable documents violates section 7(2) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which which gives the detenu the right to be informed of the ground of detention and to make an effective representation.
Case Title: George Alexander @ Prince v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused can challenge a trial court's 'arbitrary and unreasoned' order refusing to give consent to the state to withdraw prosecution against him under section 360 of BNSS/ section 321 of CrPC, even when the State has chosen not to challenge such orders.
The order was passed by Justice Kauser Edapagath.
Case Title: N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court on Monday ruled that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and hence, cannot prevail.
The judgement was delivered by Justice Easwaran on a regular second appeal.
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has observed that caning of students by teachers or corporal punishment would not constitute an offence under the BNS and Juvenile Justice Act, (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, as the statutes stand now.
The Court however underscored that it is not excluding a case where any "corporal punishment is inflicted on any vital part" of child's body, nor was it excluding any "sadistic tendencies" exhibited by the teachers. Justice C. Jayachandran said that these would be exceptional situations which would constitute an offence.
Case Title: Sini K.V. vs. State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court has held that a candidate who applied under the general category cannot later claim the benefit of reservation if their community was added to the OBC list after the application's last date.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John allowed a plea filed by Sini K.V., who challenged an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that had granted OBC status to another candidate, Minusha K.
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority.
Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Case Title: Sudha v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court has ordered the trial court to frame charges against four police officers accused of committing custodial torture on a woman in connection with her interrogation for an alleged theft.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath set aside the order of the trial court, which discharged the accused police officers stating that previous sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was not obtained.
Private Hospitals Must Pay Minimum Wages To Housekeeping Staff : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre (P) Ltd.& Anr V. State Of Kerala And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre and its facility management contractor, upholding the Deputy Labour Commissioner's direction to pay wages under the Minimum Wages Act to housekeeping staff engaged in the hospital.
Justice Viju Abraham noted that although the petitioners claimed they were paying the notified minimum wage for sweeping and cleaning under a general notification, the agreement between the hospital and the contractor established that the services provided were comprehensive housekeeping, which attracted a higher wage scale notified for private hospitals.
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To ED Officer Accused In ₹2 Crore Bribery Case
Case Title: Shekhar Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail plea of a senior official of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), who was arrayed as an accused in a bribery case registered by the Vigilance.
Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the bail application which was earlier reserved for orders.
Case Title: Saju v Shalimar Hardwares and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that service of notice on relative of accused, raising demand on dishonour of cheque, is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless it is shown that accused had knowledge of such notice.
"Service of notice on the relative of the accused is not sufficient, especially when there is no evidence from the side of the complainant that the accused was aware of the service of notice on his relative. If there is no such evidence, it is to be presumed that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not served on the accused," Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Intelligence Officer Accused Of Abetting Girlfriend's Suicide
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to Sukanth Suresh, an intelligence officer allegedly involved in the suicide of his girlfriend/colleague.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the bail stating that the accused has been in custody for 44 days and no purpose is served by further custody.
BREAKING: Kerala High Court Upholds Order Cancelling KEAM Result; Dismisses State's Appeal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Hana Fatima Ahinus
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 9) upheld a single judge's order which set aside the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) exam results.
A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S thus dismissed the state government's appeal against the order, adding that it was after considering the rival contentions that the single judge had "interfered with the government order" and disposed of the writ petitions with observations and directions.
Strict Proof Not Needed For Married Woman To Claim Gold Entrusted To In-Laws: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X & Anr v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that courts can't demand strict proof from a woman claiming gold ornaments entrusted to her in-laws at the time of marriage.
The Division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed,
“In most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her in-laws occurs within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewelry to husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment.”
Case Title: Chandran v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a person charged for rape under section 370 of IPC can be lawfully convicted under section 354 of IPC for assaulting a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, even in the absence of specific charge to that effect, if the evidence proves the lesser offence.
Justice M B Snehalatha thus dismissed the revision petition preferred by the accused challenging his conviction under section 354 of IPC, after being acquitted of the more serious charge of section 376.
Case Title: Sathy v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
In a unique turn of events, the Kerala High Court today granted parole to a life convict, to enable him to solemnize marriage.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan granted the relief not looking at the convict but, looking towards the "brave and loving girl" who is ready to marry the convict despite being aware that her partner will serve a life sentence.
Case Title: Kerala State United Nurses Association-Teachers Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court has recently held that teachers teaching in private nursing colleges must be paid as per UGC Scales or, not less than what is admissible in nursing colleges under the State/Central government in accordance with the Nursing Council Regulations.
Justice D.K. Singh observed that the government and the Indian Nursing Council must take action against nursing colleges, which are not paying their teachers according to the mandate under Note iv of Regulation 5D of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing) Program) Regulations 2020.
Case Title: Manoj v. Kattappana Municipality & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an order rejecting a renewal application, which was uploaded on the K-Smart portal, is valid electronic communication in compliance with Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the Municipality Act).
Justice C.S. Dias observed that an applicant cannot insist that rejection order has to be served in the physical form in view of the implementation of the K-smart portal and the provisions of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
Kerala High Court Cancels KEAM Exam Results, Says Prospectus Can't Be Changed At Final Stage
Case Title: Hana Fatima Ahinus v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
In a setback to the Kerala Government, the High Court on Wednesday (July 9) directed the cancellation of Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) exam results, observing that changing the Prospectus at the final stage was a mistake.
Justice D.K. Singh thus set aside the rank list published as per the amended prospectus (Exhibit P6) and directed that a new, revised rank list be published in accordance with the un-amended prospectus (Exhibit P2).
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act.
Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji were addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order rejecting a man's appointment under the compassionate employment scheme due to his past involvement in criminal cases, holding that there exists no relevant connection between the alleged offence and the nature of the post in question.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John was hearing a petition filed by Jijin R., whose mother was a part-time sweeper in the Police Department and died in service in 2017. Jijin, belonging to the Ezhava community, was offered a post as Police Constable (Driver) under the compassionate scheme.
Case Title: Badusha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has held that the term "immediate official superior" in section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act must be interpreted contextually rather than rigidly through bureaucratic hierarchy.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling while dismissing a bail application filed by the petitioner, who had been booked under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 108.938 grams of MDMA. The search and seizure was conducted by the District Anti-Narcotic Special Action Force (DANSAF), which operates under the jurisdiction of the City Police Commissioner.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Quashing Governor's Appointment of Temporary VCs In Two Universities
Case Title: The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 14) upheld the orders declaring appointments of Dr. K. Sivaprasad and Dr. Ciza Thomas as temporary Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology respectively, by the former Governor were not sustainable in law.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan thus upheld a May 19 decision of the Single Judge and found no reason to interfere with the judgments.
Case Title: The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court has held that while filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the time taken for obtaining a copy of the award must be excluded for computing the period of limitation.
Justice K. Babu observed that the defendant's presence at the time of passing the award was not an exception to the general rule that the time to obtain a copy of the award has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period for the appeal.
Case Title: Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has introduced a material change from the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing through Section 223(2) that cognizance of a complaint against a public servant can be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused and after calling for a report from the superior officer.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that the CrPC did not have a similar provision.
Case Title: M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Dismissing a plea by the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala) against an order refusing to discharge him in a CBI case alleging illegal appointments in return for bribes, the Kerala High Court said that an office-bearer of a government-aided institute would qualify as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen upheld the trial court's order framing charges against M.S. Muraleedharan under various provisions of the IPC and the PC Act.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, deals with the levy of property tax by the Municipality on buildings and lands within its area. This section outlines the process of assessment and collection of property tax, specifying that it should be levied in accordance with the Act and prescribed rules.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
Case Title: Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr. v. T. Beena and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
The Kerala High Court has recently held that High Courts can use their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an ad interim injunction granted by a civil court in a suit barred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Justice K. Natarajan observed that the existence of an alternative remedy to vacate an order provided under Order 43 or Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not preclude the high courts from setting aside an illegal order granted by a civil court.
Case Title: Shanif v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
The Kerala High Court recently held that a delay of six months in initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, can sever the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of externment when the only explanation for the delay was that time was required to collect the crime records.
Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that, “The said explanation cannot withstand scrutiny as the entire police records have been digitised in the State, and any information with regard to the pending crimes can be obtained with the click of a mouse.”
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 16) closed the writ petition filed by producers of the Suresh Gopi starrer 'JSK - Janaki v State of Kerala', observing that a U/A Certificate was granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on July 11.
The Court orally observed that it is also giving a protective observation to prevent the audience from approaching the consumer court against the production, claiming it had promised to show 'Janaki v. State of Kerala' but it came out now with 'Janaki V v. State of Kerala'.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed, "The counsel for the petitioner submitted that releasing of the teaser of the movie and advertisement material with the earlier name of the movie can give rise to certain legal complications. It is made clear that in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the revised version of the movie is now being granted censor certificate, it is declared the using of the materials/teaser with the old name by the petitioner shall not in any manner legally, adversely affect the petitioner and no claim in that regard will be maintainable against the petitioner."
Case Title: All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v. Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
The State Government, through its rule-making powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot restrict the use of automatic or electric vehicles for driving test, ruled the Kerala High Court.
Justice N. Nagaresh partially quashed Circular No. 4/2024 issued by the State Transport Commissionerate, asserting the primacy of the Central Government's authority in regulating motor driving training under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. P K Suresh Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday sentenced P.K. Suresh Kumar to three days' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for making a series of Facebook posts containing "contemptuous and intemperate remarks" against sitting judges of the High Court.
The proceedings, initiated suo motu by the Court, were presided over by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian. This is the second time Kumar faced contempt proceedings. In the first instance, he had been discharged after tendering an unconditional apology for similar remarks. However, in March 2024, he resumed publishing inflammatory content on Facebook, openly admitting in one post that his earlier apology was a tactical ploy to avoid punishment.
Judge Bound To Hear Cases As Per Roster; Litigants Can't Engage In Forum Shopping: Kerala HC
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that judges are bound to hear the cases as per the roster prepared by the Chief Justice and that litigants cannot pick and choose the judges that have to hear their cases.
