Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025 [Citations 305 - 371]

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

Judgments/ Orders This Month

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.

Kerala High Court Closes Jharkhand Inter-Faith Couple's Plea Against Threat From Relatives, Permits Them To Approach Police

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 3^rd 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.

'Will Give Wrong Message To Society': Kerala High Court Refuses To Stop Trial Against Man Who Allegedly Sent Death Threat To CM

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".

TRAI And CCI Are Sectoral Regulators With Defined Jurisdictions, Any Overlap Will Not Oust Jurisdiction Of Either: Kerala High Court

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.

Guidelines Relating To Issuance Of Indian Passports Cannot Circumvent Passport Act & Rules: Kerala High Court

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 2^nd 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.

Kerala High Court Upholds Strict Liability Of Elephant Owner, Handlers In Fatal Attack During Temple Procession

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.

Absence Of Formal Demand Notice For Property Tax During Pendency Of Litigation Does Not Absolve Assessee's Obligation To Pay: Kerala High Court

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.”

Import Of Inverter Component Without Photo-Voltaic Cell Not Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: Kerala High Court

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.

Vessel Engaged Under SEAIOCM Agreement Qualifies As 'Foreign Going Vessel' For Exemption U/S 87 Of Customs Act: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Allows Transgender Parents To Be Shown As 'Parents' Instead Of Father Or Mother, Says Law Must Evolve With Society

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.

Differently-Abled Employee Cannot Be Punished For Govt's Failure To Provide Infrastructural Facilities: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Quashes State Govt's Imposition Of Mandatory Internship Fees For Foreign Medical Graduates

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.

Kerala High Court Imposes Costs On State In Land Classification Case, Takes Exception To 'Unfair' Litigation

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.

Kerala High Court Stays Trial In Youth Congress Activist Shuhaib's Murder Case, Asks State To Consider Parents' Plea To Replace Public Prosecutor

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.

Temple Advisory Committee Can't Collect Money From Devotees For 'Para Nirakkal'; Collection Only Against Approved Sealed Coupons: Kerala HC

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.

No Provision To Reject Appeal On Non-Appearance Of Assessee, Must Be Decided By Mandate U/S 250(6) Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court

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.”

Bar On Credit Society Members Contesting Beyond 3 Terms Valid: Kerala HC Upholds S.28 (2A) Of Co-operative Societies Amendment Act, 2023

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.

[Domestic Violence] Not Unusual For Wife To Forgive Husband, Withdraw Case Against Him To Protect Family: Kerala High Court

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.

Non-Disclosure Of Earlier Crime Lodged Against Same Accused By Same Complainant Shows Falsity Of Allegations: Kerala High Court

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.

[S.92 CPC] Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Leave To Sue Over Alleged Mismanagement Of Temple, Emphasises Adherence To Statutory Requirements

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.

No Specific Allegation Of Nuisance: High Court Closes Case Over Allegedly Defamatory Messages Against Kerala CM & Ministers In WhatsApp Group

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).

'Father's Presence Plays Vital Role In Child's Education': Kerala High Court Grants 7 Days Leave To Prisoner For Child's Admission

Case Title: Shafeena P. H. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 329

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (10^th June) issued an order granting 7 days leave to a convict prisoner for taking admission to his child to 11^th 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.

Kerala High Court Rejects Admiralty Suit Against M.V. Korea Chemi Owners For Lack Of Jurisdiction After Collision With Fishing Boat

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.

Procedural Bar On Cognizance Of Offences Related To Marriage Won't Apply If Serious Offences Like Rape Are Involved: Kerala High Court

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 (11^th 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.

Kerala High Court Imposes Cost On Bank For Illegally Retaining Client's Documents After Closure Of Loan

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.

Kerala High Court Directs Cochin Devaswom Board's Vigilance Wing To Monitor Fake Websites Duping Devotees Through Online Donations, Pooja Booking

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.

Wife Who Gave Up Maintenance Right During Mutual Divorce Not Barred From Seeking It Due To Change Of Circumstance: Kerala High Court

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).

