Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 372 - 472]Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 372XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 373Asgar Ali v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 374Ison George v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 375Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 376Suresh M. V. v. State of Kerala and Others,...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 372 - 472]
Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
Asgar Ali v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Ison George v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
Suresh M. V. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Vimala Sneham and Ors. v. Babu Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
XXX v. City Police Commissioner, Kochi and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
Thomas Joseph v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
Manjusha K.P v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
George Alexander @ Prince v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
XXX v State of Kerala and batch, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
Sini K.V. vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
Sudha v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre (P) Ltd.& Anr V. State Of Kerala And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Shekhar Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Saju v Shalimar Hardwares and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
State of Kerala v. Hana Fatima Ahinus, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
X & Anr v Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Chandran v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Sathy v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Kerala State United Nurses Association-Teachers Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
Manoj v. Kattappana Municipality & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Hana Fatima Ahinus v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Badusha v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr. v. T. Beena and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
Shanif v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v. Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
Suo Motu v P K Suresh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Beylin Das v The Bar Council of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
Jayasree and Anr. v. Sindhu Ajayan, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
Sivanandan & Ors v Ani and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Kochi Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Nancy Xavier and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
Shifana P.K. v. Director General of Police and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
Beatrice v Babu Louis, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
Manoj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
Kumaran. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
Sajeesh A v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
Suo Motu v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
Antony v. Tata Tea Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
Radhakrishnan Nair v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
Zainul Abideen Karumbil vs. State Of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
RDO and Anr. v. Thomas Daniel and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
Bibin Paulson v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
T.S. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
X v Y, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453
AA v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
Glister Sachet India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
Suresh v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
Koovatt Laila v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
Angels Nair v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Aryadan Shouketh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
Anila and Ors v Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and Anr, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 462
Daleel Ahmmed and Ors. v. National Medical Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
Advocate Boris Paul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
Noorudheen v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Pradeep Kumar P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband..
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
The Kerala High Court has held that the police cannot refuse to register an FIR (First Information Report) if a cognizable offence is made out, even in cases where the complaint was forwarded from a foreign country.
In the judgment, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the concept of 'Zero FIR' has been given statutory recognition by virtue of Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that merely because of the reason that, while ordering the confiscation in the order, the conveyance was not specifically included, it cannot be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
The Kerala High Court stated that luxury tax under Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act is constitutionally valid post 101st Amendment to the Constitution but a demand that extends to more than three years prior to the date of the demand notice cannot be legally sustained.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings' and so long as the charge under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act can be traced to the power of the State Legislature under Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the argument against legislative competitiveness must necessarily fail.”
Case Title: Dr. Kanthanathan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
The Kerala High Court had recently observed that the State must frame stringent anti-ragging law with severe punishments for ragging in educational institutions. The Court opined that though the UGC Regulations are stringent, they are not enough to completely curb the practice of ragging.
The observation was made by Justice D.K. Singh while disposing of two writ petitions, which were filed by the Dean of the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU), and the Assistant Warden of the Men's Hostel of KVASU.
Case Title: Suresh M. V. v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
The Kerala High Court has disposed of the writ petition that sought investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the Karavannur Bank Scam case.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that the case has been pending before the Court since 2021 and that it cannot be retained indefinitely.
Noting that the final reports in the case are pending before the jurisdictional courts, the Court held that the petitioner may approach the jurisdictional courts to address any grievance if law permits for the same..
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
In a ruling clarifying the territorial reach of admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the Kerala High Court has dismissed an admiralty suit against the owners of the vessel M.V. Korea Chemi, holding that the vessel was not within the court's jurisdiction at the relevant time.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while allowing an application filed by the owners (defendants 1 and 2) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruled that the Kerala High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, since the vessel was anchored at Nhava Sheva Port in Mumbai and not within Kerala's territorial waters.
Case Title: Vimala Sneham and Ors. v. Babu Joseph
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court has recently answered the question of whether a trial court can grant a decree of specific performance when it has not made a declaration that termination of agreement was not binding on the defendant in the suit.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that in suits for specific performance, if the defendant did not specifically terminate a sale agreement but went on to extend the time for performance, then there would not arise any need for a prayer to declare the agreement's termination as illegal. Therefore, just because such a prayer was not made by the plaintiff, the suit or the decree of the trial court would not fail.
