Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 258 – 304]Shafeek Shajahan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 258Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Bar Council of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 259M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 260Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd and Another v Union of...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 258 – 304]
Shafeek Shajahan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Bar Council of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
Vaisakh A Nair v The Managing Director, KSRTC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
Santhosh Varkey @ Arattanan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
State of Kerala and Another v Jayesh K. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank v The State Chief Information and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
Samajam Higher Secondary School and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
Babu M. v State of Kerala and Another & Connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others,2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
V.T. Jinu & another v. State of Kerala & others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Prakash Sankar v. BSNL and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Syamlal v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
Kurian Abraham and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
State of Kerala v the Chancellor and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
Dr. Joseph John MD v. The State of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
State of Kerala and Others v T. R. Vijayakumar & Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
State of Kerala v The Chancellor and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
The Federal Bank Limited v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
Omana Thomas v Ajith Prakash and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
X v Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
Thankamany and another v. Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
Sivasankaran v. Rejin and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
T. N. Gopalan @ T. N. Gopalakrishnan and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
Vincy Cherian and Others v The District Collector and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
Abraham, S/o Chacko and others v. Ajitha Jayakumar and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
Shamil Muhammed v. State of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Sumisha (Minor) v Shaji P. Y. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
X v. FACT and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Sheeba M.R. v. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Puthiya Purayil Shaji v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Shafeek Shajahan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
The Kerala High Court recently held that a JCB Excavator 81 Hitachi is a Machine and is not a vehicle and hence there cannot be an insistence on producing its registration certificate while seeking the release of the machine.
Justice V. G. Arun relied on the High Court decision in Rajesh v State of Kerala (2020) where it was held that a Bob Cat excavator is not a vehicle and therefore is not liable to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Bar Council of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
Kerala High Court has allowed the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council to continue with the proceedings initiated against President of the High Court Advocates' Association and lawyer Yeshwanth Shenoy, accused of misbehaving in Court.
Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the lawyer after former High Court Justice Mary Joseph filed a complaint alleging that he shouted and harassed her while he appeared before her court and even stated that he would see that the Judge is expelled from the seat. The Bar Council of Kerala had also initiated suo motu proceedings alleging violation of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, based on the Judge's letter.
Justice T. R. Ravi said that to initiate a suo motu disciplinary proceedings against an advocate, the only thing that needs to be considered is whether there was a “reason to believe” that he is guilty of professional or other misconduct, as prescribed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Case Title: M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
The Kerala High Court on Friday (2ndMay) held that it need not interfere with the action of the Income Tax Department seizing Rs. 1 Crore Rupees from the bank account of CPI(M) Thrissur District Committee in the Bank of India branch in Thrissur.
“The pleadings and the materials placed for consideration do not indicate any malafides…..Hence, the satisfaction arrived at by the respondents to initiate the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be perverse or legally untenable. Considering the scope of interference under 226 with a proceeding under 132 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents do not warrant any interference at this juncture,” ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Wife's Right To Maintenance Cannot Be Waived By Way Of Contract: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
The Kerala High Court has held that a private contract between a husband and wife, where the wife has waived her right to maintenance has no legal standing.
Justice A. Badharudeen relied on various judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Court and observed thus: “...the legal position is very clear on the point that when an agreement is entered into between the wife and the husband, as part of a compromise filed in the Court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband, such agreement is opposed to public policy and it does not preclude her from claiming maintenance.”
Case Title: Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
The Kerala High Court has held that the order passed by a bench in a matter falling outside the scope of its roster or the matters specifically assigned to it, will be considered as an order passed without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity.
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed, “Thus the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear that any order passed in a matter outside the Roster or not specifically assigned would be without jurisdiction and nullity.”
Case Title: Vaisakh A Nair v The Managing Director, KSRTC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Legal Services Authority to issue necessary guidelines to all the District Legal Service Authorities (DLSAs)/ Lok Adalats to ensure that the identity of the parties is ascertained before commencement of the settlement proceedings and passing an award.
Justice C. S. Dias passed this direction after a party made a claim that an advocate had initiated and settled an accident claim on his name, without his knowledge.
Case Title: Santhosh Varkey @ Arattanan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (6th May) granted bail to the Youtuber Santhosh Varkey popularly known as Arattannan.
