Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 03 To November 09, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701 - 719]Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 702Shahabeen Hameed v. Muhammed Ajnas A.B., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 703Sivadasan Nair K.G. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 704Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 705S. Jayasree. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 706Public Eye Trust Rep. By its General Secretary v State of Kerala & Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 707XXX v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 708 Anil K. Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 709State of Kerala v. Sameer Navas and Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 710Suo Motu v. The Government of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 711M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 712Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvilla v. Annie Varghese and Anr. , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 713M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 714Midhun Mohan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 715Bhavesh Anil Kumar v. The Assistant Labour Officer and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 716Jose v. Jose and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 717T.K. Vasudevan Nair and Ors. v. T. Vrij Mohan and Ors. , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 718Abdul Hakkim v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 719Judgments/ Orders This Week Court Fee Is Payable Only On Principal Relief U/S 6(1) Kerala Court Fees Act, Not Consequential Reliefs: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 701The Kerala High Court has held that when multiple documents on same property are challenged, the declaratory relief against a subsequent document is only ancillary to the challenge of an earlier instrument, and the court fee need to be computed only on the principal relief under Section 6 (1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959,Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment while setting aside the Munsiff Court's direction that the plaintiff must amend the plaint and remit court fee based on the higher consideration reflected in a subsequent document.No Fruitful Intervention: Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL With 'Wide Ranging Prayers' For Resolution Of Human-Wildlife ConflictsCase Title: Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 702The Kerala High Court recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation containing "wide-ranging prayers" for peaceful resolution of wildlife conflict in the State, among others.The petitioner submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. that it was not possible to make amendments as suggested by the Court.The Court, thereafter, said,“We are not inclined to entertain the petition with such wide ranging prayers. Entertaining the petition with such prayers will not lead to any fruitful intervention".Family Court's Order Dismissing Order IX Rule 9 Application To Restore Suit Appealable, Original Petition Not Maintainable: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shahabeen Hameed v. Muhammed Ajnas A.B.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 703The Kerala High Court recently refused to entertain an Original Petition filed before it challenging a Family Court's order dismissing a restoration application. According to the Court, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that has to be pursued.The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Snehalatha M.B. noted that the Family Court had dismissed an application preferred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoring a suit that was dismissed for non-appearance.Words Need Not Compel Victim To Commit Suicide; Suggestive 'Instigation' Sufficient For Abetment: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sivadasan Nair K.G. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 704The Kerala High Court recently held that to satisfy the requirement of 'instigation' leading to the offence of abetment of suicide, the words of the accused need not be such as to compel the victim to commit suicide and it would be sufficient if the same is suggestive of the consequence.Justice V.G. Arun was considering a plea to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for commission of the offences under Sections 306 [Abetment to suicide] and 113 [Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor] of the Indian Penal Code. 'Few Battles Won But Can't Rest Yet': Kerala High Court Directs District Collector's Committee To Oversee Canal & Drainage System In KochiCase Title: Treasa K.J. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 705The Kerala High Court has vacated its earlier judgment in the writ petition relating to the upkeep of Perandoor Canal, to direct the District Collector's Committee to oversee the City's Canal and...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 03 To November 09, 2025

K. Salma Jennath

Tags