Kerala High Court Directs Customs To Dispose Of Seized Buffalo Meat Consignments Within One Month Due To Perishability

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.

Kerala Paddy Land Act | Magistrate Can't Order Interim Custody Of Seized Vehicles Which Are Handed Over To Collector: High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Closes Bail Plea Of Businessman Who Accused ED Officer Of Bribery, Agency Says No Intention To Arrest Him

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.

Bank Liable For Loss Caused By Negligently Encashing Cheques With Forged Signatures : Kerala High Court

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.

Registrar Cannot Cancel Marriage Certificate Without Proof Of Fraud Or Improper Registration: Kerala High Court

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.

Listing Date Not Updated On E-Courts Site: Kerala High Court Directs Authority To Consider Restoring Appeal Dismissed For Non-Appearance

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.

No Need For Notice Of Cancellation Of Insurance Policy If It Was Cancelled Immediately After Preparation: Kerala High Court

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.

New Arbitrator Must Initiate Proceedings Afresh When Previous Arbitrator's Appointment Is Void Ab Initio: Kerala High Court

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.

Bank Slip Without Cheque Date, Number & Amount Not Evidence Under S.146 NI Act For Dishonour : Kerala High Court

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.

No Pending Criminal Proceedings Under S.6(2)(f) Passport Act If There's No Final Report Or Court Cognizance : Kerala High Court

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.

[POCSO Act] Can't Conclude Sexual Intention Of Doctor During Medical Exam Based On Victim Labelling It As 'Bad Touch': Kerala High Court

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.

S. 17 SARFAESI Act | No Bar On Preferring Consolidated Application By Tenants Under Different Lease Deeds: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Directs State Govt To Consider Akshaya Entrepreneurs' Plea For Enhancement Of Service Charges

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 2^nd 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.

Police Can't Barge Into History Sheeters' Homes At Night Under Guise Of Surveillance: Kerala High Court

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.

Manager Of Firm Cannot Prosecute U/S 138 NI Act In Personal Capacity If 'Payee' Of Cheque Is Firm: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Upholds Law Mandating Display Of Rates Outside Hospitals; Rejects Challenge Of IMA, Pvt Hospital Bodies

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.

Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused In Angamaly Co-op Scam; Criticizes Investigating Officer For Not Making Arrests

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.

Section 304A IPC | Accidental Death Of Sub-Contractor's Worker Cannot Make Contractor Culpable If Harm Was Unforeseeable: Kerala High Court

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 (1^st 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.

Kerala High Court Grants Escort Parole To Death Row Convict Despite Bar In Prison Rules Citing Aged Mother's 'Sinking' Health

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.

'Manjummel Boys' Cheating Case: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Producers, Directs Them To Appear Before Police

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. 

Unregistered Sale Agreements Are Admissible As Evidence In Suits For Specific Performance: Kerala High Court

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.

'Decalcified Fish Scale' Import Covered Under Advance Authorisation Scheme; Customs Cannot Deny Benefit: Kerala High Court

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.

S.245C Income Tax Act Does Not Require Prior Cut-Off Date, Pending S.153A/153C Notice Sufficient For Settlement Application: Kerala HC

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.”

'Not In Best Interest Of Education': Kerala High Court Expresses Concern Over 12 Varsities Functioning Without Regular Vice-Chancellor

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.

Assessment Based On DVO's Valuation Cannot Be Revised U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act In Absence Of Concrete Material: Kerala High Court

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”.

Will Can Be Proved By Establishing That Signatures Of Executant, Witness Are In Their Handwritings If Attesting Witness Is Dead: Kerala HC

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.

Party Barred From Taking Plea Of Duress After Accepting Full & Final Settlement Pursuant To Court Order: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu PIL To Inquire If Ex-CM VS Achuthanandan's Son Got IHRD's Directorship Due To Political Influence

Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370

The Kerala High Court on Friday (27^th 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.

Goods Confiscated U/S 130 Of GST Act Can Be Released During Pendency Of Appeal If Not Auctioned: Kerala High Court

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.