Case Title: XXX v. City Police Commissioner, Kochi and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the removal of the name of a person from the rowdy list of Fort Kochi Police Station since he has not been involved in any criminal activity for the past 8 years.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan cited that reformation is the main goal of Indian criminal jurisprudence and hence, a person on the path of reformation need not be retained in the rowdy list of the police.
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Kerala High Court stated that customs cannot rely on Sec. 122A to deny personal hearing mandatory under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Section 28(8) of the Customs Act observed that it is evident that, as far as personal hearing is concerned, it is made mandatory as per the provision. Since this is a special provision deals with the issue on hand, the reliance placed by the department upon Section 122A, which is a general provision, cannot be made applicable to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court stated that service of notice on the adult member of noticee is valid under Section 153 Of Customs Act, 1962.
Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and other communications under the Act and its rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted. The notice was served upon the assessee through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the assessee. By utilizing the said opportunity, the assessee appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice.”
Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Kerala High Court: A division bench consisting of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Johnson John held that withholding pension without any pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings was illegal. The court held that such actions violate Article 14. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the petition being filed under Article 227. The court noted that constitutional courts cannot refrain from acting when the state exercises its authority arbitrarily.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has recently granted regular bail to a man, who was accused to have enticed a married woman to enter into sexual intercourse with him on a false promise of marriage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressed doubts as to whether an offence under Section 69 can be attracted when the defacto complainant is a married woman.
Proceedings U/S 148A Of Income Tax Act Unsustainable If Escaped Income Is Below ₹50 Lakhs & Notice Is Issued After 3 Years: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to undergo the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate is not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has allowed the settlement application under Section 245A of the Income Tax Act filed beyond cutoff date, while citing Supreme Court's COVID limitation order.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Court in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and stated that the assessee had filed the application for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is well within the time granted by the Supreme Court taking note of the Covid pandemic situation.
Case Title: Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a petition seeking exercise of inherent powers to set aside an interim order passed under Section 12(1) the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act/DV Act) is not maintainable if the same does not suffer from any blatant irregularity or illegality.
Justice G. Girish observed that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, High Courts must exercise restraint in exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
Kerala University Registrar, Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar, on Monday (July 7) withdrew a plea before the High Court, challenging his suspension by the varsity's Vice Chancellor in view of his reinstatement by the Syndicate of the University, in connection with the Bharat Mata portrait row.
When the matter came up for consideration, before Justice D.K. Singh, counsel for the Registrar submitted before the High Court that a withdrawal petition has been filed in light of the reinstatement of the Registrar by the Syndicate of the University.
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: Manjusha K.P v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High court has recently held that the failure to provide legible and readable documents to detained persons will result in the detaining order becoming invalid.
A Division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar held that the supply of unreadable documents violates section 7(2) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which which gives the detenu the right to be informed of the ground of detention and to make an effective representation.
Case Title: George Alexander @ Prince v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused can challenge a trial court's 'arbitrary and unreasoned' order refusing to give consent to the state to withdraw prosecution against him under section 360 of BNSS/ section 321 of CrPC, even when the State has chosen not to challenge such orders.
The order was passed by Justice Kauser Edapagath.
Case Title: N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court on Monday ruled that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and hence, cannot prevail.
The judgement was delivered by Justice Easwaran on a regular second appeal.
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has observed that caning of students by teachers or corporal punishment would not constitute an offence under the BNS and Juvenile Justice Act, (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, as the statutes stand now.
The Court however underscored that it is not excluding a case where any "corporal punishment is inflicted on any vital part" of child's body, nor was it excluding any "sadistic tendencies" exhibited by the teachers. Justice C. Jayachandran said that these would be exceptional situations which would constitute an offence.
Case Title: Sini K.V. vs. State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court has held that a candidate who applied under the general category cannot later claim the benefit of reservation if their community was added to the OBC list after the application's last date.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John allowed a plea filed by Sini K.V., who challenged an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that had granted OBC status to another candidate, Minusha K.
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority.
Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Case Title: Sudha v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court has ordered the trial court to frame charges against four police officers accused of committing custodial torture on a woman in connection with her interrogation for an alleged theft.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath set aside the order of the trial court, which discharged the accused police officers stating that previous sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was not obtained.
Private Hospitals Must Pay Minimum Wages To Housekeeping Staff : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre (P) Ltd.& Anr V. State Of Kerala And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Korambayil Hospital & Diagnostics Centre and its facility management contractor, upholding the Deputy Labour Commissioner's direction to pay wages under the Minimum Wages Act to housekeeping staff engaged in the hospital.
