Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 - January 26, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38 – 54 ]Leena V. A. v The State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38Abhijit George v Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Fr. Mathew Paikada, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 40M/S.Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. V. State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 41Ammini v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 42Abdul Salam v State Of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 43DIG K. Janardhanan v Union of India and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 44XX v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 45Sakkir Husain v Binu Madhu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 46Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 47Manikandan N P v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 48B.G.Krishnamurthy v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 49James (Unsound Mind) v Sajeevan , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 50Dr. T. Ambujakshi v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 51M/S. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd. V. General Manager, District Industries Centre And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 52Haseena v Suhaib, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53Bindumol A T v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54Judgments/ Orders This WeekKerala Education Rules | Managers Of Aided Schools Have Duty To Appoint Protected Teachers Only If A List Is Already Sent To Him: High CourtCase Title: Leena V. A. v The State of Kerala and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38The Kerala High Court held that the managers of aided school have an obligation to appoint 'protected teachers' only when they are already provided with the list of 'protected teachers'Justice K. Babu noted that unless the vacancy is filled the Manager will not be able to conduct the school in a proper manner. He observed that while the Manager has the obligation to appoint a protected teacher, the system should not be stretched so much as to deny the approval of the appointment of a qualified teacher, especially in a vacancy which arose out of retirement.Kerala HC Accepts Police Officer's Testimony To Uphold Conviction For Forged Driving License, Says Public Usually Reluctant To Become WitnessCase Title: Abhijit George v Assistant Sub Inspector of PoliceCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39The Kerala High Court has observed that the public often shows reluctance to become witnesses, and stated that the testimony of police officers can be admissible, if they are found to be reliable and trustworthy.A single judge bench of Justice M. B. Snehalatha further held testimony of police officer should not be viewed with distrust solely because he is a witness from the Department of Police.Diocese Cannot Claim Insurance Over Death Of A Priest: Kerala High CourtCase Title: The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Fr. Mathew PaikadaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 40Kerala High Court held that a “Diocese is not entitled to claim compensation for the death of a deceased priest.”Justice C. Pratheep Kumar made this observation in an appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of insurance money to the Diocese over the death of a priest from road accident. The deceased was travelling in a motor bike when he was hit by a lorry and succumbed to the injuries.'Arbitrator Can Only Decide On Point Which Is Referred To Tribunal, Not Entire Dispute': Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/S.Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. V. State Of Kerala Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 41The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Dr A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. held that if the parties choose to refer to a singular point for arbitration, then the arbitral tribunal cannot proceed to decide on all disputes. On the contrary, if the parties agree to arbitrate on the entire disputes, then the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide the entire dispute and not a specific dispute.Sale Deed Cannot Be Unilaterally Cancelled: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Ammini v State of Kerala Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 42The Kerala High Court has reiterated that there cannot be unilateral cancellation of a sale deed.Justice Gopinath P. relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P (2016) and the high court's decision in Noble John v State of Kerala (2010).Merely Because 16-Yr-Old Sexual Abuse Survivor Smokes Not Ground To Say He Is Of Deviant Character: Kerala HC Upholds Conviction U/S 377 IPCCase Title: Abdul Salam v State Of Kerala & Connected MatterCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 43The Kerala High Court while dismissing the appeals of two men who were convicted and sentenced to three year imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 377 of IPC for sexually abusing a minor boy, observed that the victim's testimony cannot be termed as deviant or unreliable merely because he smoked.Justice C S Sudha dismissed the men's appeals on finding that there is no reason to disbelieve the boy and only because the boy had admitted that he used to smoke, would not be a ground to conclude that he is of a deviant character. Kerala ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 - January 26, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags