Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 617 - 698]R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 618K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 619Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker)...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 617 - 698]
R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
TGN Kumar v The Secretary, MInistry of Corporate Affairs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
X v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 622
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 623
Abdul Majeed C.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
Sivananda Prabhu and Ors. v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu & Brothers and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
Jinto P.D. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
Kizhakkayi Dasan v. Kuniyil Cheerootty and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Haripreetha T. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
Twenty 20 Party and Anr. v. State Election Commission, Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v Varghese P Kuriakose and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
Lakshmi R. Menon v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
V.G. Usha Devi v. State of Kerala and connected matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
Abdul Muneer v. The Superintendent and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
Kerala Public Service Commission v. The National Human Rights Commission and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
Under Graduate Medical Education Board and Anr v V N Public Health And Educational Trust and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
Baby V.J. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
Somasundaram v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
A.K. Rajendran v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
Rajasimhan v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646
Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650
Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651
State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653
Shinoj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654
Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
P T Babu v Vijaya Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657
Anu C.R. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 663
CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
Rameshan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
X X v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
Selvan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679
Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681
Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683
Hirandas V.M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 684
Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 685
Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686
P V Mathew v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
M/S Thiruvonam Industries and Others v Hero Fincorp Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
Moosa Thiruvangoth v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
V Chandran v Aliamma George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Ors and connected matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
Usman Kunju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
Harish V. v. T.C. Mathew and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no provision under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules that disqualified a person from contesting in an election merely because he proposed the nomination of another candidate in the same constituency.
The judgment was rendered by Justice K. Babu, who was considering a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature in election to the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323 at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
Case Title: Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963).
Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as income from other sources, at the belated stage of the second appeal to the Tribunal, if the venture of the appellants is accepted, that would lead to the revision of the returns voluntarily filed, which is not possible under the statute.
Case Title: K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by the Commissioner under Section 94(2) of the Act is independent of the power of the authority to issue clarifications.
Case Title: Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
The Kerala High Court has set aside the Life Insurance Corporation of India's (LIC) decision to repudiate medical insurance, holding that repudiation of medical claims by insurers cannot be sustained when based on unrelated pre-existing conditions or when raised beyond the statutory bar under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.
Justice P.M. Manoj, delivered the judgment in two connected writ petitions, and quashed LIC's orders that had restricted and later rejected claims for the hospitalization and treatment of the petitioner's wife under LIC's Health Plus Plan (Table 901). The Court directed LIC to honour the claims without further delay, stressing that arbitrary repudiations defeat the very object of insurance.
Case Title: Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Another and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
The Kerala High Court has held that denial of insurance claim for medical treatment amounts to violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice P.M. Manoj, delivering the judgment in a writ petition, ruled that once an insured person has undergone treatment or surgery based on the expert opinion of a qualified medical professional, the insurer cannot arbitrarily reject the claim. Such rejection, the Court said, amounts to denial of treatment and infringes upon the citizen's fundamental right to life and health.
Case Title: TGN Kumar v. The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) to conduct its Annual General Body Meeting (AGM) through online modes.
Rejecting the petitioner's contention that the AGM has to be held either at the registered office of the Company or some other place within the city, town or village, Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition.
Lessee In Possession Can't Be Charged With House Trespass Under Section 450 IPC: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 622
The Kerala High Court has clarified that a lessee in lawful possession of a house cannot be charged with or convicted for house trespass under Section 450 IPC.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal filed by the accused in an acid attack case while setting aside conviction under 450 (House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life) of IPC. The bench however upheld his conviction under Section 326A (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.).
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 623
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that evidence of the mere presence of alcohol in the victim's blood is not enough for an insurer to exclude liability in accidental deaths when the exclusion clause specifically excludes deaths caused under the influence of alcohol.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. further observed that the insurer must prove that the accident occurred while the victim was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to trigger the exception clause.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed C.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment partially setting aside the tender notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board relating to tenders for three items, including collection of coconuts and flowers offered by pilgrims and devotees in Sabarimala. It further asked the TDB to conduct a re-tender for these.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering the petitions filed by the unsuccessful participants in the tender process.
Case Title: Sivananda Prabhu and Ors. v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu & Brothers and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
The Kerala High Court has held that the separate property acquired by a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law, who died before 1956, will completely devolve upon his son.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment ) Act, 1929 did not affect the son's absolute right to inherit his father's property.
Case Title: Jinto P.D. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
The Kerala High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to bodybuilder and the winner of 'Bigg Boss Malayalam 6' Jinto P.D., booked in an alleged case of theft after trespassing into a gym “Jinto Body Craft”.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that there was a profit-sharing agreement between the petitioner and de-facto complainant in connection with the conduct of the gym.
Case Title: Kizhakkayi Dasan v. Kuniyil Cheerootty and Anr.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 627
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a customary practice of divorce can be proven in evidence if the same is hearsay, if the statement satisfies the conditions under Sections 32(4) and 48 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar was considering a matrimonial appeal challenging the decision of the Family Court declaring the respondents as the wife and daughter of the appellant.
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Haripreetha T. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
The Kerala High Court allowed Life Insurance Corporation's appeal against direction to pay insurance coverage claim of a cancer patient, holding that LIC's coverage for cancer care would apply only if the first diagnosis–which does not include confirmation by expert, occurred after waiting period of 180 days.
Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. relied on Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary's definition of 'diagnosis'.
Case Title: Twenty 20 Party and Anr. v. State Election Commission, Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
The Kerala High Court has closed a writ petition moved by Twenty 20 Party challenging the proposal to fix a Mosque (Madrasathul Islamiya) as the polling booth for the upcoming local body elections, after the District Election Officer proposed a nearby Anganwadi for the purpose
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice C.S. Dias, the judge was informed that the polling station had been shifted to a nearby Anganwadi.
Case Title: Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v Varghese P Kuriakose and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
The Kerala High Court has held that the ill-treatment of children by a spouse constitutes mental cruelty towards the other spouse and can be a valid ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, dismissed the wife's appeal against a Family Court judgment granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty, while partly allowing her revision petition seeking enhanced maintenance.
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Actress Lakshmi Menon In Abduction Case
Case Title: Lakshmi R. Menon v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 8) allowed the anticipatory bail plea of actress Lakshmi Menon in alleged abduction and assault case.
The parties had submitted before the Court that their disputes have been settled and that the complaint was filed based on misunderstanding. The de facto complainant had filed an affidavit in this regard.
In view of the submission, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted bail to the actress.
Case Title: Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
The Kerala High Court held that the assessee is free to challenge the cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in remand proceedings; the tribunal's directions are not binding.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the observation made by the Tribunal is not to be taken as a positive-binding direction on the assessing authority after the remand. An assessment with reference to the provisions of Section 68 is required to be made only when the assessee has no explanation as regards the cash credits in his books of accounts. In the case at hand, the appellant-assessee seems to have offered explanations, with reference to its dealings with the Company, which are more or less business transactions between parties.
Case Title: V.G. Usha Devi v. State of Kerala and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that conditions under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be satisfied to sustain the conviction for forgery or related offences, and the sole testimony of a witness claiming familiarity with the handwriting of the accused do not suffice.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing appeals challenging a conviction in corruption cases concerning the alleged falsification of records and misappropriation of Panchayat funds in Konnathadi Panchayat during 1993–94.
Kerala High Court Permits Convict To Attend Daughter's Enrolment Ceremony As Lawyer
Case Title: Abdul Muneer v. The Superintendent and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) allowed the plea of a convict to be granted parole to attend the enrolment ceremony of his daughter.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan referred to the decision in Bindhu K.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., where it was clearly held that emergency leave cannot be granted in all circumstances. The judge prima facie opined that the petitioner is not entitled to emergency leave.
However, the Court felt that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it has to look into the matter from the perspective of the petitioner's daughter as well.
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. The National Human Rights Commission and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) set aside a 2019 order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that had recommended the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to pay an amount of ₹1,000 each to 290 physically challenged candidates.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji accepted the contention of the KPSC that the NHRC order was a blanket direction, made without considering the nature or degree of disability of each candidate. It also opined that the order is difficult to implement since none of the beneficiaries of the order were made parties before the NHRC or the High Court.
Case Title: Under Graduate Medical Education Board and Anr v V N Public Health And Educational Trust and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
The Kerala High Court has held that interim orders permitting provisional admissions to medical courses cannot be granted as a matter of course, even in writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed:
“In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, an interim order permitting provisional admission to medical or dental courses should not be granted as a matter of course merely because the writ petition is admitted. Such relief may be granted only if the Court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case bound to succeed, or if the error is so manifest and apparent that no other conclusion is possible.”
Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
The Kerala High Court has directed NORKA Roots to consider the inclusion of Non-Resident Keralite (NRK) returnees in its recently launched NORKA-CARE Group Health and Accident Insurance Scheme.
NORKA Roots is a nodal agency for all matters concerning collaboration with the government of Kerala to address grievances on Non-Resident Keralites.
Justice N. Nagaresh gave the directions while disposing a writ petition filed by Pravasi Legal Cell and two individuals challenging the exclusion of returnee NRK's who have permanently settled back in Kerala, from NORKA-CARE insurance scheme. The scheme was launched through a tripartite agreement between NORKA Roots, New India Assurance Company Limited and Mahindra Insurance Brokers Limited.
Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 10) allowed two appeals filed by the State Government challenging a March 17 order cancelling the appointment of an Inquiry Commission set up by the State to resolve the land dispute between residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board.
A division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM while pronouncing the order said, "Both writ appeals are allowed".
Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 10) observed that the litigants who had approached the court challenging appointment of inquiry commission by the state in the Munambam land dispute were only masquerading for certain other interested parties having "ulterior purposes".
On the issue of locus of petitioner— Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi as well as the parties in the connected writ petition to maintain its pleas, a division bench Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM said that the petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, projecting the writ petitioners as 'person aggrieved' however, they failed to show how they were affected by appointment of the commission.
Kerala High Court Says Munambam Land Was Not Intended To Be Waqf
Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others and State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
The Kerala High Court has held that the 1950 endowment deed executed by Mohammed Siddique Sait in favour of the Farooq College Managing Committee was not a waqf deed but a simple gift deed, never intended to create a permanent dedication of property in favour of Almighty God.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed thus while allowing two writ appeals filed by the State government against a Single Bench order that had quashed a government notification constituting a Commission of Inquiry to resolve the Munambam land dispute between residents and the Waqf board.
Case Title: Baby V.J. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) granted regular bail to a 70-year-old man, who is accused of killing a leopard in a reserve forest by laying a cable trap.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the petition taking into consideration the period of custody undergone, the absence of antecedents and the advanced age of the petitioner.
Case Title: M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
The Kerala High Court has held that printing digital images/letters on paper constitutes services, and attracts 18% GST not 12%.
The question before the bench was to determine whether the assessee's printing activities ie. converting the figures, letters, photographs etc., in a digital form, into physical format by printing it on paper were liable to GST at 12% or 18%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examines both HSN Code 4911 and SCN 998386 and noted that HSN Code 4911 mainly refers to the supply of goods in the form of printed materials, whereas, the SCN 998386 refers to the photographic and videographic processing services, where the printing of images from film or digital media is specifically included therein.
Case Title: Somasundaram v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of a Magistrate Court, which had framed the charges in printed format with the name and other details of the accused inserted in writing.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the framing of charges ought to have been done in writing, in accordance with Sections 263(1) and 269(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/ Sections 240(1) and 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
High Courts Cannot Reduce Sentence Below The Statutory Minimum: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A.K. Rajendran v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that High Courts cannot reduce the sentence for a criminal offence below the minimum punishment prescribed by a statute.
Justice A. Badharudeen relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra to observe that such an action would be overstepping into the legislature's domain.
Case Title: Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
The Kerala High Court has closed a plea seeking to conduct enrollment of law graduates to the Bar Council of Kerala.
Justice N Nagaresh closed the matter after the counsel for the petitioner told the court that the enrollment for the new batch of advocates had been conducted on 11 and 12th October 2025.
The Court has previously invoked Section 58 of the Advocates Act to protect the interests of law graduates awaiting enrollment and has directed the Bar Council of Kerala to conduct enrollment of advocates.
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Arundhati Roy's 'Mother Mary Comes To Me'
Case Title: Rajasimhan v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 13) dismissed the Public Interest Litigation filed seeking action against author Arundhati Roy's book 'Mother Mary Comes To Me' for having a photo of the author smoking on the cover. The petitioner had sought a stay on the book's sale without a statutory label.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivered the judgment.
Case Title: P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
The Kerala High Court has observed that the state Authorities are under a statutory mandate to ensure unauthorised constructions are prevented in protected zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications.
The observations were made by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, while delivering judgment in a public interest litigation filed by an agriculturist from Kannur who alleged large-scale destruction of thick mangroves classified under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) I A and I B in Kunhimangalam Village by two private individuals for commercial real estate development.
Violation Of Mandate U/S 53A & S.38 Abkari Act Gives Benefit Of Doubt To Accused: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when there is a violation of the mandate under Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court was considering an appeal preferred by two persons, who were convicted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Act.
Justice Johnson John observed: “As noticed earlier, in this case, there is violation of the mandate of Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act and there is also no satisfactory evidence to establish a fool proof chain of custody to prove that it was the sample taken from the contraband liquor which ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a fool proof condition and therefore, I find that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.”
Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment setting aside an ad-interim injunction granted against the defendants from taking forcible possession of an elephant in the plaintiff's custody after noting that the impugned order was obtained through suppression of material facts regarding earlier litigation.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim further opined that since the plaintiff came before court with unclean hands, he is not entitled to a relief of fresh consideration by the trial court. He also clarified that the trial court has to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations in the judgment.
Case Title: Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that the interference of the High Court in commercial matters under Article 226 was not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S were delivering the judgment in a writ appeal filed by Kerala Bank against a single judge decision which allowed an instalment relief and return of possession of a mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that family courts must avert evaluation of testimonies in the background of normal human behaviour without generalisation or stereotyping when there is hardly any evidence other than oral evidence.
It further held that Family Courts should also weigh the oral evidence and resort to preponderance of probabilities.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a wife against the dismissal of her plea for divorce from the respondent husband.
Case Title: Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650
The Kerala High Court has recently set aside an injunction granted to government company Metal Industries Limited against use of trade mark 'Metal Industries' after noting that the words metal and industries are generic and descriptive.
Even though the company was the registered owner and long-term user of the trade mark 'Metal Industries', Justice C. Pratheep Kumar found that there was no ground to grant relief to it under infringement or passing off.
Case Title: Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 16) set aside the order transferring KSRTC (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) bus driver Jaimon Joseph, who came to limelight following the 'bottle' row involving State Transport Minister, K.B. Ganesh.
After a detailed hearing, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that Jaimon's transfer from Ponkunnam in Kottayam district to Pudukkad in Thrissur district was punitive in nature since there was no justifiable reason for the same.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no stringent rule which requires holding of a test identification parade (TIP) in every case in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness.
A division bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“There is no inflexible rule that, in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness, there must invariably, be a test identification parade. If the accused is already acquainted with the witnesses, identification for the first time in the dock would be sufficient. Likewise, if the witness had sufficient opportunity to see the accused, at the time of the incident, and the court is satisfied about the credibility of such identification, the absence of a test identification parade would not, by itself, render the evidence unreliable”.
Global Ayyappa Sangamam: Kerala High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Conduct Of Event
Case Title: SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 17) dismissed all petitions related to the conduct of 'Global Ayyappa Sangamam' which was held on September 20 in the premises of Sabarimala Shrine and at the banks of the River Pamba.
The petitions had claimed that the event was a political and commercial one, veiled as one related to devotion, tourism and secular promotion.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar orally noted:
“All these writ petitions were preferred challenging the conduct of the Ayyappa Sangam on the bank of River Pamba. By order dated 11.9.2025, this Court had refused to grant the interim prayer. The matter was taken up before the Apex Court and it refused to interfere. The Sangamam was held on September 20. In that view of the matter, we do not think there is absolutely any reason to retain these petitions on file. These petitions are dismissed."
Case Title: Shinoj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that a person relying on an electronic document must produce the same in its entirety even though only parts of it is relied on. It also made it clear that the specific portions of the document can be marked.
Justice Gopinath P. referred to Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act and observed:
“redacted portions of a conversation cannot be admissible in evidence even if they are supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act...It is evident from the provisions referred to above that any information contained in an electronic record printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed a document. Consequently, all the provisions applicable to a document shall also apply to an electronic record printed on paper or stored in any other form such as pen drives, discs, magnetic tape and so on. While it may be permissible for a person relying on a document to mark specific portions of it, it is beyond cavil that a document must be produced in its entirety.”
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the Bar Council of India against the order confining the power of the State Bar Council's Ad-Hoc Committee to the completion of the verification process.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V. M., delivered the judgment.
“No case for review is made out. Review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed” the bench orally stated while dismissing the review petition.
Case Title: P T Babu v Vijaya Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend to a case where the Court, which possesses jurisdiction, erroneously declines to entertain the proceeding on a mistaken perception or wrong application of legal principles.
For context, Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with the exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a case arising from a suit for recovery of money passed on January 2, 2002,by the first respondent bank.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657
The Kerala High Court recently aided a youngster suffering from substance abuse disorder and other mental illnesses to secure admission in the college of his choice. The Court also ensured that his course fee was paid.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering the plea by the youth's father seeking the Court's direction for ensuring proper medical treatment and protection for his son, a 'Person in Need of Care'.
Case Title: Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
The Kerala High Court has held that a defence lawyer may confront a prosecution witness with relevant documents such as photographs or site plans during cross-examination if those materials are connected to the facts in issue
Justice G. Girish delivered the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who refused to allow the defence lawyer in a case of rape under the false promise of marriage and cheating to confront a prosecution witness with two documents, which included a photograph of the alleged scene of the offence and a site plan prepared by the Village Officer. The trial court stated that these documents did not originate from the witness and thus were outside the scope of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Special Court Can Order Further Investigation After Submission Of Final Report: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the power of a Special Court to direct further investigation even after a final report has been filed by the investigating agency concluding that no offence was made out against certain public servants.
Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered the judgment in a petition challenging the order of the Special Court directing further investigation in a case involving alleged loan fraud against the State Bank of India.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Alleging Large-Scale Corruption By State Cashew Board
Case Title: Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a plea alleging large-scale corruption in the import of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) by the Kerala Cashew Board Ltd. (KCB)
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, said that the petition was devoid of merits.
Case Title: M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that changing the form or rephrasing of a relief prayed for cannot defeat the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was considering a writ petition filed by a registered MSME (Micro, Small and Media Enterprise) that had sought protection under the Central Government notification, which mandates banks and financial institutions to refer stressed MSME accounts for corrective measures.
Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 663
The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.
Ex-CISF Personnel Entitled To Purchase Liquor From CAPF Canteens : Kerala High Court
Case Title: CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors.; Syam Mohan S.A & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
The Kerala High Court has held that retired personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) are entitled to purchase liquor from canteens operated by other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) such as CRPF and BSF, through the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS).
The bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the denial of this benefit to retired CISF personnel, when the same facility is extended to retirees of other CAPFs, constitutes hostile discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Case Title: Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the appropriate remedy for non-payment of maintenance ordered as per criminal revision petition before the High Court is to execute the order before the Magistrate court. It also observed that contempt proceedings before the High Court would not be maintainable in such circumstances.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar dismissed a contempt case initiated by a wife against the husband for failing to comply with the order of the High Court in a criminal revision preferred against the Sessions Court's order enhancing maintenance ordered by the Magistrate.
Case Title: Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has observed that the Co-Operative Arbitration Court conducting a trial in an election petition has the power to invoke provision under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to order any party to produce documents in his possession as it deems necessary.
Referring to Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Justice K. Babu clarified that the Arbitration Court is bound to follow the procedure for trials provided under the CPC and must adjudicate dispute based on the pleadings before it. For doing that, it must allow parties in the dispute to lead relevant evidence.
Case Title: Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the power granted under Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 overrides the powers under Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, even when the street vendor is operating without a license.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that any municipal action against a street vendor, even one operating without a license, must conform to the procedural safeguards under the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, framed under Section 38 of the 2014 Act.
Case Title: Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 22) dismissed a writ petition filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam (AKTS) challenging the accreditation and recognition granted to certain institutions described as 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).
The petitioners also challenged the notifications issued by KDRB prescribing a certificate from the Tantra Vidya Peetoms recognised by it as one of the qualifications to be appointed as part-time shantis(priests) in various temples.
While dismissing the petitions, the Court held that there was no essential religious practice that a temple priest must be from a particular caste or lineage.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar refused to accept the petitioners' argument that appointment of shanthis(temple priests) ought to be in accordance with traditional practice and cannot be diluted by subordinate legislation.
Case Title: Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a school teacher for beating his students with a cane.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar referred to various precedents, which discussed the extent of corporal punishment that can be inflicted on a child by a teacher.
Case Title: Rameshan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused person exempted from personal appearance may answer questions under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). either through a written statement or via video linkage.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment and set aside a trial court order that had rejected the accused's plea to allow his counsel to respond on his behalf during the Section 351 examination.