Justice Viju Abraham noted that although the petitioners claimed they were paying the notified minimum wage for sweeping and cleaning under a general notification, the agreement between the hospital and the contractor established that the services provided were comprehensive housekeeping, which attracted a higher wage scale notified for private hospitals.
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To ED Officer Accused In ₹2 Crore Bribery Case
Case Title: Shekhar Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail plea of a senior official of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), who was arrayed as an accused in a bribery case registered by the Vigilance.
Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the bail application which was earlier reserved for orders.
Case Title: Saju v Shalimar Hardwares and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that service of notice on relative of accused, raising demand on dishonour of cheque, is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless it is shown that accused had knowledge of such notice.
"Service of notice on the relative of the accused is not sufficient, especially when there is no evidence from the side of the complainant that the accused was aware of the service of notice on his relative. If there is no such evidence, it is to be presumed that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not served on the accused," Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Intelligence Officer Accused Of Abetting Girlfriend's Suicide
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to Sukanth Suresh, an intelligence officer allegedly involved in the suicide of his girlfriend/colleague.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the bail stating that the accused has been in custody for 44 days and no purpose is served by further custody.
BREAKING: Kerala High Court Upholds Order Cancelling KEAM Result; Dismisses State's Appeal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Hana Fatima Ahinus
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 9) upheld a single judge's order which set aside the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) exam results.
A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S thus dismissed the state government's appeal against the order, adding that it was after considering the rival contentions that the single judge had "interfered with the government order" and disposed of the writ petitions with observations and directions.
Strict Proof Not Needed For Married Woman To Claim Gold Entrusted To In-Laws: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X & Anr v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that courts can't demand strict proof from a woman claiming gold ornaments entrusted to her in-laws at the time of marriage.
The Division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed,
“In most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her in-laws occurs within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewelry to husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment.”
Case Title: Chandran v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a person charged for rape under section 370 of IPC can be lawfully convicted under section 354 of IPC for assaulting a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, even in the absence of specific charge to that effect, if the evidence proves the lesser offence.
Justice M B Snehalatha thus dismissed the revision petition preferred by the accused challenging his conviction under section 354 of IPC, after being acquitted of the more serious charge of section 376.
Case Title: Sathy v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
In a unique turn of events, the Kerala High Court today granted parole to a life convict, to enable him to solemnize marriage.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan granted the relief not looking at the convict but, looking towards the "brave and loving girl" who is ready to marry the convict despite being aware that her partner will serve a life sentence.
Case Title: Kerala State United Nurses Association-Teachers Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court has recently held that teachers teaching in private nursing colleges must be paid as per UGC Scales or, not less than what is admissible in nursing colleges under the State/Central government in accordance with the Nursing Council Regulations.
Justice D.K. Singh observed that the government and the Indian Nursing Council must take action against nursing colleges, which are not paying their teachers according to the mandate under Note iv of Regulation 5D of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing) Program) Regulations 2020.
Case Title: Manoj v. Kattappana Municipality & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an order rejecting a renewal application, which was uploaded on the K-Smart portal, is valid electronic communication in compliance with Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the Municipality Act).
Justice C.S. Dias observed that an applicant cannot insist that rejection order has to be served in the physical form in view of the implementation of the K-smart portal and the provisions of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
Kerala High Court Cancels KEAM Exam Results, Says Prospectus Can't Be Changed At Final Stage
Case Title: Hana Fatima Ahinus v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
In a setback to the Kerala Government, the High Court on Wednesday (July 9) directed the cancellation of Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) exam results, observing that changing the Prospectus at the final stage was a mistake.
Justice D.K. Singh thus set aside the rank list published as per the amended prospectus (Exhibit P6) and directed that a new, revised rank list be published in accordance with the un-amended prospectus (Exhibit P2).
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act.
Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji were addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order rejecting a man's appointment under the compassionate employment scheme due to his past involvement in criminal cases, holding that there exists no relevant connection between the alleged offence and the nature of the post in question.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John was hearing a petition filed by Jijin R., whose mother was a part-time sweeper in the Police Department and died in service in 2017. Jijin, belonging to the Ezhava community, was offered a post as Police Constable (Driver) under the compassionate scheme.