Justice M. B. Snehalatha noted that the prosecution was not pressing that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case. She however said that Santhosh should not make any derogatory remark through any social media platform while he is out on bail.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Another v Jayesh K. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
The Kerala High Court held that an appointing authority has power to decide not to fill up particular number of vacancies on genuine and reasonable grounds.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed: “It is well-settled law that an appointing authority may for good and sufficient reasons take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies even if a valid rank list is in force. The appointing authority has every right to decide that a particular number of vacancies should not be filled on reasonable and genuine grounds.”
Info Which Though Not In Possession But Can Be Accessed By Co-Operative Society Registrar Can Be Sought Under RTI: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank v The State Chief Information and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
The Kerala High Court has said that information which can be accessed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society is also an information which can be sought through a Right To Information (RTI) Application.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu relied on Supreme Court decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others v State of Kerala and Others (2013) which held that the information which is accessible to the Registrar as per the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 can be considered as information which is held or under the control of public authority.
Case Title: Samajam Higher Secondary School and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Kerala High Court recently held that there was no need to interfere with the Government order and circular regarding reservation for person with benchmark disabilities in the government-aided educational institutions. Justice T. R. Ravi considered challenges by various schools into the mode of appointment which was not decided in the earlier cases.
Case Title: Babu M. v State of Kerala and Another & Connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment reiterated that informing the person who is arrested is a constitutional requirement in light of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana and Others (2025), Pankaj Bansal v Union of India and Others (2023), Prabir Purkayastha v State (2024) and observed that if the grounds are not informed soon after the arrest, it would amount to violation of fundamental right.
Case Title: Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The Kerala High Court recently ordered the re-issuance or renewal of passport against a person against whom red corner notice issued by the Interpol was pending. The submitted before the court that for the past more than 4 years, no steps have been taken by the Qatar authorities for his extradition from India.
Justice Gopinath P. relied on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that mere issuance of red corner notice is not sufficient for the arrest of a person in India. In the case it was held that unless the proceedings under Extradition Act, 1962 is initiated, a person cannot be extradited from India. The High Court held that there was no need to deny passport to the petitioner merely because a red corner notice is pending against him. The Court taking into account that Supreme Court through various cases has laid down that right to travel abroad was a part of personal liberty under Article 21, held that denial of passport services to the petitioner would be a deprivation of personal liberty.
Case Title: Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Kerala High Court quashed State Government's letter to the former State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) informing him that he cannot be given pensionary benefits equivalent to a retired Supreme Court Judge.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon said that even after the amendment of the RTI Act, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are unchanged on account of the 2 provisos in Section 16(5).
Case Title: V.T. Jinu & another v. State of Kerala & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a revision petition filed by a public servant seeking to quash a Special Court order framing charges against him under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for want of prosecution.
The complaint against the petitioner was that he, along with the deceased first accused, abused the de facto complainant while she was in official duty by calling her caste name with an intention to humiliate her in public and that they also forged documents to hold that she misappropriated some amount under 9 CB Bills, which resulted in her suspension.
The judgment was passed by Justice A. Badharudeen relying on the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another, wherein it was held that the alleged acts of the officers engaged in cheating, fabrication of records, or misappropriation are not acts in discharge of their official duties.
Case Title: Prakash Sankar v. BSNL and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
While hearing a Writ Petition before it, the Kerala High Court held that Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not grant the power of review on merits to Permanent Lok Adalats established under the Act.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to concur with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur and Others, which held that the review procedure under the Legal Services Act is more liberal than the one provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not permissible to hold a departmental enquiry on vague charges that use words like 'on many occasions' and 'in almost all' in the memo of charge that is not brief, pointed or in clear terms.
While hearing a Writ Petition challenging the departmental enquiry and dismissal of an employee of the KSFE, Justice P. M. Manoj held that charges should always follow logically from the nature of allegations made and that if it does not, this amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Syamlal v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by a devotee of Oachira Parabhrama Temple seeking Court direct the Travancore Devaswom Temple to assume administration of the temple.
The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. said that by the order of the Civil Court, the administration of the temple has to be governed by the existing by-laws until a scheme for the administration of the temple and its institutions is made. This order was not interfered by the High Court when it was challenged in an appeal. The Court said that therefore, the petitioner could not file a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Devaswom Board to enquire into the administration of the temple, call for periodical accounts and take over its administration.