Kerala High Court Quashes Ownership Certificates Issued To Actor Mohanlal For Possessing Ivory
Case Title: James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) held that the ownership certificates issued by the Kerala Government to Malayalam actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory are illegal and unenforceable in law.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian struck down the Government Orders and ownership certificates dated January 16, 2016, and April 6, 2016, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Wildlife in favour of the actor. The Court held the Government orders to be "void" and the certificates to be "illegal and unenforceable."
Executive Magistrates Cannot Invoke S.130 BNSS In Purely Private Disputes: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
The Kerala High Court has held that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in matters arising from purely private disputes, such as allegations of cheating or breach of trust, unless there is a demonstrable threat to public peace or tranquillity.
Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment in a petition filed challenging the order and summons issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Sections 126 (Security for keeping peace in other cases), 130 (Order to be made), and 132 (Summons or warrant in case of person not so present) of the BNSS.
Case Title: X X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 23) closed a petition filed by de-facto complainant challenging a notice directing to appear before Ernakulam Central Police for recording her statement in a case filed against Rapper Vedan.
Justice C. Pradeep Kumar, closed the petition, when it was informed by the public prosecutor that the Station house Officer (SHO) withdrew the impugned notice.
Case Title: Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
The Kerala High Court recently held that the period during which an accused is released on interim bail cannot be included while calculating period of detention for the purpose of granting statutory bail.
Justice K. Babu observed that only the actual period of detention undergone can be considered, adding together continuous or broken periods of custody.
Case Title: Selvan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the information leading to discovery that was received from one accused person cannot be used to connect all the accused persons to the alleged offence.
In the present case, the prosecution had placed reliance on Exhibit P7(a) confession but the Court felt that it cannot be relied on since the exact information given by each of the accused persons is not separately recorded or proved.
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan remarked that it is impossible to believe that all accused persons spoke simultaneously and in one voice in such a case.
Case Title: Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment ordering the constitution of a committee to vet the standard checklist prepared by the Registry compiling the requirements at the time of filing different categories of cases.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a suo motu Judicial Practice and Procedure (JPP) initiated at the instance of the High Court Registry.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea Against DDE Order In Hijab Row Case After Student Withdraws Admission
Case Title: Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) closed a plea by St Rita's School challenging a notice by Deputy Director of Education (DDE) Ernakulam to permit a girl student to attend classes wearing a headscarf, after the court was informed that her parents had decided to withdraw her admission.
After hearing the submission made by the student's counsel the State said that it does not want to precipitate the issue.
Justice V.G. Arun thus closed the matter noting that better sense had prevailed wherein "fraternity"–the foundational principles on which the edifice of the Constitution is built, "remains strong".
Case Title: Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
The Kerala High Court has held that “debt due” under the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) includes not only the amount claimed in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2), but also interest accruing thereafter up to the date of filing the appeal.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. delivered the judgment in a petition challenging orders of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejecting his application for waiver of pre-deposit and consequently dismissing the statutory appeal.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Levy Of Parking Fees At Lulu Mall Kochi
Case Title: Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (October 25) dismissed a plea, which had challenged the collection of parking fees from vehicles parked in the parking area of Lulu Shopping Mall at Edappally in Kochi.
Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a writ appeal preferred against the Single Bench's judgment. The Single Judge had held that the building owner can determine whether or not to charge customers for parking their vehicles while using the shopping facility and services offered in the building.
Case Title: Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
The Kerala High Court held that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) concessionaires holding valid work orders issued prior to March 21, 2024, do not need to obtain separate Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction, sourcing, or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines.
The division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, passed the order while answering an intra-court reference.
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681
The Kerala High Court has reprimanded a litigant claiming to be an advocate–who appeared in person to challenge her divorce decree–for her (mis)conduct in Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha was hearing the petitioner's plea seeking to invalidate a divorce decree and judgment of Family Court Ernakulam.
Case Title: Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that return of 'mahar' (consideration given by husband to wife in marriage) can be ascertained not just from the 'Khula Nama' but also from the statement of parties while considering a Muslim wife's petition for declaration of divorce by 'khula'.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by the husband challenging the divorce granted by the Family Court.
Case Title : XXX v YYY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683
While granting divorce to a woman, the Kerala High Court observed that an unfounded suspicion of a husband amounts to a serious form of cruelty.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering the judgment in a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife against the decision of Family Court, Kottayam which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.
