Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 12 - January 18, 2026

Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22 - 31]V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31Judgments/ Orders This WeekKerala High Court Directs State To Pay ₹14 Lakh Compensation To NRI Man & Kin For Wrongful DetentionCase Title: V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to pay Rs. 14 Lakhs compensation to a NRI man and family after he was imprisoned for a period of 54 days in judicial custody based on false charges.Justice P.M. Manoj awarded Rs. 10 lakhs to the man and Rs. 1 lakh each to four of his family members as a compensation for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment faced by them at the hands of the police officers.Cheque Dishonour | Substitution Of Complainant & Accused Not Permissible At Appellate Stage: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr.Citation: , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23The Kerala High Court recently held that the names of the complainant and the accused cannot be substituted at the appellate stage by an amendment application as there is no enabling provision in the CrPC, specially when the amendment plea was moved 27 years after filing of the complaint.Justice Johnson John was considering an appeal filed by the complainant in a cheque dishonour case challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Petrol Pump Licence Automatically Stands Cancelled On Expiry Of Lease, No Hearing Required: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per the Petroleum Rules, 2002, when the licensee of a petroleum outlet loses the right to the site for storing petroleum due to expiry of lease period, the license gets automatically cancelled without any need for a formal order.Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that in such cases, license can be cancelled without granting an opportunity of hearing to the licensee.Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony, No Test Identification Parade: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Life Conviction After 7 YrsCase Title: Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that non-conduct of test identification parade taken along with other vitiating factors would render as suspect the testimony of eyewitnesses.The Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:“Although it is trite that an identification in a TI parade is not substantive evidence and that the non-holding of a TI parade will not vitiate a dock identification [Vinod alias Nasmulla v. State of Chattisgarh – [(2025) 4 SCC 312], considering the fact that the dock identification of the accused by the witnesses above was not free from doubt, a TI Parade would have proved useful to corroborate the dock identification done by PW1 and PW5 in the instant case. For our part, we are of the view that the non-conduct of a TI Parade, taken together with the other vitiating factors discussed above with regard to the conduct of the aforementioned witnesses, rendered their testimony as eye-witnesses to the incident suspect and unworthy of acceptance vis-a-vis the identification of the accused.”Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Plaint Can't Be Permitted To Bypass Res-Judicata After Full Trial: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the limits of amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that a plaint cannot be amended after completion of evidence to introduce a claim that has already been decided on merits in an earlier suit between the same parties.The division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish, delivered the judgment in a miscellaneous first appeal. Judge Can't Usurp Powers Of Prosecutor By Conducting Chief Examination: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Life Conviction After 14 Yrs Of CustodyCase Title: Babu C.G. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27The Kerala High Court has recently (12 January) observed that a judge cannot assume the role of a Public...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 12 - January 18, 2026

K. Salma Jennath

Tags