Case Title: Badusha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has held that the term "immediate official superior" in section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act must be interpreted contextually rather than rigidly through bureaucratic hierarchy.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling while dismissing a bail application filed by the petitioner, who had been booked under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 108.938 grams of MDMA. The search and seizure was conducted by the District Anti-Narcotic Special Action Force (DANSAF), which operates under the jurisdiction of the City Police Commissioner.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Quashing Governor's Appointment of Temporary VCs In Two Universities
Case Title: The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 14) upheld the orders declaring appointments of Dr. K. Sivaprasad and Dr. Ciza Thomas as temporary Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology respectively, by the former Governor were not sustainable in law.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan thus upheld a May 19 decision of the Single Judge and found no reason to interfere with the judgments.
Case Title: The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court has held that while filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the time taken for obtaining a copy of the award must be excluded for computing the period of limitation.
Justice K. Babu observed that the defendant's presence at the time of passing the award was not an exception to the general rule that the time to obtain a copy of the award has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period for the appeal.
Case Title: Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has introduced a material change from the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing through Section 223(2) that cognizance of a complaint against a public servant can be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused and after calling for a report from the superior officer.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that the CrPC did not have a similar provision.
Case Title: M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Dismissing a plea by the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala) against an order refusing to discharge him in a CBI case alleging illegal appointments in return for bribes, the Kerala High Court said that an office-bearer of a government-aided institute would qualify as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen upheld the trial court's order framing charges against M.S. Muraleedharan under various provisions of the IPC and the PC Act.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, deals with the levy of property tax by the Municipality on buildings and lands within its area. This section outlines the process of assessment and collection of property tax, specifying that it should be levied in accordance with the Act and prescribed rules.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
Case Title: Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr. v. T. Beena and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
The Kerala High Court has recently held that High Courts can use their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an ad interim injunction granted by a civil court in a suit barred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Justice K. Natarajan observed that the existence of an alternative remedy to vacate an order provided under Order 43 or Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not preclude the high courts from setting aside an illegal order granted by a civil court.
Case Title: Shanif v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
The Kerala High Court recently held that a delay of six months in initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, can sever the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of externment when the only explanation for the delay was that time was required to collect the crime records.
Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that, “The said explanation cannot withstand scrutiny as the entire police records have been digitised in the State, and any information with regard to the pending crimes can be obtained with the click of a mouse.”
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 16) closed the writ petition filed by producers of the Suresh Gopi starrer 'JSK - Janaki v State of Kerala', observing that a U/A Certificate was granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on July 11.
The Court orally observed that it is also giving a protective observation to prevent the audience from approaching the consumer court against the production, claiming it had promised to show 'Janaki v. State of Kerala' but it came out now with 'Janaki V v. State of Kerala'.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed, "The counsel for the petitioner submitted that releasing of the teaser of the movie and advertisement material with the earlier name of the movie can give rise to certain legal complications. It is made clear that in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the revised version of the movie is now being granted censor certificate, it is declared the using of the materials/teaser with the old name by the petitioner shall not in any manner legally, adversely affect the petitioner and no claim in that regard will be maintainable against the petitioner."
Case Title: All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v. Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
The State Government, through its rule-making powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot restrict the use of automatic or electric vehicles for driving test, ruled the Kerala High Court.
Justice N. Nagaresh partially quashed Circular No. 4/2024 issued by the State Transport Commissionerate, asserting the primacy of the Central Government's authority in regulating motor driving training under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. P K Suresh Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday sentenced P.K. Suresh Kumar to three days' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for making a series of Facebook posts containing "contemptuous and intemperate remarks" against sitting judges of the High Court.
The proceedings, initiated suo motu by the Court, were presided over by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian. This is the second time Kumar faced contempt proceedings. In the first instance, he had been discharged after tendering an unconditional apology for similar remarks. However, in March 2024, he resumed publishing inflammatory content on Facebook, openly admitting in one post that his earlier apology was a tactical ploy to avoid punishment.
Judge Bound To Hear Cases As Per Roster; Litigants Can't Engage In Forum Shopping: Kerala HC
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that judges are bound to hear the cases as per the roster prepared by the Chief Justice and that litigants cannot pick and choose the judges that have to hear their cases.
The observation was made Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing a party-in-person whose writ petition was noted with defects for not taking steps to issue notice to the respondents.