Case Title: K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a subsequent or second application seeking to deliver interrogatories to a party is not barred when there is a subsequent cause of action or changed circumstances.
Justice K Babu dismissed the Original Petition challenging the order of the Trial Court that permitted the respondent (plaintiff) to deliver interrogatories to the petitioner (defendant), and refused to interfere with the trial court's order.
Case Title: Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that the Public Information Officer does not have any power or duty under section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to open up an investigation while processing and disposing RTI Applications.
The judgment was passed by Justice N. Nagaresh while hearing a Writ Petition seeking a direction against the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the respondent College.
Case Title: Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
The Kerala High Court recently found that the appointment of a manager by the owner after receiving title of property of an aided school was void under S. 6 of the Kerala Education Act since no previous permission was obtained from the government before obtaining the title.
In a Writ Appeal preferred by the teachers of the said aided school, the Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaqueand Justice P. Krishna Kumar considered the challenge to the appointment of the manager of the school by the current owner in the light of S. 6 of the KEA.
Case Title: P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala High Court has held that the aiding provision of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the corresponding Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be resorted to by the propounder of a Will by diluting the mandatory provisions under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakim clarified the position of law while hearing a second appeal and observed that:
“When one of the attesting witnesses is examined, and he denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, the second attesting witness is to be examined if he is alive and capable of giving evidence. If the second attesting witness also denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, the propounder can resort to the aid of Section 70 of the BSA. If the attesting witness deposes that he has seen the testator signing the document, but his evidence is deficient to prove compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, such deficiency could not be filled up by resorting to Section 70 of the BSA.”
Case Title: Kurian Abraham and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
While dismissing a plea against the alleged increased commercialization of a residential colony in Kochi, the Kerala High Court held that such strict distinction between residential and non-residential areas is increasingly challenging in the context of rapid urban development.
Justice P. M. Manoj in his order observed:
“In the context of globalization and rapid urban development, particularly with the growth of trade, commerce, and city life, drawing a clear distinction between residential and non-residential premises in towns, cities, and metropolitan areas has become increasingly challenging. With space being a scarce resource, people are compelled to make the most efficient use of the available land. As a result, commercial establishments have inevitably emerged even within residential areas. Such commercial usage is no longer seen as an exception but rather as a practical necessity of modern urban living. The current lifestyle – characterized by time constraints, long commutes, and a preference for convenient access to essential service- has led to a growing demand for schools, colleges, shops, banks, hospitals, nursing homes, religious places, and other facilities within residential neighbourhoods. Many housing societies now make express provisions for such mixed usage, and this trend is not only accepted but often welcomed by majority of the residents.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v the Chancellor and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
The Kerala High Court on Monday (19th May) held that the appointment of Dr. K. Sivaprasad by the former Governor Arif Mohammed Khan to the post of temporary Vice Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University was” not sustainable in law”. The appointment was made in November 2024 by the Governor who also holds the post of ex-officio Chancellor of the University.
Justice Gopinath P. held that the Chancellor did not follow the procedure mentioned under Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. As per the provision, the Chancellor has to appoint a temporary VC based on the recommendation of the Government.
Case Title: Dr. Joseph John MD v. The State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
The Kerala High Court recently held that the action of a doctor, administering treatment over the telephone a patient, who later succumbed to his illness, would not amount to criminal negligence.
Justice G. Girish passed the order in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case preferred by the doctor, who was charged under S. 304A of the Indian Penal Code, challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly causing the death of his patient.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v T. R. Vijayakumar & Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
The Kerala High Court held that private distilleries are liable to pay full pay and allowances of the excise officers deployed to supervise the manufacturing of liquor and allied activities.
The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. noted that as per Form IVA of the Rules, the licensee of a distillery should pay to the Government Treasury the actual cost of the staff appointed for the purpose of excise, supervision which includes pay, dearness allowance, uniform allowance and other compensatory allowances calculated at such rates as may be prescribed by the Commission from time to time.
Case Title: State of Kerala v The Chancellor and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
The Kerala High Court recently held that the appointment of Dr. Ciza Thomas as the Vice Chancellor of Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology was unsustainable.
Justice P. Gopinath ordered thus in a petition filed by the State challenging the appointment. The appointment was made by the then-Chancellor of the University and former Governor of the State, Arif Mohammad Khan. The Court has also declared the appointment made by him to the post of VC in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University unsustainable in law.
