Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 - 30, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203 – 220]State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra Revi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203South Indian Bank Ltd. v Jahfer M, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 204P J Francis v C D Jose, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 206Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207National Insurance Co.Ltd. v John Thomas & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 208Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 209Chaithanya v The New India General Ins.Co.Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 210Naduvil Grama Panchayat V Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 211Jomon v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 212A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213Shuhaib K. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 214Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215Umer Ali v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 216Nitheesh K. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 218Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 219Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220Judgments/ Orders This WeekTo Check If Special Rules Violate State & Subordinate Service Rules, It Needs To Be Seen If Both Can Co-Exist Without Colliding: Kerala HCCase Title: State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra ReviCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203The Kerala High Court observed that to see whether special rules of a service are repugnant to the general provisions of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), it has to be checked whether both provisions can co-exist in a given situation without going into a collision course.The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar in its order said:“When there is an inconsistency between two statutory provisions which occupy the same field of operation and both cannot co-exist together, it is said that they are repugnant to each other. In order to consider whether a provision in the Special Rules applicable to a particular service is repugnant to the general provisions contained in Ks & SSR, it is beneficial to apply a simple test viz., whether both provisions can co-exist without going into a collision course while applying them in a given situation.”Although Magistrate's Jurisdiction U/S 14 Of SARFAESI Act Does Not Involve Adjudication, Order Cannot Be Passed Without Application Of Mind: Kerala HCCase Title: South Indian Bank Ltd. v Jahfer MCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 204The Kerala High Court reiterated that while a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not adjudicate on creditor's application for taking possession of the secured assets, they are required to clearly apply mind since it can have drastic consequences. The Court stated that this is the reason why the Parliament has empowered high officials like Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrates under Section 14 to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets.Justice Gopinath P. observed that an order under Section 14 cannot be issued in printed format by merely filling in necessary details without application of mind.Tenant Ordered To Pay Enhanced Rent Can't Be Burdened With Substantial Arrears Due To Delay In Proceedings: Kerala HC Calls For Reasonable InstallmentsCase Title: P J Francis v C D JoseCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205The Kerala High Court observed that a tenant who is ordered to pay enhanced fair rent to the landlord cannot be burdened with the payment of a substantial amount in arrears due to delay in the completion of judicial proceedings.The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that burdening a tenant with a lump sum liability undermines the very purpose of Rent Control Act, which is to safeguard the tenants from exploitation.Kerala High Court Refuses To Appoint Special Public Prosecutor In Evidence Tampering Case Against MLA Antony RajuCase Title: Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 206The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition seeking to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of MLA Antony Raju in the evidence tampering case. Justice Kauser Edappagath took into account the fact that the trial has already commenced and there is a direction from the Supreme Court to finish the trial within a year.Officer Relinquishing Right To Be Appointed To A Post Based On Seniority, Can't Later Claim To Be Senior To Those Superseding Him: Kerala HCCase Title: Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207The Kerala High Court has said that if a...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 - 30, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags