Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 10 - November 16, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 720 - 741]Shareena v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 720Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 721Venugopal K Veloth v Mahilamani and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 722Thangam v. V.V. Haridasan and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 723Rifa Fathima v. Salim and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 724Sigmatic Nidhi Ltd. V Suresh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 725Manu S v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 726Jatin v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 727Pramod Prasannan v. State of Kerala and Jishnu Reghu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 728Glenny C.J. and Anr. v. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 729Jissy S. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 730Farookh v Kayyakutty @ Kadeeja, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 731Roopesh T.R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 732Aneesh v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 733Vinumon C v The District Collector and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 734Janvin Cleetus v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 735Mini R K v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 736M/S Amal Neerad Productions LLP v Union of India, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 737Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 738State of Kerala v. The Election Commission of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 739Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 740Mathew K. Cherian v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 741Judgments/ Orders This WeekComplainant/ Legal Heirs Must Be Informed When Probe Against Accused Named In FIR Is Dropped: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shareena v State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 720The Kerala High Court has directed the State Police Chief to issue necessary instructions to investigating authorities in criminal cases to issue notices to the de facto complainants or their legal heirs when a person named as an accused in the FIR is removed from the list of accused during the course of investigation.The division bench comprising Dr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, issued the directions while dismissing an appeal against the judgment of a single judge.Disclosure Of Income & Payment Of Income Tax Do Not Bar Proceedings Under Benami Transactions Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 721The Kerala High Court has held that disclosure of income and payment of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not preclude initiation of proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that the fact that the assessees have disclosed the income in the return and the same was proceeded against under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere with the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.'Melpattam' Right Confers Only Usufructuary Interest, Not Ownership Over Land: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Venugopal K Veloth v Mahilamani and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 722The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a 'melpattam' arrangement does not create ownership or a transferable interest in the land itself.The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal challenging a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Sub Court, Vadakara.Accused Can Rebut Presumption U/S 139 NI Act By Furnishing Evidence To Dispute Financial Capacity Of Complainant: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Thangam v. V.V. Haridasan and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 723The Kerala High Court recently upheld the trial court's finding of acquittal in an appeal preferred by the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonour of a cheque by the accused.Analysing the precedents laid down, Justice Johnson John observed that when the defence evidence to dispute the transaction as well as the financial capacity of the complainant was sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act regarding existence of a valid debt.Father's Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached For Child's Maintenance, S.60(1)(g) CPC Exemption Won't Apply: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Rifa Fathima v. Salim and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 724The Kerala High Court has recently held that a court can attach a father's retirement benefits for maintaining his child. It further clarified that the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that stipends and gratuities of pensioners are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, would not apply in such cases.Distinguishing the Supreme Court decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009), the Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 10 - November 16, 2025

Anamika MJ

Tags