The observation was made Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing a party-in-person whose writ petition was noted with defects for not taking steps to issue notice to the respondents.
Kerala Bar Council Lifts Ban On Advocate Facing Assault Allegation, High Court Told
Case Title: Beylin Das v. The Bar Council of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
The Kerala High Court today disposed the plea filed by Advocate Beylin Das, whose practice was barred by the Kerala Bar Council for allegedly assaulting a woman advocate
Justice N. Nagaresh, disposed of the petition after it was submitted that the Bar Council has reconsidered the petitioner's representation.
Case Title: XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment refusing to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against a teacher after he was acquitted of an offence of sexual assaulting his student, as the witnesses turned hostile.
Justice D.K. Singh refused to intervene in the proceedings stating that the writ petition was preferred at a premature stage as only the show cause notice proposing punishment was issued to the petitioner.
Case Title: Jayasree and Anr. v. Sindhu Ajayan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
The Kerala High Court recently held that preferring a legal heir over another cannot be considered unnatural and does not make the execution of the Will suspicious. It also held that the first appellate court cannot, on its own, raise an issue of genuineness of a Will when there was no such pleading or issue raised before the trial court in the suit.
Justice Easwaran S. was considering a challenge to the decision of the first appellate court that framed certain points suo motu and held a Will to be vitiated due to suspicious circumstances due to exclusion of a legal heir.
Case Title: Sivanandan & Ors v. Ani and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Kerala High Court reaffirmed the statutory sanctity of a mortgagor's right to redemption under a usufructuary mortgage, and provided clarification on several crucial provisions of property and civil law.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in a civil dispute between family members over property rights, mortgage redemption and partition. The Court examined the redemption of usufructuary mortgage, Co Mortgagor's redemption and subrogation under section 92 of the Property Act, whether the registrar can be considered as an attesting witness under section 123 of the Property Act, and the applicability of section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Case Title: Kochi Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Nancy Xavier and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single judge's interim order directing construction of a temporary waiting shed at the Roll-on Roll-of (Ro-Ro) Jetty at Fort Kochi.
For context, the single judge had in its June 2 interim order directed the Kochi Municipal Corporation erect a temporary waiting shed at the Fort Kochi Ro-Ro Jetty, to accommodate at least 50 commuters at a given time, at their expenses, within one week from the date of the order.
Rejecting the arguments put forth by the Corporation, a division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., observed that commuters are entitled to wait for the ferry service in reasonable comfort and without being exposed to the harsh weather and that the Corporation is duty-bound to provide such elementary services to paying commuters.
Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Dancers RLV Ramakrishnan, Ullas
Case Title: Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings taken against Mohiniyattom dancers RLV Ramakrishnan and Ullas U. (accused persons/petitioner). The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by Kalamandalam Sathyabhama before the Magistrate in 2018 alleging defamation.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the complaint did not reproduce or extract the alleged defamatory statement nor did it contain the alleged date of publication of the statement.
Case Title: Shifana P.K. v. Director General of Police and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
The Kerala High Court has recently allowed a plea to deploy police protection for the peaceful conduct of elections to the Calicut University Union, scheduled to be held on July 22. The writ petition was preferred by Shifana P.K., a Chairperson candidate of the election.
Taking note of Exhibit P6 FIR and the fact that police protection was previously ordered by the High Court during 2023 elections, Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police (Respondents 1 and 2) to grant adequate police protection during elections.
Case Title: Beatrice v. Babu Louis
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
The Kerala High Court held that the matrimonial entrustment of property creates a trust which is not extinguished by the dissolution of marriage unless specific conditions under section 77 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, are met.
The bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar was delivering judgment on a matrimonial appeal.
Relying on Sheela K.K. v. Suresh N.G [ ILR 2020 (4) Ker 486] , the Court clarified that “Even when the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, it does not result in the extinguishment of the trust.”
Case Title: Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions to the police officers of the State to mandate conduct of Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at 'zero' before subjecting a person to the breathalyser test.
Justice V.G. Arun observed, "it is essential to note that the purpose of conducting an Air Blank Test is to check for any residual alcohol before taking breath sample from a person using a breath alcohol testing device. Thus, the primary goal of a blank test is to verify that the breathalyzer is functioning correctly and is not influenced by any residual alcohol from previous tests. Therefore, it is mandatory to conduct an Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at 'zero' before taking breath sample using a breath alcohol testing device."
Case Title: Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered the Central government and the Consul General, India-UAE Embassy to take actions facilitating repatriation of Vipanchika Maniyan's mortal remains to India.
The Court today impleaded Vipanchika's husband as an additional respondent, who informed that following a mediation at the Embassy in Sharjah it was decided that her mortal remains can be brought back to India and rituals can be completed by her maternal aunt. However, the daughter's remains will be buried by him in Sharjah.
Justice N. Nagaresh recorded these submissions and noting that the issues are almost sought consensually, said no further orders are required in the case. As such, the plea has been closed.
Case Title: Manoj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
The Kerala High Court has held that a motorbike can qualify as a 'dangerous weapon' under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, if it is used intentionally to cause harm.
Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment interpreting the provision which penalizes the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner who was convicted for the offence under section 324 of IPC.
Case Title: R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 21) held that the appeal preferred by former MLA R. Rajesh against the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for making a 'stinking Facebook post' against a sitting judge, was not maintainable.
The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was hearing the question of maintainability of the appeal.
Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Chinese Loan App Money Laundering Case
Case Title: Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Kerala High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of Sayid Muhammed, the fifth accused in the alleged Chinese Loan application scam who has been booked for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed the regular bail application stating that the investigation indicates the clear involvement of the petitioner as well as his active connection with the acquisition of proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
While considering a cruelty case lodged against a husband and his kin, the Kerala High Court observed that sole evidence of a domestic violence victim is reliable for conviction in such cases as often ill-treatment and harassment happens within the confines of the house.
Justice Jobin Sebastian underscored that the testimony can be relied on as sole evidence for conviction provided it is convincing and reliable. In the facts of the present case, the high court acquitted the husband, kin in a Section 498-A IPC case, holding that the main allegation of forced abortion was not proved and that other allegations remained unsubstantiated.
Case Title: Kumaran. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
The Kerala High Court has held that a stone need not always be a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of attracting the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, observed that it need not always be a dangerous weapon unless used as an instrument for cutting or used as such to be likely to cause death.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Police Official Accused Of Demanding ₹2K Bribe
Case Title: Sajeesh A v State of Kerala
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The Kerala High Court recently granted regular bail to a Senior Civil Police Officer who was accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting bribes.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case exists since the mahazar clearly showed that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
Noting that the accused/petitioner is a first-time offender, who had been in custody since 02.07.2025, and that the investigation is well progressed, the Court granted him conditional bail.
Case Title:Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
The Kerala High Court has expanded restrictions on videography and photography within the Sabarimala temple complex, directing the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and police authorities to strictly enforce temple decorum and public safety.
The order, issued by the Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S, comes in response to suo motu proceedings based on a Special Commissioner's report detailing serious breaches of court-imposed restrictions during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.
Case Title: Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
The Kerala High Court recently ordered police protection in a plea preferred by a quarry entrepreneur, who was prevented from conducting scientific study in order to start quarry operations.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that “In our country governed by Rule of Law, every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide.”
Case Title: Antony v. Tata Tea Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
In its recent judgement, the Kerala High Court has held that the change in name of a company, without any change in its constitution, would not affect the benefit obtained by it from a decree in its favour.
Justice Easwaran S. observed, “The decree passed in favour of the erstwhile company, whose name was subsequently changed will enure to the benefit of the company inasmuch as there is no change in the constitution and that the name of the entity alone is changed.”
Case Title- Radhakrishnan Nair v CBI
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
While reiterating the legal threshold for discharge under CrPC, the Kerala High Court dismissed the plea of a public servant accused of conspiracy and cheating in respect of Rs 7 crore loan fraud case seeking discharge from offences alleged against him, observing that there a "prima facie" case was made out.
Justice A. Badharudeen, in his judgement affirmed the trial court's decision to proceed with the charges against the petitioner, the then regional manager at SBI, accused of offences punishable under Section 120 B(criminal conspiracy), 409(criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
CaseTitle - Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court has observed that any attack on an advocate for carrying out professional duties poses a direct threat to the rule of law and access to justice. It thus refused anticipatory bail to nine accused in an assault case involving a practicing advocate.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed,“ Assaulting an Advocate for drafting a complaint cannot be viewed lightly. The fundamental right to have access to courts of law is enabled largely through Advocates. If Advocates are attacked for drafting complaints, rule of law will suffer.”
Case title: Zainul Abideen Karumbil vs. State Of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 10) dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of one Zainul Abideen Karumbil, accused, along with others, of leaking school examination question papers via a YouTube channel named 'M.S. Solutions'.
A bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who heard the matter, took note of the serious nature of the allegations and observed that his custodial interrogation is necessary.
Case Title: RDO and Anr. v. Thomas Daniel and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court recently held that a sale certificate issued by a bank/revenue authority to an auction purchaser following the sale of immovable property that belonged to a revenue defaulter will not attract the levy of stamp duty.
A Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a batch of writ appeals preferred by the government against the Single Bench's decision that held that stamp duty ought not be levied on such sale certificates.
Case Title: Bibin Paulson v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court has clarified that it had not, in its suo motu case concerning waste management in the State, prohibited the Magistrates from releasing vehicles seized for illegal waste dumping.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who was considering the petition, observed that no bar was imposed on the Magistrate in the suo motu case.
Case Title: P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment declaring that debt created by a cash transaction above Rupees Twenty Thousand in violation of the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 cannot be considered as a legally enforceable debt unless there is a valid explanation for the same.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that even so, a person accused of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act must challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
Case Title: Seema T.S. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lady doctor, who was accused of forging her Post-Graduation diploma certificate and obtaining registration from the Travancore Cochin Medical Council using the forged certificate.