Kerala Bar Council Lifts Ban On Advocate Facing Assault Allegation, High Court Told
Case Title: Beylin Das v. The Bar Council of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
The Kerala High Court today disposed the plea filed by Advocate Beylin Das, whose practice was barred by the Kerala Bar Council for allegedly assaulting a woman advocate
Justice N. Nagaresh, disposed of the petition after it was submitted that the Bar Council has reconsidered the petitioner's representation.
Case Title: XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment refusing to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against a teacher after he was acquitted of an offence of sexual assaulting his student, as the witnesses turned hostile.
Justice D.K. Singh refused to intervene in the proceedings stating that the writ petition was preferred at a premature stage as only the show cause notice proposing punishment was issued to the petitioner.
Case Title: Jayasree and Anr. v. Sindhu Ajayan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
The Kerala High Court recently held that preferring a legal heir over another cannot be considered unnatural and does not make the execution of the Will suspicious. It also held that the first appellate court cannot, on its own, raise an issue of genuineness of a Will when there was no such pleading or issue raised before the trial court in the suit.
Justice Easwaran S. was considering a challenge to the decision of the first appellate court that framed certain points suo motu and held a Will to be vitiated due to suspicious circumstances due to exclusion of a legal heir.
Case Title: Sivanandan & Ors v. Ani and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Kerala High Court reaffirmed the statutory sanctity of a mortgagor's right to redemption under a usufructuary mortgage, and provided clarification on several crucial provisions of property and civil law.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in a civil dispute between family members over property rights, mortgage redemption and partition. The Court examined the redemption of usufructuary mortgage, Co Mortgagor's redemption and subrogation under section 92 of the Property Act, whether the registrar can be considered as an attesting witness under section 123 of the Property Act, and the applicability of section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Case Title: Kochi Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Nancy Xavier and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single judge's interim order directing construction of a temporary waiting shed at the Roll-on Roll-of (Ro-Ro) Jetty at Fort Kochi.
For context, the single judge had in its June 2 interim order directed the Kochi Municipal Corporation erect a temporary waiting shed at the Fort Kochi Ro-Ro Jetty, to accommodate at least 50 commuters at a given time, at their expenses, within one week from the date of the order.
Rejecting the arguments put forth by the Corporation, a division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., observed that commuters are entitled to wait for the ferry service in reasonable comfort and without being exposed to the harsh weather and that the Corporation is duty-bound to provide such elementary services to paying commuters.
Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Dancers RLV Ramakrishnan, Ullas
Case Title: Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings taken against Mohiniyattom dancers RLV Ramakrishnan and Ullas U. (accused persons/petitioner). The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by Kalamandalam Sathyabhama before the Magistrate in 2018 alleging defamation.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the complaint did not reproduce or extract the alleged defamatory statement nor did it contain the alleged date of publication of the statement.
Case Title: Shifana P.K. v. Director General of Police and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
The Kerala High Court has recently allowed a plea to deploy police protection for the peaceful conduct of elections to the Calicut University Union, scheduled to be held on July 22. The writ petition was preferred by Shifana P.K., a Chairperson candidate of the election.
Taking note of Exhibit P6 FIR and the fact that police protection was previously ordered by the High Court during 2023 elections, Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police (Respondents 1 and 2) to grant adequate police protection during elections.
Subsequent Matrimonial Petition Not Barred, If Based On Fresh Cause Of Action: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Beatrice v. Babu Louis
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
The Kerala High Court has recently held that subsequent petitions in a matrimonial proceeding are not barred if there is a fresh cause of action.
The bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar addressed the questions of trust law and limitation in matrimonial litigation, affirming the rights of a wife to recover misappropriated gold and monetary assets from her estranged husband.
Case Title: Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions to the police officers of the State to mandate conduct of Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at 'zero' before subjecting a person to the breathalyser test.
Justice V.G. Arun observed, "it is essential to note that the purpose of conducting an Air Blank Test is to check for any residual alcohol before taking breath sample from a person using a breath alcohol testing device. Thus, the primary goal of a blank test is to verify that the breathalyzer is functioning correctly and is not influenced by any residual alcohol from previous tests. Therefore, it is mandatory to conduct an Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at 'zero' before taking breath sample using a breath alcohol testing device."
Case Title: Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered the Central government and the Consul General, India-UAE Embassy to take actions facilitating repatriation of Vipanchika Maniyan's mortal remains to India.
