Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 22 - December 28, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838 - 848 ]Davi Ntemi Kilekamajenga and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838Ayana Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 839Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 840M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 841M/s Agro Indus Credits Limited v Mangalan @ Jagan Magalan And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 842Joseph T.J. v. Alex Abraham and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 843 Fifa Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 844M/s Taj Garden Retreat v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 845Venugopalan C v The Tahsildar (Land Records), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 846Apple Barua v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 847M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 848Judgments/ Orders This Week NDPS Act | Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Tanzanian Nationals, Cites Lack Of Materials Connected To Offence Except Financial TransactionCase Title: Davi Ntemi Kilekamajenga and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 838The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to two Tanzania nationals, who are accused under the NDPS Act after noting that they have no criminal antecedents and that the only material produced by prosecution in the Final Report to connect them with the offence was financial transaction.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the rigour under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act were diluted in the said circumstances. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused, and that they have already undergone 270 days in custody were also factors considered by the Court.Sabarimala Greenfield Airport: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Land Acquisition Steps For Non-Compliance With 2013 Act SafeguardsCase Title: Ayana Charitable Trust and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 839The Kerala High Court recently set aside the government's preliminary notification and other steps taken for acquiring 2570 acres of the land for the Sabarimala Greenfield Project.Justice C. Jayachandran allowed the writ petition preferred by the Ayana Charitable Trust and its Managing Trustee challenging the notification as well as the Social Impact Assessment report, Expert Group Appraisal report and the other government orders to acquire their land and that belonging to other persons.Customs Act | Penalty Cannot Be Sustained Solely On S. 108 Statements Without Compliance Of S. 138B: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town ApartmentCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 840The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108 in evidence. When the safeguards under Section 138B have not been complied with, no question of proceeding under the provisions of the statute arises.Levy Of Service Tax On 'Access To Amusement Facilities' Unconstitutional: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 841The Kerala High Court held that the levy of service tax on 'access to amusement facilities' is unconstitutional, as the entire activity squarely falls within the State's taxing power under Entry 62 of List II (entertainments and amusements) of the Constitution of India.Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act also seek to impose tax on the entire consideration received by the assessee from their clients/customers. The question of the Union imposing tax on the very same transaction in such a scenario would be unconstitutional.Fresh Arbitration Notice is Mandatory For Second Round Of Arbitration After Earlier Award Is Set Aside: Kerala High CourtCase Title:M/s. Agro Indus Credits Limited v Mangalan S @ Jagan Managalan and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 842The Kerala High Court has held that a fresh arbitration notice under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is mandatory for initiating a second round of arbitral proceedings after an earlier arbitral award has been set aside even when the award was declared as a nullity due to invalid appointment of the arbitrator.Justice S. Manu while dismissing the Arbitration petitions held that once an arbitral award is issued, the arbitration proceedings stand terminated under section 32 and therefore fresh arbitration proceedings cannot commence without issuing a fresh arbitration request.'Pedantic Literalism': Kerala High Court Directs Tribunal Not To Insist ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 22 - December 28, 2025

Anamika MJ

Tags