Case Title: Hirandas V.M. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 684
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 30) modified two bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court on Rapper Vedan, while granting him anticipatory bail in a sexual harassment case.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar deleted the conditions requiring the rapper to not leave Kerala and to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday.
Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 685
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings against Malayalam film director Ranjith in an FIR alleging that he tried to outrage the modesty of an actress by inappropriately holding her hand and attempted to touch her body with sexual intent.
The FIR was registered against the Director under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to Woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).
Justice C Pratheep Kumar, allowed the petition to quash the proceedings presently pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
Case Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686
The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, after referring to the case of Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, opined that there is no requirement for the individual debtor's account to be closed for claiming a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: P V Mathew v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 687
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified what constitutes a contradiction in law and under what circumstances an omission can be treated as a contradiction under the Evidence Act.
Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in the corruption case of a former village office under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court examined the concept of “Contradiction” under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Case Title: M/S Thiruvonam Industries and Others v Hero Fincorp Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 688
The Kerala High Court has observed that a litigant cannot use the constitutional remedy of writ petitions as an alternative to avoid approaching the Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, which would require the payment of fees.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S was considering a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by Hero Fincorp Ltd., a private Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Case Title: Moosa Thiruvangoth v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 689
The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain an anticipatory bail plea filed directly before it, without approaching the Sessions Court first.
In doing so, Justice K Babu cited the Supreme Court's observation in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala (2025), issuing notice to the Kerala High Court for "bypassing" the Sessions Court.
Case Title: Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
The Kerala High Court held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked where the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to address a core issue in the assessment order.
The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon opined that the main issue does not appear to have been addressed by the assessing authority while issuing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the assessment order does not appear to have addressed the issue with reference to the competing provisions, exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act was justified.
Case Title: V Chandran v Aliamma George
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
The Kerala High Court has said that under Section 55 of the Limitation Act where a contract is breached and if the breach is continuous, the limitation period begins to run from the date the breach ceases.
A division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment in an appeal filed against a trial court order dismissing suit for damages for breach of contract.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Ors and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 29) dismissed a review petition filed by the daughters of deceased veteran CPI(M) leader M M Lawrence, against rejection of their appeal challenging an order permitting donation of their father's body.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a special jurisdiction case filed before it under the Trade Mark Act seeking to cancel the registered trade mark 'INDIA GATE' belonging to the 1st respondent KRBL Limited.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that the rectification petition filed by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act was not maintainable before the Kerala High Court but before the Delhi High Court since the subject trade mark was registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry.
Case Title: Usman Kunju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
The Kerala High Court recently held that the power of seizure under Section 68F of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act can be exercised by an officer only when there are cogent materials based on inquiry, investigation or survey leading to a reason to believe that the property was illegally acquired.
Justice V.G. Arun clarified that the 'reason to believe' should not be merely on assumptions.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 30) allowed the State's appeal and reversed the Sessions Court decision, which had found the father and step-mother of 5 ½ year old Adhithi Namboothiri to be not guilty of her murder.
The Sessions Court had sentenced the two accused persons only for the lesser offences under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the finding of acquittal by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Court allowed the appeal and reversed the finding of acquittal for the offences under Section 300 IPC read with Section 34. It imposed life imprisonment for the offence and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.
Case Title: Harish V. v. T.C. Mathew and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 31) allowed the writ appeals preferred challenging a 2015 decision of the Single Bench, which had held that Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) is not a public office and therefore, vigilance cases cannot be preferred against its office bearers.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian pronounced in open court:
"Allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petitions as devoid of merits."
Case title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 31) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the increase in Court Fees and imposition of Ad-Valorem fees without an upper limit, through an amendment in the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivering the judgment said,
"State legislature has the legislative competence to enact the impugned amending act…The revision of Court fee has not taken place in the State of Kerala for more than two decades...A broad correlation between collection of court fee and expenditure of administration of justice is all that is necessary. Mathematical exactitude not required…."
Case Title: N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court has suggested the State Election Commission to develop a Mobile App to ensure that all voters, especially senior citizens and persons with disabilities, are able to cast their votes comfortably and without undue delay during the upcoming local body elections.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the Election Commission's decision to cap the number of voters at 1,200 per polling booth in Panchayats and 1,500 in Municipalities.