Justice A. Badharudheen observed that “…it is the duty of the court to ensure, in corruption cases in particular that none of the corrupt person, should get liberal relief, so as to perpetuate corruption, taking such cases in a light manner,”
Case Title - X v Y
Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453
The Kerala High Court has recently reaffirmed the sanctity of court-mediated settlements while dismissing two matrimonial appeals challenging a compromise decree entered into through mediation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha emphasized that parties cannot be permitted to resile from settlements solemnized through judicial process, cautioning that any such attempts could undermine public trust in the justice system.
Case Title - AA v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Registrar of Births and Deaths has no authority to unilaterally alter the paternity details in a birth certificate where the child was born during a valid marriage, without a court order or notice to the lawful father.
Justice C S Dias delivered the judgement where the petitioner challenged a revised birth certificate issued by Payyanur Municipality, without following the procedure established by law.
Kerala High Court Upholds Govt Orders Banning Single-Use Plastic Across State
Case Title: Glister Sachet India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment upholding three state Government Orders (GOs) passed in 2019 banning single-use plastic in the State.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a batch of writ petitions preferred by Kerala Plastics Manufacturers Associations and several other persons challenging the government orders passed as early as in 2019.
Case Title - Suresh v State of Kerala
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the State Police, urging immediate and comprehensive reform of investigative practices in line with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Highlighting the critical need for foolproof investigations in heinous crimes such as murder, the Court called on the State Police to urgently upgrade their investigative capabilities through modern training, updated protocols, and strategic investments in forensic technology.
The Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar made these observations while acquitting a man previously convicted of murder due to glaring investigative lapses.
Case Title - Koovatt Laila v State of Kerala
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court has held that double tax is not leviable after building regularisation, and the assessee is liable to pay tax at the regular rate only.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “once a regularization came into effect, the liability of the petitioners is to pay the tax at the regular rate, as the said building cannot be treated as unauthorised for that period.”
Case Title - Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court quashed an order passed by Kannur University, which reviewed its own earlier order, and thereafter vested the ownership of Sharaf Arts and Science College Padne with the 'Khidmath Organisation of Padne', which was earlier vested with Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee.
Justice D K Singh, delivered the judgment while dealing with the question whether a statutory authority such as a University can review its own decision in the absence of express statutory authorisation to do so.
Case Title: Angels Nair v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) held that the government order, which permitted shooting of commercial films and TV serials in forest areas, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves, did not have the force of law.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji disposed of the writ appeal filed against the Single Bench order which had directed the Central and State governments, and the top forest department officials to consider whether any further additional conditions need be imposed in the matter while granting permission to use the forest for non-forest activities so that no damage is caused to the forest and wildlife.
Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) disposed of a PIL filed by Nilambur MLA Aryadan Shouketh for the betterment of tribal persons residing in the Nilambur Taluk with the observation that the MLA himself should take steps to address the issues raised in his petition.
Case Title: Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) ordered the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct hybrid public hearings instead of online hearings alone while considering the revision of the Renewable Energy Regulations.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed that physical hearings may be held at Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram and left it open to the Commission to decide the venue and timings of the hearing
Case Title - Anila and Ors v Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and Anr
Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 462
Dismissing a woman's plea against an order permitting her mother-in-law to reside in a portion of the shared family house, the Kerala High Court observed that a purposive interpretation should be given to the term "children" under Senior Citizens Act to also include "daughter-in-law", depending on the facts and circumstances.
Justice Viju Abraham, delivered the judgment while dealing with the question whether a senior citizen could invoke the Senior Citizen Act against a daughter-in-law, and does such an order come in conflict with the rights granted under the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Daleel Ahmmed and Ors. v. National Medical Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Kerala State Medical Councils and the Director of Medical Education to process the registration applications of certain foreign medical graduates (FMGs) to join CMRI internship without mandating them to undergo a compulsory 2 year "Clinical Clerkship Program".
Justice N Nagaresh, held the “Clinical Clerkship” is not required for the petitioner foreign medical graduates as they have compensated their online classes with physical classes in their parent institutions.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
Justices Devan Ramachandran, Gopinath P. and Mohammed Nias C.P. was addressing the issue of whether a purchasing dealer, who has otherwise complied with all statutory requirements, can legitimately be denied the benefit of input tax credit solely on the ground that the selling dealer failed to remit the tax collected.
Case Title: Advocate Boris Paul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 29) directed the State government and the State Wetland Authority to constitute a specific unit for the conservation of Ashtamudi Wetland, namely, Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a plea by Advocate Boris Paul, former President of the Kollam Bar Association, against waste dumping and illegal encroachments in the Ashtamudi lake causing water pollution and destruction of mangrove forests.
Case Title: Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
In a case concerning prosecution of a dissolved company accused of cheating various nursing aspirants of over Rs 100 crore, the Kerala High Court recommended to the Parliament to amend the criminal procedural law and if need be special statutes, for effective prosecution of dissolved companies.
Justice A. Badharudeen in his order observed that Section 70 of PMLA Act does not distinguish a company as existing company or non existing company; at the same time, the "procedure law is silent" on how a company or corporation or society is prosecuted
Case Title: Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
The Kerala High Court has declined the plea for emergency leave preferred by the wife of Sijith @ Annan Sijith, who is presently undergoing life imprisonment in the T.P. Chandrasekharan murder case for attending the 'choroonu' ceremony of his child.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that Sijith was already granted emergency leave for 10 days at the time of delivery of the child, around 6 months back and observed that paroles can be granted only in extraordinary situations and declined parole for the present ceremony.
Case Title: Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
The Kerala High Court recently held that a magistrate must give an opportunity of hearing to the accused person before taking cognizance of an offence based on a complaint. The Court found that this is a mandate under the proviso to Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice Badharudeen observed:
“Thus, the crucial aspect of Section 223(1) is the first proviso, which mandates that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. This is a significant departure from the provisions of the Cr.P.C, which did not mandate this pre-cognizance hearing for the accused.”
Case Title - Noorudheen v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the service of notice on relative of accused, raising demand on dishonour of cheque, is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless it is shown that the accused had knowledge of such notice.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan, reaffirmed the law on service of notice under section 138 as laid down by the high court in Saju v Shalimar Hardware (2025).
Case Title - K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Kerala High Court held that mere publication of a news item in a newspaper regarding a worker's dismissal does not amount to formal service of the dismissal order and hence does not trigger the limitation under section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice K Babu, clarified the legal interpretation of the limitation period under the Industrial Disputes Act while setting aside a Labour Court decision that dismissed a challenge to dismissal as time-barred.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 30) disposed of a PIL which sought a direction to the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India), MoEF (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) and other authorities, to stop the unscientific and excessive soil extraction done in Chelannoor Village of Kozhikode in connection with the construction of National Highway from Kasargod to Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji looked into Rule 10(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and considered how this mandate can be implemented when quarrying is conducted along the stretch of a road.
Case Title: Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the powers under Section 311 CrPC or corresponding Section 348 BNSS cannot be invoked to recall a POCSO or rape victim for further cross-examination for changing the evidence given during trial.
Justice G. Girish reiterated the settled-position that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a routine manner, and can only be exercised if there are valid and sufficient grounds. The judge opined that the petitioner's attempt to compel the victim to state that the incident of rape did not occur amounted to degrading the sanctity and credibility of judicial proceedings.
Case Title: Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
The Kerala High Court recently held that presence of other children is not a valid defence against a mother's plea seeking maintenance from her son.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a revision petition filed by the son challenging maintenance of Rs. 2000 granted by the Family Court to the 100-year-old mother.
It refused to accept the argument of the petitioner that the mother (respondent 1) was living with one of her other sons and that there were old children capable of maintaining her.
Case Title: Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
The present writ petition was filed seeking the quashing of an order passed by the NCLT, Kochi Bench. By that impugned order, the adjudicating authority has directed the resolution professional to reject the claim filed by the home buyers, including the petitioner.
Justice T.R. Ravi observed that in the present case the final hearing was concluded and then the order was passed, based upon the affidavit of the respondent. The bench noted that it is evident from the admitted facts that the adjudicating authority has accepted and recorded the affidavit that was filed after the hearing, and the order itself has been issued relying on the contents of the said affidavit. The bench noted the adjudicating authority should have heard the petitioner and like persons on the contents of the affidavit.
Case Title: Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the State government to constitute a committee to look into the independence of the Social Audit Society under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREGA) Scheme.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a PIL filed by Adv. George Pulikuthiyil, former ombudsman of the MGNREGA Kerala State Mission.
Case Title: Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
The Kerala High Court recently held that in the absence of a notification recognizing a foreign country as a reciprocating country, an Indian court cannot recognize a power-of-attorney executed by a foreign notary public.
Justice K. Babu observed, “I am of the considered view that the mandate of Section 57(6) of the Indian Evidence Act that the Court shall take judicial notice of the seals of notaries public can be made applicable to a power of attorney executed before a notary public in a foreign country only if the foreign country is a reciprocating country. In the absence of proof of reciprocation of the foreign country where the power of attorney was executed before the notary public the presumption regarding identification and authentication as provided in Section 85 of the Evidence Act would not arise.”
Case Title: C.A.N. Subramoniya Sarma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 30) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking improvement of pedestrian pathway and safety in East Fort area of capital city, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji stipulated timelines for implementing the short-term and long term measures outlined by the Transport Commissioner in the affidavit submitted before the Court.
Case Title: SR Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
The Kerala High Court recently said that the State government is legally bound to pay rent and compensation to the owners of a private building, which it used or took over invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Justice N. Nagaresh in his order observed that the buildings and valuable equipment belonging to the petitioner educational agency, were taken over by the State authorities during the crucial time of Covid-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Thankamma and Ors v Regional Joint Labour Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
The Kerala High Court held that a manager of a factory, as defined under Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, can be considered the lawful employer for the purpose of gratuity proceedings, even in the absence or death of the proprietary owner.