Case Title: The Federal Bank Limited v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) cannot exercise adjudicatory powers in the proceedings for securing assets under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) 2002.
Justice P. Gopinath passed the order while hearing a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner Bank challenging the maintainability of a plea filed by the 2nd respondent before the CJM arguing that the issues raised in the plea before the CJM cannot be decided by the magistrate.
Case Title: Omana Thomas v Ajith Prakash and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
The Kerala High Court held that the pendency of a civil suit concerning the title on a property is not a bar on giving an order under Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) to direct the alleged aggressor to remove himself from the shared household.
Justice C. Jayachandran ordered thus in a challenge against the Sessions Court order which refused to affirm the Magistrate's order granting relief under Section 19(1)(b) saying that it would render the pending civil suit infructuous.
Case Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Kerala High Court directed Family Courts to not involve police stations in custody arrangement of children. The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha made this order after noticing order of a family Court directing the parents to exchange the child at police custody as the interim custody arrangement.
Case Title: Thankamany and another v. Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
The Kerala High Court recently decided that it is not legally permissible for an appellate court to waive payment of court fee before the trial court on account of settlement of appeal. Justice A. Badharudeen laid down the legal position in a common judgment while hearing two Regular First Appeals (RFAs).
Case Title: Sivasankaran v. Rejin and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
The Kerala High Court recently held that a person holding an LMV licence would not be disentitled to drive an auto rickshaw, in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi.
The judgment was pronounced by Justice Johnson John while considering a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) preferred by the owner of the vehicle (auto rickshaw). The permission granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle was challenged before the High Court.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
Taking into account the indiscriminate dumping of garbage in Sabarimala, the Kerala High Court has ordered to take action under the Wild Life (Protection) Act against persons responsible for dumping and burning of waste near Sabarimala in the 2024-25 Mandala Makaravilakku season.
The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. directed the Deputy Director of Tiger Reserve (West Division) to take action under the provision of the Wildlife (Protection) Act against persons responsible for unscientific dumping of solid wastes and for burning the said waste in open land.
Kerala High Court Directs State Electricity Board To Publish Whole Works Contracts On Their Website
Case Title: T. N. Gopalan @ T. N. Gopalakrishnan and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL) to install necessary infrastructural, resources and procedural arrangements to publish whole works contract on its website.
Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. in the order passed on April said:
"Though I find substantial force in the argument of the learned standing counsel for the KSEB on the locus of the petitioner, taking into account the public interest and to ensure transparency, the following directions are issued; Four months is granted from today to the Board to institute adequate infrastructural, even resources and procedural arrangements to capacitate publication of whole works contract in the website, which will prevent the allegations of favouritism in the award of grant of contract".
Case Title: Vincy Cherian and Others v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Kerala High Court observed that the provisions of Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and Kerala Land Assignment Rules was intended to protect landless people and not to enrich people who were already holding extensive lands.
The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed that as per the Rules, Government can assign land under the Rules for personal cultivation, construction of houses and for the enjoyment of adjoined registered holdings. Priority is given to landless people, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen, persons disabled in active military service, persons who are dependents of those who are killed or disabled while in active military service, small holders whose family income is less than Rs.10,000/- certain category of kumkidars etc.
Case Title: Abraham, S/o Chacko and others v. Ajitha Jayakumar and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
The Kerala High Court has held that the requirements to complete a Gift deed provided under Transfer of Property Act would also apply to a settlement deed, even though there is a slight difference between the two.
Justice A. Badharudheen passed the decision while considering an appeal challenging trial court's declaration that the plaint schedule property belonged to the 1st respondent (plaintiff).
Case Title: Shamil Muhammed v. State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Kerala High Court recently imposed an exemplary cost of ₹20,000 against the petitioner in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case for filing a second Crl.M.C. through another counsel while the first one, seeking the same relief, was still pending before the Court.
Justice S. Manu passed the order while hearing the first Crl.M.C. filed by the petitioner in the case. The Public Prosecutor informed the Court that there was a second Crl.M.C., which was allowed, and that the criminal proceedings were quashed. The Court had, in an earlier interim order, directed the Registry to send a notice to the petitioner to show cause why appropriate proceedings shall not be initiated and exemplary cost shall not be imposed.
Case Title: J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kerala and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no omnibus or complete exemption on stamp duty provided under S. 8F of the Indian Stamp Act, read with S.5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for asset reconstruction agreements.