The Court today impleaded Vipanchika's husband as an additional respondent, who informed that following a mediation at the Embassy in Sharjah it was decided that her mortal remains can be brought back to India and rituals can be completed by her maternal aunt. However, the daughter's remains will be buried by him in Sharjah.
Justice N. Nagaresh recorded these submissions and noting that the issues are almost sought consensually, said no further orders are required in the case. As such, the plea has been closed.
Case Title: Manoj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
The Kerala High Court has held that a motorbike can qualify as a 'dangerous weapon' under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, if it is used intentionally to cause harm.
Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment interpreting the provision which penalizes the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner who was convicted for the offence under section 324 of IPC.
Case Title: R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 21) held that the appeal preferred by former MLA R. Rajesh against the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for making a 'stinking Facebook post' against a sitting judge, was not maintainable.
The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was hearing the question of maintainability of the appeal.
Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Chinese Loan App Money Laundering Case
Case Title: Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Kerala High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of Sayid Muhammed, the fifth accused in the alleged Chinese Loan application scam who has been booked for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed the regular bail application stating that the investigation indicates the clear involvement of the petitioner as well as his active connection with the acquisition of proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
While considering a cruelty case lodged against a husband and his kin, the Kerala High Court observed that sole evidence of a domestic violence victim is reliable for conviction in such cases as often ill-treatment and harassment happens within the confines of the house.
Justice Jobin Sebastian underscored that the testimony can be relied on as sole evidence for conviction provided it is convincing and reliable. In the facts of the present case, the high court acquitted the husband, kin in a Section 498-A IPC case, holding that the main allegation of forced abortion was not proved and that other allegations remained unsubstantiated.
Case Title: Kumaran. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
The Kerala High Court has held that a stone need not always be a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of attracting the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, observed that it need not always be a dangerous weapon unless used as an instrument for cutting or used as such to be likely to cause death.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Police Official Accused Of Demanding ₹2K Bribe
Case Title: Sajeesh A v State of Kerala
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The Kerala High Court recently granted regular bail to a Senior Civil Police Officer who was accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting bribes.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case exists since the mahazar clearly showed that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
Noting that the accused/petitioner is a first-time offender, who had been in custody since 02.07.2025, and that the investigation is well progressed, the Court granted him conditional bail.
Case Title:Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
The Kerala High Court has expanded restrictions on videography and photography within the Sabarimala temple complex, directing the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and police authorities to strictly enforce temple decorum and public safety.
The order, issued by the Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S, comes in response to suo motu proceedings based on a Special Commissioner's report detailing serious breaches of court-imposed restrictions during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.
Police Inaction Against Obstruction Of Lawful Business Violates Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(g): Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
The Kerala High Court recently ordered police protection in a plea preferred by a quarry entrepreneur, who was prevented from conducting scientific study in order to start quarry operations.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that “In our country governed by Rule of Law, every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide.”
Case Title: Antony v. Tata Tea Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
In its recent judgement, the Kerala High Court has held that the change in name of a company, without any change in its constitution, would not affect the benefit obtained by it from a decree in its favour.
Justice Easwaran S. observed, “The decree passed in favour of the erstwhile company, whose name was subsequently changed will enure to the benefit of the company inasmuch as there is no change in the constitution and that the name of the entity alone is changed.”
Case Title- Radhakrishnan Nair v CBI
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
While reiterating the legal threshold for discharge under CrPC, the Kerala High Court dismissed the plea of a public servant accused of conspiracy and cheating in respect of Rs 7 crore loan fraud case seeking discharge from offences alleged against him, observing that there a "prima facie" case was made out.
Justice A. Badharudeen, in his judgement affirmed the trial court's decision to proceed with the charges against the petitioner, the then regional manager at SBI, accused of offences punishable under Section 120 B(criminal conspiracy), 409(criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
CaseTitle - Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court has observed that any attack on an advocate for carrying out professional duties poses a direct threat to the rule of law and access to justice. It thus refused anticipatory bail to nine accused in an assault case involving a practicing advocate.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed,“ Assaulting an Advocate for drafting a complaint cannot be viewed lightly. The fundamental right to have access to courts of law is enabled largely through Advocates. If Advocates are attacked for drafting complaints, rule of law will suffer.”