Justice K Babu delivered the judgement, dismissing a challenge brought by the legal heirs of the former proprietor of Thankam Cashew Factory. The petitioners contended that a gratuity award passed on October 4, 2023, was void ab initio since it was rendered against a deceased person.
Case Title: Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a person for failing to lower the National Flag for almost 2 days after hoisting it during an Independence day celebration.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath considered whether offences under Section 2(a) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, read with Part-III, Section III, Rule 3.6 of the Flag Code of India, 2002 were made out in the case.
Kerala High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Woman's Request To Donate Kidney To Husband's Friend
Case Title: Musthafa N P and Anr v The State Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
Kerala High Court has set aside the orders of the State and District Level Authorisation Committees rejecting a kidney transplant application involving two family friends.
Justice N. Nagaresh directed the District Level Committee to reconsider the application within six weeks, granting the petitioners an opportunity to submit fresh evidence. He held that the rejection was based on “untenable grounds”.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings taken against a law student for allegedly defiling a Mahatma Gandhi statue on his campus by putting cooling glasses and Christmas wreath on it.
Justice V.G. Arun quashed the criminal proceedings alleging commission of offences under Sections 153 [Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot] and 426 [Punishment for mischief] of IPC noting that the ingredients of the offences were not made out.
Case Title: Suo Motu v R. Rajesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
The Kerala High Court closed the contempt proceedings initiated against former MLA R Rajesh by allowing a discharge application, citing significant procedural violations in the initiation and conduct of the proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar allowed the discharge application.
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 6) expressed its strong disapproval against the action of M.R. Ajith Kumar IPS, Additional Director General of Police (Armed Forces Battalion) for using a tractor belonging to the Kerala Police Department on the Sabarimala Swami Ayyappan Road on July 12 and 13.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considered a suo motu proceeding, which was initiated following the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala regarding the alleged incident.
Cochin International Airport Ltd A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act : Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. State Information Commission and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a public authority coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Dismissing the writ appeals preferred by CIAL challenging the decision of the Single Bench, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on CIAL for filing the writ appeals without proper authority.
Case Title: Ratheesh K G v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Kerala High Court has quashed an FIR against a police officer accused of illegal search and bribery, holding that procedural irregularity in the matter of seizure of contraband alone, would not constitute an offence, even though it may attract disciplinary proceedings.
Justice A Badharudeen, delivered the judgment and ruled that the FIR registered against the petitioner was unwarranted and legally unsustainable.
Convict Not Entitled To Emergency Leave For Giving Care To Pregnant Wife: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Bindhu K.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment denying emergency leave to a life convict to give pregnancy care to his wife, who was two months pregnant. It opined that extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised granting parole to those convicted of serious offences, forgetting about the interests of the victims.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Jose v The Sub Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 489
The Kerala High Court has issued detailed procedural guidance on how trial courts must handle the resumption of criminal proceedings against an accused previously found unfit to stand trial due to mental illness.
Justice G Girish observed, “The mere assessment as to whether the accused is having mental illness or not, by referring the matter to the Mental Health Review Board, would not serve any purpose, unless the opinion sought to be obtained is whether the unsoundness of mind of the accused is of such an extent which would render him incapable of making his defence,”
Case Title: S Sheeja v Maintenance Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a person cannot be compelled to maintain a childless senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, unless they are a legal heir of the senior citizen as defined under personal law.
The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment while allowing a writ appeal where the orders from the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to support her husband's aunt was challenged.
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
The Kerala High Court recently imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on a convict (2nd respondent), who had filed two criminal appeals before the Sessions Court, one of which resulted in confirmation of sentence and the other in acquittal.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that it is the duty of all stakeholders to work together and ensure that the criminal justice delivery system is protected.
Kerala High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Litigant Appearing In Person For Threatening Judge
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
The Kerala High Court recently imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on a litigant, who was appearing as party-in-person, for threatening the single judge hearing his case by stating that he has filed a complaint against the judge before the President of India and other authorities.
Referring to former CJI JS Khehar's opinion in the 2015 National Judicial Commission judgment Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India , Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in his order observed:
"I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. When I have faith in it, I am not bothered about such threats. The petitioner is threatening this Court by stating that he approached the President of India and other authorities against me. I am least bothered about the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the authorities because I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India".
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 11) refused to interfere with an order of the trial court denying permission to the prime accused in Koodathayi Murder case, Jollyamma Joseph alias Jolly Joseph, to inspect the place of occurrence of crime along with her new lawyer.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that the trial is at a fag end with 124 prosecution witnesses already examined and thus dismissed the petition challenging the impugned order of the trial court.
Case Title: Elvin John Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “without unnecessary delay” used in Section 21(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 in context of surrendering an arm after expiry of its license is too vague and thus, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution unless.
Justice V.G. Arun held thus while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, who was charged for depositing his licensed gun three months after the expiry of his licence.
Case Title: M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 12) granted regular bail to M.N. Narayana Das, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that he has been in custody for around 104 days and that his arrest is vitiated since the grounds were not mentioned to him.
Case Title: Gowri Sankari V.S. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against two persons for allegedly posting negative comments in a whatsapp group regarding the collection of money to the CMDRF (Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund) account for Wayanad landslide victims.
Justice V.G. Arun observed:
"The comments, when read as a whole, makes it apparent that they were posted during the course of a discussion regarding utilization of the contributions made to the CMDRF. There are comments about mis-utilisation of the money donated and also against the political party in power. Even if so, to assume that such comments are capable of causing riot among the public and nuisance to others, is to say the least, preposterous. That the comments are not palatable to a group of people or even to the Government, is no reason to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioners, since the comments, though critical of the Government, are well within the bounds of law."
Case Title: Mariamma Joseph and Others v Director of Local Fund Audit and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court has held that parties aggrieved by District Court decisions in surcharge proceedings initiated under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act must file an appeal under Section 215(13) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act rather than directly invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the judgment in an appeal against a 2013 District Court order which had quashed a surcharge order under Section 16 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994.
Case Title: Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court appointed two law students as amici curiae to assist in resolving a question on arrest and detention timelines in an NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted the “commitment with which two law interns were watching the proceedings” and, with their consent, appointed Ms. Nikhina Thomas and Ms. Neha Babu, both second-year students at Ramaiah College, Bengaluru, as amici curiae.
Case Title: Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Kerala High Court has held that the 24-hour deadline for producing an accused before a magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the moment a person's liberty is effectively curtailed, rather than from the time police formally records the arrest.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The period of twenty-four hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police, but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed.”
Case Title: Abdulla P. v. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption in favour of a cheque holder under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act exists even if the non-banking financial company (NBFC) to which the cheque was issued charged interest higher than that permissible under the Kerala Money-Lenders Act.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed:
“The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the entire life of a NBFC from the womb to the tomb is regulated and monitored by the Reserve Bank of India. The non banking financial companies regulated by the Reserve Bank of India in terms of the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934 cannot be regulated by the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the interest claimed by the complainant was excessive and in violation of Kerala Money-Lenders Act 1958 and therefore it was an illegal transaction and for that reason, Ext.P4 cheque cannot be treated as a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt etc. are untenable. The presumption under Section 139 N.I Act entails an obligation on the court to presume that the cheque in question was issued by the drawer or accused in discharge of a debt or liability...”
Case Title: Zubair C.A. and Anr. v. Project Director, NHAI and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 13) dismissed three writ petitions challenging the setting up of a temporary toll plaza in Arikady in Kasargod district in the Thalappady-Cherkkala stretch of NH-66.
The petitioners challenged the proposed temporary toll as violative of Rule 8(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 for being less than 60km from another toll plaza on the same national highway.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed:
“Though Rule 8 mandates that a second Fee Plaza on the same Section of National Highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of 60 Km., the first proviso to Rule 8(2) states that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another Fee Plaza within a distance of 60 Km…The NHAI has given clear reasons in this regard in Ext.R3(b) office notes evidencing sanction given by the appropriate authority.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
The Kerala High Court has held that allegations of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained when the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while granting regular bail to the petitioner accused of sexually assaulting a woman on the pretext of marriage, observed.
“Though the allegations are serious, since the victim is already in a subsisting marriage, allegation of sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage cannot legally exist, atleast prima facie.”
Case Title: P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 18) granted bail to two persons booked in the Angamaly Urban Cooperative Society scam case, who along with other accused are booked for misappropriating ₹115.8 Crores by allegedly granting fake loans.
Justice A. Badharudeen granted the bail to the 5th accused PC Tomy and 12th accused Elsy Varghese, who were both board members of the society, in the 2024 criminal case registered by Crime Branch Ernakulam, noting that they did not have any past criminal records and the investigation has progressed well.
Case Title: Adv. Richard Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
The Kerala High Court has recently passed detailed directions to revive the defunct Kochi Metropolitan Transport Authority (KMTA), a body envisaged under the Kerala Metropolitan Transport Authority Act, 2019. The body was notified by the government of Kerala by an official Gazette on 30 October 2020.
While considering a writ petition seeking a direction to revive the KMTA, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji directed that the authority, which has remained on paper for the past five years, must be made functional by the Kerala Day, 1 November 2025.
Case Title: Appachan v. SI of Police and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against film distributor Appachan, prominently known as Swargachitra Appachan booked for allegedly tampering with Malayalam film 'Vellinakshtram'.
A crime was registered, alleging insertion of a scene in the film after it was certified by the Censor Board.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that since there was absolutely no material to show that the scene in question was inserted after the film was certified by the Censor Board, the offence would not stand.
Case Title: Luckose Joseph v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 505
The Kerala High Court has observed that while a valid sanction is prerequisite for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere error or irregularities in the sanction order will not alter/reverse any finding, sentence or order of a court unless it causes failure of justice.