The Court looked into the Amendment Act that brought in S. 5(1A) of SARFAESI Act and added S.8F to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It rejected the contention of the petitioners that no stamp duty is applicable as per the non obstante clause in S.8F.
Justice T. R. Ravi went on to apply the golden rule of interpretation along the Supreme Court's rulings on the subject of interpretation of non obstante clauses to find that there is no complete exemption from levy of stamp duty.
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 26) denied anticipatory bail to Sukanth Suresh, an intelligence officer allegedly involved in the suicide of his girlfriend/colleague.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the investigation has revealed that the officer had relationships with other women. Further, it was also found out that the deceased got pregnant from the petitioner and she had undergone abortion. The Court also took into account the fact that the deceased used to transfer her salary to the petitioner every month.
Case Title: Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Kerala High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by an advocate against the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) seeking payment of over Rs 12 Lakh unpaid legal fees, imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 on NCTE finding its conduct "blameworthy".
Rejecting NCTE's argument that a writ petition for payment of legal fees is not maintainable, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. clarified that the maintainability of the writ petition for "unpaid professional fees" is not barred unless there are complex factual issues that prevent adjudication. It was further found that there is no legal backing or court ruling to state that such a petition cannot be admitted merely on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact.
Case Title: Sumisha (Minor) v Shaji P. Y. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
While considering a plea involving a woman, who as a minor in 2006 suffered serious injuries and was rendered disabled in a road accident, the Kerala High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to her by increasing the notional income for assessing loss of disability after taking into account the girl's severe condition.
The DLSA Secretary's report stated that since the woman cannot do anything of her own, she always needs someone's help, for all her daily necessities. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar further observed that just because the girl's counsel before the tribunal canvassed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.3000, does not mean that the insurer can be permitted to take advantage of this suggestion.
Case Title: X v. FACT and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Kerala High Court recently held that denial of public employment to a person who is afflicted with Hepatitis B is illegal, unfair, unjustifiable and is violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the judgment while hearing the appeal preferred by an individual denied the post of Assistant General at Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT), on finding him medically unfit.
Case Title: Sheeba M.R. v. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (May 28) disposed of appeals moved by the mother of veterinary student Sidharthan J.S., who allegedly committed suicide last year. The writ appeals were filed against a single judge's order, which had quashed the expulsion of eighteen students of the College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences at Mannuthy.
The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has passed the judgment in the mother's appeal as well as connected appeals, in accordance with the finding of the respondent University.
The University had earlier passed order debarring these eighteen students, who were implicated as accused in the case, for three years.
Case Title: Puthiya Purayil Shaji v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of the trial court which had added the charge of abetment of suicide against man whose wife is stated to have committed suicide by allegedly jumping into a well days after a draft divorce agreement was given to her.
Referring to the ingredients of Section 306 Justice Kauser Edappagath said that there is nothing in the allegations to show that there was any instigation or intentional aiding or direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide by the petitioner.
Case Title: Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
The Kerala High Court recently came down heavily on the Sankaracharya University for denying fellowship to a research student.
The Court opined that when the Vice-Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there is no reason for the non–payment of the petitioner's fellowship.
“If the Vice Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there can be no justification for non-payment of the petitioner's fellowship”, observed Justice D. K. Singh
Benefit Of S.14 Limitation Act Can't Be Construed So Liberally Just To Save A Lis: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Kerala High Court has held that the benefit of exclusion of limitation period under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available in the subsequent suit unless all the ingredients under the provision are satisfied. The Court found that the provision cannot be liberally construed, just to save a lis.
A division bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, while hearing the appeal, set aside the trial court order, which decreed the suit in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs), after finding that the respondents' pursuit of an earlier suit can be excluded in view of the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 30) directed the state government to release within two weeks all pensionary benefits due to Dr. Ciza Thomas who retired as Principal of Government Engineering College on March 31, 2023.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John remarked that the Government was harassing Dr. Thomas for accepting the appointment to the VC post.
Case Title: Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (May 28) granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam Movie Director Akhil Marar in the case of allegedly endangering the sovereignty and unity of India by posting a Facebook video about the Pahalgam terror attack and the retaliation by the Indian force.
"Since the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation, I am of the view that this is a fit case to protect the petitioner with an order of anticipatory bail" ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.