Case title: Zainul Abideen Karumbil vs. State Of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 10) dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of one Zainul Abideen Karumbil, accused, along with others, of leaking school examination question papers via a YouTube channel named 'M.S. Solutions'.
A bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who heard the matter, took note of the serious nature of the allegations and observed that his custodial interrogation is necessary.
Case Title: RDO and Anr. v. Thomas Daniel and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court recently held that a sale certificate issued by a bank/revenue authority to an auction purchaser following the sale of immovable property that belonged to a revenue defaulter will not attract the levy of stamp duty.
A Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a batch of writ appeals preferred by the government against the Single Bench's decision that held that stamp duty ought not be levied on such sale certificates.
Case Title: Bibin Paulson v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court has clarified that it had not, in its suo motu case concerning waste management in the State, prohibited the Magistrates from releasing vehicles seized for illegal waste dumping.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who was considering the petition, observed that no bar was imposed on the Magistrate in the suo motu case.
Case Title: P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment declaring that debt created by a cash transaction above Rupees Twenty Thousand in violation of the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 cannot be considered as a legally enforceable debt unless there is a valid explanation for the same.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that even so, a person accused of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act must challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
Case Title: Seema T.S. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lady doctor, who was accused of forging her Post-Graduation diploma certificate and obtaining registration from the Travancore Cochin Medical Council using the forged certificate.
Justice A. Badharudheen observed that “…it is the duty of the court to ensure, in corruption cases in particular that none of the corrupt person, should get liberal relief, so as to perpetuate corruption, taking such cases in a light manner,”
Case Title - X v Y
Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453
The Kerala High Court has recently reaffirmed the sanctity of court-mediated settlements while dismissing two matrimonial appeals challenging a compromise decree entered into through mediation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha emphasized that parties cannot be permitted to resile from settlements solemnized through judicial process, cautioning that any such attempts could undermine public trust in the justice system.
Case Title - AA v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Registrar of Births and Deaths has no authority to unilaterally alter the paternity details in a birth certificate where the child was born during a valid marriage, without a court order or notice to the lawful father.
Justice C S Dias delivered the judgement where the petitioner challenged a revised birth certificate issued by Payyanur Municipality, without following the procedure established by law.
Kerala High Court Upholds Govt Orders Banning Single-Use Plastic Across State
Case Title: Glister Sachet India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment upholding three state Government Orders (GOs) passed in 2019 banning single-use plastic in the State.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a batch of writ petitions preferred by Kerala Plastics Manufacturers Associations and several other persons challenging the government orders passed as early as in 2019.
Case Title - Suresh v State of Kerala
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the State Police, urging immediate and comprehensive reform of investigative practices in line with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Highlighting the critical need for foolproof investigations in heinous crimes such as murder, the Court called on the State Police to urgently upgrade their investigative capabilities through modern training, updated protocols, and strategic investments in forensic technology.
The Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar made these observations while acquitting a man previously convicted of murder due to glaring investigative lapses.
Case Title - Koovatt Laila v State of Kerala
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court has held that double tax is not leviable after building regularisation, and the assessee is liable to pay tax at the regular rate only.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “once a regularization came into effect, the liability of the petitioners is to pay the tax at the regular rate, as the said building cannot be treated as unauthorised for that period.”
Case Title - Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court quashed an order passed by Kannur University, which reviewed its own earlier order, and thereafter vested the ownership of Sharaf Arts and Science College Padne with the 'Khidmath Organisation of Padne', which was earlier vested with Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee.
Justice D K Singh, delivered the judgment while dealing with the question whether a statutory authority such as a University can review its own decision in the absence of express statutory authorisation to do so.
Case Title: Angels Nair v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) held that the government order, which permitted shooting of commercial films and TV serials in forest areas, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves, did not have the force of law.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji disposed of the writ appeal filed against the Single Bench order which had directed the Central and State governments, and the top forest department officials to consider whether any further additional conditions need be imposed in the matter while granting permission to use the forest for non-forest activities so that no damage is caused to the forest and wildlife.
Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) disposed of a PIL filed by Nilambur MLA Aryadan Shouketh for the betterment of tribal persons residing in the Nilambur Taluk with the observation that the MLA himself should take steps to address the issues raised in his petition.