Partly allowing an appeal, Justice A Badharudeen passed the order while confirming the conviction of the appellant, a former Village Officer for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹250 in 2001 for issuing possession certificates in respect of a property, but reduced his sentence to the statutory minimum.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. AAA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 18) closed the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against Ettumanoor-based lawyer after he filed an affidavit furnishing his unconditional apology.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar closed the contempt proceedings, which were initiated after the advocate allegedly disrupted the proceedings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ettumanoor on 02.02.2023.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 4 PFI Members Booked For Murder Of RSS Leader Srinivasan
Case Title: Muhammed Bilal and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 19) granted bail to four persons, who are members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), accused of the alleged murder of BJP activist K.S. Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
A Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar granted bail to Muhammed Bilal, Riyasudheen, Ansar K.P., and Saheer K.V. in the appeals filed by them under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dr. Sivaprasad, Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU), challenging the interim order dated August 19, by which a single judge had declined to grant interim relief in his writ petition to resolve the 'administrative stalemate' in the University..
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishnan S dismissed the appeal and held that the interim relief sought in the writ petition and the main relief were essentially the same.
Case Title: M.K. Aravindakshan and Anr. v. M.R. Pradeep and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment taking away the police protection granted to a couple to close down the gate in their property after noting that there was no law-and-order situation made out.
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed:
“The police force operates with limited resources and has to attend to various duties, often emergent ones. Routinely ordering police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without the apprehension of serious law and order issues being established, would divert the time and energy of the police force from areas where genuine law and order issues exist. Thus, orders for police protection may have implications extending beyond the parties before the Court, and this is a factor which the writ court ought to keep in mind.”
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (August 21) directed the formation of a body called the 'Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee' for finding long-terms solutions to improve the judicial administration and infrastructure of the Union Territory (UT) of Lakshadweep.
The Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed:
"With the positive stand taken by the Union Territory Administration during the hearing of this petition and in the meetings, many issues were resolved by consensus of UT Administration and the High Court Administration. Pursuant to our directions over the last six months, joint meetings were held, the officers met, discussed the issues, found solutions, and evolved timelines...However, for long-term solutions, these informal initiatives need to be formalised in the form of a permanent committee - “Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee”.
Case Title: Manilal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man for allegedly using filthy language, hitting plastic chairs on the floor and throwing files in the Tahsildar's office in Kollam.
Highlighting the need for empathy and humane touch in bureaucracy, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed:
“A humane touch is necessary in every administrative act of bureaucrats. It is often said that every file has a face, and every decision has a consequence. Behind every decision, there is a person with hopes, fears and dreams. Every decision made in an office affects a life outside of it. Administrative decisions are not just papers; they are lives in progress. The success of democracy is not just about governance by elected representatives of the people alone, but it also relies on the way bureaucrats support such a government with a humane approach.”
Case Title: Sulaiman M S and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
The Kerala High Court has ordered fair compensation for the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State to compensate a minority- run private school, terming the move to avoid payment for full compensation, a “dubious attempt” to circumvent constitutional safeguards.
The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon, delivered the judgment, allowing a writ appeal and the connected matter, held that the State cannot bypass constitutional protections under Article 30(1A) through indirect arrangements.
Case Title: A. Chandran v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
The Kerala High Court recently held that the period of service before the commencement of the Advocates' Clerks Welfare Scheme Rules, 1985 can be considered to see if an advocate clerk is eligible to get the benefit of the Scheme.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon passed the judgment while considering a plea by an advocate clerk, who started his work in the year 1970.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Case Title: T.M. Hariprasad v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that the village panchayat does not have the powers to suo motu review or cancel a building permit which was validly given by the Panchayat Secretary.
Referring to Rules 9, 13 and 14 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and the state Panchayat Raj Act, Justice C.S. Dias observed,
“A co-joint reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that the jurisdiction to decide an application for a building permit rests solely with the Secretary. It is only when the Secretary does not approve or disapprove an application within 15 days that the Village Panchayat gets jurisdiction to decide the application, provided the applicant submits a written request...The legislation statute bars the Panchayat, its President or members from interfering with the statutory powers entrusted exclusively to its officers, and there is a clear separation/bifurcation of powers between the Village Panchayat and its Secretary”.
Case Title: Liviya Jose v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (August 23) granted regular bail to Liviya Jose, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "The petitioner is a young lady of 21 years...Considering the period of custody already undergone, I am of the view that further detention is not necessary."
Case Title: Bhargavan Pillai and Ors. v District Geologist and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
The Kerala High Court held that contractors executing National Highway projects cannot claim automatic exemption from environmental clearance (EC) requirements merely because they hold a work order from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). They have to show that they are holding a work order executed before March 21, 2024, and that they are doing the work exclusively for the linear project.
Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by residents of Kurampala Village in Pathanamthitta, opposing a large-scale excavation of ordinary earth from 'Erichurili Mala' by Respondent 7, Viswasamudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a contractor engaged in six laning of NH-66 from Kottukulangara-Kollam bypass.
Case Title: Sukumaran and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala High Court recently held that even non-legal heirs of a complainant can continue prosecution of the complaint upon his death, even if his legal heirs are alive and have not come forward to prosecute.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 302 of CrPC empowers a Magistrate to permit “any person” to prosecute the complaint. The bench observed that even a non-legal heir of a complainant in a complaint case can be permitted to continue the prosecution on the death of the complainant, although his legal heirs are alive and have not come forward to prosecute the case.
Case Title: A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that there is no need to simultaneously seize the forest produce and the vehicle used in committing a forest offence, however, there must be a reasonable nexus and a reasonable interval between the two seizures.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a question referred by a Single Judge to examine whether there was a divergent view made out in the decisions in Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina [1999 (1) KLJ 433] and DFO, Kothamangalam v. Sunny Joseph [2002 (3) KLT 641].
Case Title: Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
The Kerala High Court has set aside the State Government's refusal to grant sanction for prosecuting former officials of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) including the ex-Chairman R Chandrasekharan and ex-MD K A Ratheesh, in a corruption case investigated by the CBI.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, in his order directed the Industries Department to reconsider the CBI's request for sanction within three months, while keeping further trial proceedings in abeyance until then.
Case Title: Navas A v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging the appointment of former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac as the advisor of Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM).
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji while pronouncing the order said,
"The State government has engaged someone who is an expert in the field as an advisor, who has agreed to work on a voluntary basis. The writ is unsupported by proper research. It is unfortunate that respondent no.5 (Isaac) was subject to such petition. Writ petition is dismissed."
Case Title: Santhy Krishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 11) refused to interfere with an order of the trial court denying permission to the prime accused in Koodathayi Murder case, Jollyamma Joseph alias Jolly Joseph, to inspect the place of occurrence of crime along with her new lawyer.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that the trial is at a fag end with 124 prosecution witnesses already examined and thus dismissed the petition challenging the impugned order of the trial court.
Case Title: Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
The Kerala High Court imposed Rs. 25,000 fine on a public interest litigant who suppressed his "personal interest" in the matter and did not disclose proper credentials which amounts to abuse of law.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji emphasized that there is a need to disclose the full credentials of petitioners in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by way of detailed affidavits at the threshold, to avoid misuse of the jurisdiction.
Case Title: V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Others v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 524
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by two Congress leaders challenging the installation of AI cameras for 'Automated Traffic Enforcement' in the State and seeking a Court monitored enquiry into the Safe Kerala project.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed,
"Having thoroughly reviewed the claims in writ petition, the counter affidavit and the legal arguments from both counsels, we are compelled to conclude that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence from which this Court could reasonably infer the existence of malafides, illegality, corruption or procedural impropriety in the contract for the AI camera installation under the Safe Kerala Project."
Case Title: Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
The Kerala High Court has recently held that citizenship of India cannot be granted to a foreign national in the absence of a Renunciation Certificate, by mere surrender of passport issued by the country of origin, in this case Pakistan.
The Division Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M. was hearing the Central government's appeal against a single judge's order permitting two Pakistani minors (respondents 2 and 3) to be granted Indian citizenship without insisting on a Renunciation Certificate.
Kerala High Court Orders Strict Action Against Levy Of Excessive Locker Fees In Sabarimala
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 26) directed initiation of strict action against a tender holder in Sabarimala for charging locker fees, much higher than that permissible by the tender conditions.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu case, which was initiated based on an anonymous complaint by a Telangana resident addressed to the Chief Justice. The complaint pertained to the unauthorized collection of locker charges at Pamba, Sabarimala allegedly resulting in revenue loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Rapper Vedan In Rape Case
Case Title: Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 27) granted anticipatory bail to Rapper Vedan, officially known as Hiran Das Murali, in a case alleging rape on the false promise to marry.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed the fact that a new crime was registered against the rapper by another woman or that another crime may also be registered, are not matters under consideration in the instant case.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. K. Surendran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the State government to withdraw the revision petition filed by it against the discharge of BJP leader K. Surendran in the Manjeshwaram election bribery case.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that as per the decision in Xavier Raj v. State of Kerala (2025 (4) KLT 257), revision petitions against discharge were not maintainable and the only remedy is an appeal under Section 14A the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Case Title: Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the 2021 Government Order directing further investigation into a criminal case against retired DGP Tomin J. Thachankary for possessing illegal assets.
Reversing the judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the order, the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“…we are at a loss to understand how the State Government could have exercised such a power to direct further investigation more than four years after the laying of the final report, and that too at the instance of material brought to their notice by an accused person who had already approached the jurisdictional court with a discharge petition that was eventually dismissed… In our view the State government did not have the power to issue such an order and, even if it did, the power was not exercised in the manner contemplated under law. The Government order dated 28.01.2021 was therefore clearly vitiated by legal mala fides.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday acquitted all the police officers earlier convicted for the custodial death of Udayakumar in Thiruvananthapuram.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has overturned the convictions and held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused officers were responsible.
