Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 20 - October 26, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658 - 680]Anu C.R. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 663CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669Rameshan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672X X v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674Selvan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680Judgments/ Orders This Week[S.5 BSA] 'Photos Of Place Where Crime Occurred Is Relevant Document While Cross-Examining Witness': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Anu C.R. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658The Kerala High Court has held that a defence lawyer may confront a prosecution witness with relevant documents such as photographs or site plans during cross-examination if those materials are connected to the facts in issueJustice G. Girish delivered the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who refused to allow the defence lawyer in a case of rape under the false promise of marriage and cheating to confront a prosecution witness with two documents, which included a photograph of the alleged scene of the offence and a site plan prepared by the Village Officer. The trial court stated that these documents did not originate from the witness and thus were outside the scope of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Special Court Can Order Further Investigation After Submission Of Final Report: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of InvestigationCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the power of a Special Court to direct further investigation even after a final report has been filed by the investigating agency concluding that no offence was made out against certain public servants.Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered the judgment in a petition challenging the order of the Special Court directing further investigation in a case involving alleged loan fraud against the State Bank of India.Income Tax Act | Non-Production Of Form 3CL Isn't Material Suppression; Not Grounds To Reopen Assessment U/S 147: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Alleging Large-Scale Corruption By State Cashew BoardCase Title: Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a plea alleging large-scale corruption in the import of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) by the Kerala Cashew Board Ltd. (KCB)The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, said that the petition was devoid of merits.Change In Form Or Rephrasing Of Relief Cannot Defeat Principle Of Constructive Res Judicata: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 20 - October 26, 2025

K. Salma Jennath

Tags