Case Title: Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) ordered the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct hybrid public hearings instead of online hearings alone while considering the revision of the Renewable Energy Regulations.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed that physical hearings may be held at Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram and left it open to the Commission to decide the venue and timings of the hearing
Case Title - Anila and Ors v Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and Anr
Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 462
Dismissing a woman's plea against an order permitting her mother-in-law to reside in a portion of the shared family house, the Kerala High Court observed that a purposive interpretation should be given to the term "children" under Senior Citizens Act to also include "daughter-in-law", depending on the facts and circumstances.
Justice Viju Abraham, delivered the judgment while dealing with the question whether a senior citizen could invoke the Senior Citizen Act against a daughter-in-law, and does such an order come in conflict with the rights granted under the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Daleel Ahmmed and Ors. v. National Medical Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Kerala State Medical Councils and the Director of Medical Education to process the registration applications of certain foreign medical graduates (FMGs) to join CMRI internship without mandating them to undergo a compulsory 2 year "Clinical Clerkship Program".
Justice N Nagaresh, held the “Clinical Clerkship” is not required for the petitioner foreign medical graduates as they have compensated their online classes with physical classes in their parent institutions.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
Justices Devan Ramachandran, Gopinath P. and Mohammed Nias C.P. was addressing the issue of whether a purchasing dealer, who has otherwise complied with all statutory requirements, can legitimately be denied the benefit of input tax credit solely on the ground that the selling dealer failed to remit the tax collected.
Case Title: Advocate Boris Paul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 29) directed the State government and the State Wetland Authority to constitute a specific unit for the conservation of Ashtamudi Wetland, namely, Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a plea by Advocate Boris Paul, former President of the Kollam Bar Association, against waste dumping and illegal encroachments in the Ashtamudi lake causing water pollution and destruction of mangrove forests.
Case Title: Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
In a case concerning prosecution of a dissolved company accused of cheating various nursing aspirants of over Rs 100 crore, the Kerala High Court recommended to the Parliament to amend the criminal procedural law and if need be special statutes, for effective prosecution of dissolved companies.
Justice A. Badharudeen in his order observed that Section 70 of PMLA Act does not distinguish a company as existing company or non existing company; at the same time, the "procedure law is silent" on how a company or corporation or society is prosecuted
Case Title: Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
The Kerala High Court has declined the plea for emergency leave preferred by the wife of Sijith @ Annan Sijith, who is presently undergoing life imprisonment in the T.P. Chandrasekharan murder case for attending the 'choroonu' ceremony of his child.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that Sijith was already granted emergency leave for 10 days at the time of delivery of the child, around 6 months back and observed that paroles can be granted only in extraordinary situations and declined parole for the present ceremony.
Case Title: Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
The Kerala High Court recently held that a magistrate must give an opportunity of hearing to the accused person before taking cognizance of an offence based on a complaint. The Court found that this is a mandate under the proviso to Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice Badharudeen observed:
“Thus, the crucial aspect of Section 223(1) is the first proviso, which mandates that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. This is a significant departure from the provisions of the Cr.P.C, which did not mandate this pre-cognizance hearing for the accused.”
Case Title - Noorudheen v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the service of notice on relative of accused, raising demand on dishonour of cheque, is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless it is shown that the accused had knowledge of such notice.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan, reaffirmed the law on service of notice under section 138 as laid down by the high court in Saju v Shalimar Hardware (2025).
Case Title - K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Kerala High Court held that mere publication of a news item in a newspaper regarding a worker's dismissal does not amount to formal service of the dismissal order and hence does not trigger the limitation under section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice K Babu, clarified the legal interpretation of the limitation period under the Industrial Disputes Act while setting aside a Labour Court decision that dismissed a challenge to dismissal as time-barred.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 30) disposed of a PIL which sought a direction to the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India), MoEF (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) and other authorities, to stop the unscientific and excessive soil extraction done in Chelannoor Village of Kozhikode in connection with the construction of National Highway from Kasargod to Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji looked into Rule 10(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and considered how this mandate can be implemented when quarrying is conducted along the stretch of a road.
Case Title: Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the powers under Section 311 CrPC or corresponding Section 348 BNSS cannot be invoked to recall a POCSO or rape victim for further cross-examination for changing the evidence given during trial.
Justice G. Girish reiterated the settled-position that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a routine manner, and can only be exercised if there are valid and sufficient grounds. The judge opined that the petitioner's attempt to compel the victim to state that the incident of rape did not occur amounted to degrading the sanctity and credibility of judicial proceedings.