[S.292 IPC] Courts Must View Video In Obscenity Case To Verify Allegations: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Harikumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court has overturned the conviction of a man accused of possessing and distributing obscene video cassettes, holding that the trial court failed in its duty to directly verify the material evidence before finding him guilty.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, allowing the criminal revision petition, set aside the orders of both the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, and the Sessions Court, Kottayam.
Case Title: Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and connecter Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court has quashed Revenue Divisional Officer's orders (RDO) reclassifying land owned by Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. in Thrissur, observing that statutory procedure under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act had not been properly followed.
It thus directed a fresh evaluation of the land.
Justice Viju Abraham issued the judgment while disposing of two connected writ petitions, one filed by Lulu Hypermarket and the other filed by T.N. Mukundan, a member of the District Level Authorised Committee constituted under the Act, who opposed the conversion.
Kerala High Court Directs Vigil On Kochi's Canals, Closes Six-Year-Old PIL
Case Title: Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 27) issued comprehensive directions for the upkeep of the Kochi city's canal and drainage system, while affirming the role of a high-level committee constituted earlier to oversee the matter.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, delivering judgment, noted that the 2018 floods were a “turning point” that exposed the fragility of Kochi's drainage infrastructure. “It was an eye-opener, but also a lesson that proper maintenance and decongestion of canals could mitigate inundation,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Cochin Port Trust v State of Kerala and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (27, August) has set aside an order issued by the State Chief Secretary directing the Cochin Port Trust to urgently remove sedimentation obstructing the flow of the Periyar River near the Vallarpadam railway bridge, holding that such a far-reaching decision required consultation with all stakeholders. The court also directed the state to find a comprehensive solution to the issue within three months.
Justice Devan Ramachandran delivered the judgment while considering a batch of cases relating to the sedimentation in Periyar river.
Case Title: Kerala Taxi Drivers Organisation v State of Kerala and Anr and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
The Kerala High Court has upheld the State Transport Authority's (STA) decision mandating installation of surveillance cameras with fatigue-detection sensors, geo-fencing technology, and compulsory production of Police Clearance Certificates(PCCs) for transport personnel.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., delivered the judgment dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by stage carriage operators, private bus operators, taxi drivers' associations, educational institutions, and travel operators.
S. 232 BNSS | No Prohibition On Committal Courts To Consider Bail Applications: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vishnu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no prohibition on a committal court to consider the bail application of an accused person as per the second proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice V.G. Arun observed:
"The 2nd proviso casts a duty on the Magistrate to forward the applications filed by the accused or the victim to the Court of Session while committing the case. If the 2nd proviso is taken as a prohibition on the Magistrate's power to consider applications, including bail applications at the committal stage, that will deprive the accused of his right to seek bail till the case is committed to the Sessions Court...As per sub-clause (a) of Section 232, the Magistrate's power to remand the accused to custody until commitment, is subject to the provisions relating to bail. If the proviso is interpreted as making it obligatory for the Magistrate to forward the bail applications also to the Sessions Court, that would render the power conferred under sub-clause (a) of Section 232 nugatory."
Angamaly Co-op Scam: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 7th Accused VD Tomy
Case Title: V.D. Tomy v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court recently "The 2nd proviso casts a duty on the Magistrate to forward the applications filed by the
accused or the victim to the Court of Session while committing the case. If the 2nd
proviso is taken as a prohibition on the Magistrate's power to consider applications,
including bail applications at the committal stage, that will deprive the accused of his
right to seek bail till the case is committed to the Sessions Court...As per sub-clause (a)
of Section 232, the Magistrate's power to remand the accused to custody until
commitment, is subject to the provisions relating to bail. If the proviso is interpreted as
making it obligatory for the Magistrate to forward the bail applications also to the
Sessions Court, that would render the power conferred under sub-clause (a) of Section
232 nugatory."
Angamaly Co-op Scam: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 7th Accused VD Tomy
Case Title: V.D. Tomy v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court recently granted regular bail to V.D. Tomy, who is the 7th
accused in the alleged case of misappropriation of ₹115.8 Crores by granting fake loans
in Angamaly Co-operative Urban Society. He was arrested on 11th July and has been
custody since then.
Justice A. Badharudeen granted bail after noting that Tomy had no antecedents, and
the investigation in the case had progressed much. Therefore, the Court felt that no
useful purpose would be served if he continues to be in custody.
granted regular bail to V.D. Tomy, who is the 7th accused in the alleged case of misappropriation of ₹115.8 Crores by granting fake loans in Angamaly Co-operative Urban Society. He was arrested on 11th July and has been custody since then.
Justice A. Badharudeen granted bail after noting that Tomy had no antecedents, and the investigation in the case had progressed much. Therefore, the Court felt that no useful purpose would be served if he continues to be in custody.
Case Title: Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor and Anr and Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court has held that members of the Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) cannot continue a meeting once it has been called off by the Vice-Chancellor.
Justice T.R. Ravi passed the order in two writ petitions filed by two Syndicate members challenging the annulment of decisions by the Vice Chancellor which were taken at the 63rd Syndicate meeting of KTU after the VC had declared the meeting as closed.
Case Title: C.P. Muhammed v. The Geologist and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
The Kerala High Court has struck down portions of a 2022 notification and subsequent clarification (Office Memorandum (O.M.)) issued by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to the extent it gives extension of validity period of Environment Clearance to mining projects.
Justice C Jayachandran, in his order observed:
“The impugned Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 –insofar as it is applicable to mines and mining operations as provided in clause 9(iv) - is declared ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules, and also, the EIA notification, 2006 and hence struck down as unconstitutional. Ext.P9 Office Memorandum is also declared illegal and ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules and the EIA notification, 2006, insofar as it pertains to mines and mining operations. Consequently, the 6th respondent will stand directed, by a writ of mandamus, to take action in accord with law regarding the quarrying operations of the 9th respondent, treating Ext.P20 E.C. to have expired.”
Case Title: Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that colleges do not fall within the ambit of sensitive locations for the purpose of citing criteria for petroleum outlets.
Justice S. Manu was considering a challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives (2nd respondent) rejecting the approval sought by the petitioner to give her property for starting a retail outlet of petroleum products.
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be initiated without a written complaint and that disputes of a purely labour nature do not fall under the Act's framework.
A division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar dismissed a writ appeal, affirming a single bench decision that quashed the finding of the Local Level Committee constituted under the POSH Act, and a subsequent communication from District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram.
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has ruled that allegations of creating a hostile work environment, without any element of sexual conduct or advances, do not amount to “sexual harassment” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal challenging a single judge's decision that had quashed the report of a Local Level Committee constituted under PoSH Act and a compliance directive from the Thiruvananthapuram District Collector.
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a person cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of stolen items when the same is not corroborated with evidence to show that it was, in fact, he who stole them.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction when unaccompanied by supporting evidence.
Case Title: Aparna Nair v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
While granting anticipatory bail to a woman accused of trafficking the children of the complainant to UAE, the Kerala High Court observed the mere fact that she had sent money to the complainant's relative does not prove her involvement in the alleged crime.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation in a case where the prosecution alleged that the petitioner (second accused) along with accused 1 and 3, had promised to provide an employment to the two children of de-facto complainant and had trafficked them to 'UAE' on a visiting visa.
Kerala High Court Grants 10-Day Leave To Life Convict Pursuing LLB Course To Attend Internship
Case Title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v. The Superintendent and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 8) granted 10-day leave to a man, convicted and sentenced to life for murder and presently pursuing 3-year LL.B. course, to attend internship scheduled from September 10-16.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied on the judgment in Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala and observed:
"The Division Bench of this Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu's case (supra) observed that, a prisoner who intends to pursue his studies should be allowed to pursue his studies through online, and for other internal examinations, the prisoner should be granted leave. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be given leave in the light of the observation of the Division Bench in Pattakka Suresh Babu's case (supra)."
Case Title: Harrisons Malayalam Limited v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Kerala High Court has recently closed a writ appeal filed single judge's order allowing the State government to acquire Nedumbala estate owned by Harrisons Malayalam Limited for rehabilitation of 2024 Wayanad Landslide victims under Disaster Management Act.
The division bench comprising Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was informed that the state government, by an order dated 28.02.2025, had excluded Nedumbala Estate from being acquired for the time being. The government submitted that it will come up with a fresh notice to take over the estate in future, if required.
Case Title: Askaf v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted a person after finding that the trial court accepted chief affidavits of witnesses as evidence against him in violation of Section 276 Cr.P.C.
Justice Johnson John observed:
"Therefore, if the trial court permits the prosecution to file chief affidavit of a material witness as evidence in a criminal case against the accused, the same will cause serious prejudice to the accused, in as much as the entire contents of the chief affidavit can only be treated as an outcome of the leading questions put to the witness."
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court has held that a person availing the services of a sex worker in a brothel cannot be termed a “customer,” stressing that sex workers are not commodities and should not be reduced to the status of products in commercial transactions.
Justice V.G. Arun, in his order, clarified that the very concept of “customer” involves the purchase of goods or services. In contrast, sex workers — many of whom are victims of trafficking or coercion — cannot be equated with products or ordinary service providers, adding that a person availing a sex workers' services in a brothel is actually inducing that sex worker to carry on prostitution by paying money.
Case Title: M.C. Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) granted regular bail to former MLA M.C. Kamarudheen and his business associate T.K. Pookoya Thangal in a PMLA case where they are accused of siphoning over Rs. 20 Crores of investor's money allegedly siphoned to four companies.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that there are no reasons to assume that the petitioners are guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and consequently, for the offence under the PMLA Act. It also reiterated that unless there was fraudulent intention from the very beginning, mere breach of the contractual term would amount to cheating.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the post office can forfeit the interest that has accrued on the public provident fund (PPF) contribution made by a guardian in their minor's account in excess of the limits permissible under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. looked into Rule 3 of Scheme 1968 and Sections 3 and 4 of the PPF Act as well as the tabulation of the interest accrued and excess deposits made in the accounts. It noted that the total interest accrued in the minors' accounts till their respective dates of attainment of majority is the only amount that was forfeited.
Case Title: P.S. Vijayakumaran v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court has permitted the enrollment of a retired government employee, who completed LLB degree by attending evening classes.
Justice N. Nagaresh disposed of the writ petition which was filed challenging the denial of enrollment to a retired employee who has completed his LL.B in 1994 by attending evening classes.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an 18-year-old man in an alleged case of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, after recording that neither the victim nor her parents had any complaints against him.
Justice G. Girish recorded that in the affidavit filed before the Court, the victim, who is now 18 years old, even expressed her intention to continue her romantic relationship with the petitioner.
Case Title: Pamba Boat Race Club Reg No. 98/90 and Anr. v. Pamba Boat Race Club and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) observed that there is no constitutional or statutory right available to any club to conduct boat race in Pamba river. It also said that the schedule for conducting boat race is to be decided by the competent authorities, including the District Collector.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal challenging the interim order passed by a Single Judge modifying the schedule set by the District Collector.
Case Title: M/s Classic Agencies and Ors. v. The Regional Office, India Overseas Bank and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
The Kerala High Court has held that a party cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a direction to a bank not to cancel the OTS (One Time Settlement) facility granted to it.
The Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. relied on the settled positions of law laid down by the Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew, Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Meenal Agarwal.
Case Title: Anto Paul Prakash v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) granted regular bail to Anto Paul Prakash, the third accused in the alleged Chinese Loan App scam booked for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the near relative of the arrestee and therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court today refused to interfere with the suspension of Kerala University Registrar Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar, in connection with the Bharat Mata portrait row.
Justice T.R. Ravi instead directed the Vice Chancellor to convene a meeting of the varsity Syndicate, which will decide the issue.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court has observed that Universities are meant to safeguard the higher education system and thus, they should be guided only by academic considerations and should not allow their functioning to be disrupted by political or other extraneous considerations.
Justice T.R. Ravi, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Kerala University Registrar Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar against his suspension, observed that the ongoing tussle between the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar reflect an “unsavoury” state of affairs in the University's administration..
Case Title: The Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Anr v. M/S L & T Tech Park Ltd and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court held that workers engaged in pre-operative/preliminary interior fit-out works are not covered under the definition of employee under Section 2(9)(ii) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and hence no benefits can be extended to them under the Act.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal by the ESI Corporation and upheld the order of the Employees' Insurance Court directing refund of contributions exceeding ₹26 lakh to L&T Tech Park Ltd.
Case Title: Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
The Kerala High Court recently held that Akshaya Centres are intended for connecting the general public with government services and cannot be considered to be business centres with profit motive.
Justice N. Nagaresh was considering petitions filed by the Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and the All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation challenging the government order that fixed the fees that can be levied by Akshaya Centres for K-smart services.
Case Title: Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court recently directed a Magistrate Court to defer the pronouncement of judgment in a case since it was posted for judgment the very next day after dismissing the accused's plea for re-opening evidence but without issuing him a copy of the dismissal order.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the judgment directing the Magistrate to defer its judgment by 2 weeks and to issue a certified copy of the dismissal order within 3 days, if applied for.
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 11) denied anticipatory bail to Venu Gopalakrishnan, owner of an IT firm in Info Park (Kakkanad) in an alleged case of sexual assault and harassment against his female employee.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that there were serious allegations made out in the complaint preferred by the de facto complainant and also noted some anomalies in the manner in which the investigation is being carried out. The Court also expressed that it is not convinced that the allegations raised against Venu are wholly false.
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that anticipatory bail applications can be entertained by the High Courts and there is no need for parties to first approach the Sessions Court in light of the precedents in the case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while considering an anticipatory bail plea preferred by an IT-firm owner in an alleged case of rape and sexual harassment of his female employee.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony and Anr v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Shawn Antony and Soubin Shahir, the producers of “Manjummel Boys” film, seeking relaxation of anticipatory bail conditions which prevent them from leaving India without permission of the Court.
The producers, accused in a cheating case, sought to attend an award show in Dubai. Justice V.G. Arun however dismissed their plea.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 12) issued a set of directions to the four Devaswom Boards in the State, namely, Travancore, Cochin, Guruvayoor and Malabar Devaswom Boards, in order to facilitate temple darshan for persons with disabilities (PWDs).
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition, which was registered on the basis of a complaint preferred by T. Suganthi. In the complaint, she had outlined the difficulties faced by her during her visit to Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple at Thrissur last year as she was not permitted to carry her wheelchair inside.
Case Title: Santosh Karwade v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court recently held that an investigating officer is not a 'suitable person' as per Regulation 163 of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965, to prosecute a trial before the Court-Martial.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath considered the constitutional validity of Regulation 178(3) of the Navy Regulations, which permits the prosecutor to be a competent witness. He also interpreted whether the term 'suitable person' in Regulation 163(1) to conduct a trial includes the investigating officer.
Income Of Parent Who Abandoned Family Need Not Be Considered For EWS Reservation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Meghna Devi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment holding that if any of the parents abandons the family, the income of such parent need not be taken into account for granting EWS (Economically Weaker Section) certificate to the child.
Justice N. Nagaresh was considering a plea preferred by a NIFT - National Institute of Fashion Technology aspirant (1st petitioner), who approached the High Court after being aggrieved by an order rejecting EWS certificate to her.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. P.C. Jose and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
The Kerala High Court recently closed the suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings against Managing Director and Director of Malayalam web-news channel Karma News for publishing scandalous remarks against judges, after the duo tendered an unconditional apology.
Accepting the unconditional apology made by the directors, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:
“Under Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, if the respondents tender an unconditional apology after admitting that they have committed the contempt, the Court may proceed to pass such orders as it deems fit… After hearing the respondents as well as the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the apology tendered by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is bona fide and in consonance with the requirements of Rule 14(a)…”
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government to take action to address the issue of recurrent flooding in Kuttanad area of Alappuzha district. It directed that the action be taken based on the preliminary and detailed reports, which are to be submitted by the Chief Engineer after conducting a detailed study of the area.
The direction was made by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji in a suo motu public interest litigation instituted after receipt of a letter from the teachers and students of the SNDP Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam in Kainakary Grama Panchayat regarding flooding of classroom and consequent interruption of classes.
Case Title: Shaji @ Shaiju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
The Kerala High Court recently permitted the withdrawal of two criminal appeals filed by convicts by exercising the inherent power available to it under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure).
Justice Gopinath P. clarified that such power to permit withdrawal of appeals is available only to the High Courts and not to subordinate courts entertaining appeals.
Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Neelalohithadasan Nadar In 1999 Sexual Harassment Case
Case Title: Dr. A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
The Kerala High Court has acquitted Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar, former Forest Minister of Kerala accused of outraging the modesty of a woman Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment on Monday, allowing the criminal revision petition filed by Dr. Nadar against his earlier conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, in 2004, which was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in 2005.
Case Title: Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the trial court to summon and examine as prosecution witness one of the investigating officers whose name was not included in the final report filed in a criminal trial.
Justice G. Girish was considering an original petition filed by the accused on being aggrieved by the trial court's order denying his prayer to examine a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted part of the investigation.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
The Kerala High Court has recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of raping his separated wife after noting that cognizance of offence under Section 376B IPC was not taken in accordance with Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court said that as per Section 198B CrPC, cognizance of offence under Section 376B IPC (Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation) can be taken only upon complaint by wife and it bars cognizance in any other manner.
Justice G Girish delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday closed the suo motu proceedings initiated over the unauthorized collection of funds for installing a Panchaloha idol of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple by a private individual.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar held that no further orders were necessary after the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) withdrew its earlier permission and the accused expressed willingness to defer the project.
Case Title: Rajappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years over alleged possession and manufacture of arrack, citing the failure of the prosecution to establish possession or ownership of the property where the contraband was seized, along with non-compliance of Section 53A (Disposal of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs or articles) of the Abkari Act.
Justice Johnson John, set aside the conviction of the appellant who had been sentenced to four years' imprisonment by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The trial court had held him guilty under Sections 55(g) (use or keeps, or has in possession any materials for the purpose of manufacturing liquor or toddy) and 8(1) read with 8(2) (Prohibition of manufacture, import, export, transport, transit, possession, storage, sales, etc., of arrack) of the Abkari Act.
Case Title: Saravanabhava v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified the meaning of the word 'dispute' falling under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The court was considering the nature of disputes that must be referred to a civil court by the Competent Authority under the NH Act.
As per Section 3H(4), two types of disputes have to be referred to the civil court: disputes as to the apportionment of amount and, disputes as to the person to whom compensation is payable.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that disputes that are to be referred to the civil court are only those which the competent authority cannot itself decide without adjudication.
Case Title: Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a marriage contracted within the time frame provided for appealing a decree of divorce dissolving previous marriage would not be considered to be illegal if the decree is unchallenged by the former spouse.
The decision was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha while considering an original petition by a wife (petitioner) challenging the Family Court's order.
Case Title: Shone George v Union of India and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
The Kerala High Court has ruled that third parties cannot claim an automatic right to certified copies of documents filed in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment while deciding three connected criminal miscellaneous cases concerning the SFIO probe into Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL) and Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited.
Case Title: Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) modified a Single judge's interim order mandating all petroleum retail outlets located along National Highways in the state to keep their washrooms open to the public 24/7.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan modified the first two directions passed by the Single Judge to the extent that it mandated all retails outlets to provide round-the-clock use of toilet facilities by the public.
Case Title: Jayasree Rajkumar v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with a trial court order, which found a public servant guilty of misappropriating over ₹2 Lakh, observing that the sanction order under the Prevention of Corruption Act was issued by the authority after due application of mind and that the accused had voluntarily given handwritten confessional statements.
The court also said that the accused had not challenged the statements before superiors on the ground that it was given under threat. Thus, while upholding the conviction, the court modified her sentence.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal.
Case Title: V.J. Kurian v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) upheld the order of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) directing quick verification in a complaint made against V.J. Kurian, former Managing Director of Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL).
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order while considering a plea by Kurian challenging the quick verification order passed by the Special Judge. The judge observed:
“On scrutiny of the materials, along with the statement filed by the Investigating Officer to get prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, 2018, there is no necessity to interfere with the order impugned and the further steps as per the order can be proceeded on getting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, 2018, sought for.”
Case Title: V.J. Kurian v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a public servant purchasing shares as “benami” and the purchasing of public property under a “benami” does not come within the purview of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a plea challenging the quick verification order passed by a Special Judge (Vigilance) to look into a complaint against an alleged incident of transfer of around 1,20,000 ESOP shares of CIAL (Cochin International Airport Ltd.) to a non-employee by its former Managing Director in 2004.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused U/S 69 BNS, Cites Consensual Relationship With Victim
Case Title: Vishnu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a man booked for engaging in sexual relations with a divorced woman on the pretext of marriage, observing that prima facie there seemed to be a consensual relationship between the two.
The case arose from allegations against the petitioner, accused under Sections 69(Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc), 74(Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Manoj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment outlining certain additional directions for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. These directions are in addition to the guidelines issued through Notification No. D1-7/17562/2022 dated 21.12.2024, the Court clarified.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering an appeal preferred by a convict challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 376(2)(l) IPC.
Case Title: Farhana Latheef v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
The Kerala High Court held that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) on an application for change of nature of unnotified land are appealable under Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The Court held that the application for change of nature of unnotified land submitted in Form 6, Form 7, or Form 9 under Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008—are traceable to Section 27A(2) of the Wetland Act and are hence appealable under Section 27 B [Appeal] of the Act.
Justice Viju Abraham delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the RDO's rejection of Form 9 application seeking to change the nature of her property.
Case Title: Marthoma Syrian Church v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a building used to provide free housing to aged and disabled persons, and their dependents, would be exempt from tax if these persons had rendered their services in the charitable/religious institutions managed by the building owner. The building owner would be granted the benefit of Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
Section 3(1)(b) provides for exemption from payment of building tax if the building is primarily used for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factories and workshops.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Rajan V K v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a bus driver accused in a 2016 road accident that claimed the life of a motorcyclist, despite arguments that the prosecution's case rested on a First Information Report (FIR) registered on the basis of a statement from a non-eyewitness relative of the deceased.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, dismissed the revision petition.
Kerala High Court Confirms Life Sentence Of Six Assailants In Munambam Abhilash Murder Case
Case Title: Kumar K.P. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) confirmed the finding of guilt and sentence of life imprisonment granted to the six assailants in the Munambam Abhilash murder case. Abhilash, a CPI(M) activist hailing from Munambam, was murdered on the night of May 19 2005 by the appellants, who were workers of BJP using swords, iron rods, etc.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Anirudh P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a sanction order denying prosecution of public servant is not valid if the same was made without reference to the prosecution materials and merely depicts appraisal of the accused's contributions. Such an order cannot be termed to be one made with application of mind, it added.
Justice A. Badharudeen remarked that though sanction order is a safeguard against frivolous litigation, the same cannot be considered in a pedantic manner. He was considering a writ petition filed by a student of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit challenging the Syndicate's order denying sanction to prosecute a Head of the department of the University (8th respondent). He also sought a direction to the University to decide on grant of sanction in accordance with law.
Case Title: The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court recently held that a University's decision to prescribe minimum standards to increase the quality of education in the colleges cannot be questioned in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice N. Nagaresh was considering a writ petition preferred by a college under the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The college had intended to introduce various para-medical courses and though NOC was issued by the government, the University rejected the application.
A Beggar Cannot Be Directed to Pay Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court Rules
Case Title: Jubairiya v Saidalavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
The Kerala High Court has held that a person who subsists on begging cannot be directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if his wife seeks sustenance from him.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while disposing of a revision petition, upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed a claim by the petitioner, who sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survives on alms and occasional assistance from neighbours.
Islam Permits Polygamy Only When A Man Can Do Justice Between Wives : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jubairiya v Saidalavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Kerala High Court has observed that Islam permits polygamy only when a man has the ability to give equal justice to his wives.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while disposing of a revision petition, which upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed a claim by the petitioner wife , who sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survives on alms and occasional assistance from neighbours.
Case Title: Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the bar against grant of anticipatory bail would not apply in cases where an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST is alleged if there is a prima facie conclusion that the substantive offence punishable by 10 years' imprisonment has not been committed.
Justice Gopinath P. observed: “In other words, in cases where the allegation is that an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been committed and when this Court prima facie concludes that the substantive offence punishable with a term of imprisonment for a period of 10 years or more has not been committed, the said prima facie conclusion is sufficient to hold that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against the grant of anticipatory bail will not apply.”
Case Title: Muhammed Anwarsha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to a man accused of offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and ST/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 despite his being involved in 21 other criminal offences.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while allowing his regular bail plea noted that even though the petitioner is involved in 21 other crimes, considering his young age and since he has been in custody for 90 days, the bail can be granted.
Case Title: Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
A PIL was moved before the Kerala High Court alleging large-scale corruption and lack of transparency in the State Lotteries Department. The PIL was preferred by Babu K.M., a retired government official and mandalam president (Vytilla) of Indian National Congress.
The petitioner had, in 2024, sought various information for the financial year 2023-24 from Public Information Officer of Lotteries Department through RTI request. However, the PIO denied answers to some of the queries of the petitioner. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed but the same was rejected. A second appeal was filed, which was partially allowed, directing release of information relating to unclaimed prize money for January 2024 within 10 days. However, this information has not yet been released.
On hearing that the petitioner is challenging the order, Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to follow up with the appropriate remedy.
Case Title: The District Collector and Others v Thangal Kunju and Anr and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
The Kerala High Court held that corrections made in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) pursuant to re-surveys conducted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, are valid and do not require compliance with Section 27 A of the Act.
The division bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed the batch of writ appeals filed by the State challenging the reclassification of certain lands from nilam (paddy field) to purayidam (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register.
Case Title: Anoop Paul v. M.P. Cherian and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the accident is caused by a commercial vehicle, irrespective of whether the accident occurred in a public or private place.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was considering a motor accident claims appeal preferred by an owner cum driver of a JCB challenging the order of the tribunal, which had directed him to pay compensation to a person injured (claimant).
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar v. Syamala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
The Kerala High Court recently held that a court cannot extend period of limitation for prosecution of cases merely by stating that it is necessary in the interests of justice. Instead, the court has to be satisfied that delay has been properly explained before allowing an application for extending limitation period under Section 473 of the CrPC.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed: “Before allowing an application filed under Section 473 of Cr.P.C, the court must be satisfied, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained. The delay should not be condoned as a matter of routine without sufficient reasons. The court, while condoning delay, has to record the reasons for its satisfaction, and the same must reflect in the order. The extension of the period of limitation merely on the grounds that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice and not on the ground of explained delay is improper.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government, the Director General of Police and the Station House Officers (SHO) to erase all police records and details before the Juvenile Justice Board in a case where a minor was the accused.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was considering a plea by a man for erasure of all records relating to the case in which he was arrayed as the 5th accused when he was a minor and was subsequently acquitted.
Case Title: Sivan and Anr. v. Raju P.V. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
The Kerala High Court recently held that Permanent Lok Adalats can settle or adjudicate the claims for compensation against employers upon the death of employees. It found that the bar under the Employees Compensation (EC) Act do not apply to the proceedings under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim was considering an appeal preferred by the parents of the deceased employee against the decision of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner.
Case Title: Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court recently held that making absolute an order of interim bail granted to an accused on a finding that his arrest was illegal would make it impossible for the investigating agency to arrest him subsequently in a lawful manner. It found that such orders are wrong and have no legal effect.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a finding of illegal arrest would relegate an arrestee back to pre-arrest stage and at that stage, if an interim bail is made absolute, it would amount to setting the accused free.
Case Title: Shiny S Raj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with State Administrative Tribunal's order which upheld the transfer of a teacher, reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal.
Referring to various decisions, a division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., in its judgment observed that powers under Article 227 can be exercised only when there is flagrant abuse of law, or if there is a manifest error, or gross failure of justice.
Case Title: Sivan and Others v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
The Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction of three men for criminal trespass and mischief by fire, noting that the trial court while recording the deposition of prosecution witnesses did not record that the witnesses had identified the men in court nor did the prosecutor pose questions to the witnesses for identification.
Justice Johnson John, delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal against judgment Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)- II Thodupuzha which convicted the accused for the offence under Section 448(Punishment for house-trespass) and 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house r/w 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC.
Case Title: Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
The Kerala High Court stated that to claim the Section 54F deduction under the Income Tax Act, the assessee must satisfy the authorities that borrowed funds were used at their own risk with the intention to be repaid with capital gains.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that "...even in a case where, the residential building was purchased, or it was constructed utilising the borrowed funds or funds from other sources, there is an obligation on the part of the Assessee to satisfy the authorities that, the funds were spent by the assessee either through borrowing or arranging from other sources at his/her own risks and costs, in anticipation of or with an intention to appropriate the income to be subjected to capital gain tax, for such purchase or construction…"
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Lawrence and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
The Kerala High Court recently held that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) need not submit the compensation awarded when the Arbitrator's award is challenged by either party, i.e., the claimant or the NHAI.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a writ appeal preferred by the NHAI challenging the Single Judge's direction to the NHAI to deposit the solatium and interest amount awarded to the claimants while an arbitration appeal was pending before the High Court.
School Cannot Claim Any Land As Its 'Playground' Without Title Deed: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co, (P) Ltd v The District Superintendent of Police and Others and Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
The Kerala High Court has held that a school cannot claim possession of a playground without the required documents, stating that parties claiming rights on the basis of documents are entitled to be in possession of the property.
Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment while considering two writ petitions which related to a property which was claimed to be the only playground of CA Higher Secondary School, Ayyakad.