Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354 - 370]All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355K. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356Kerala Private Hospital Association and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354 - 370]
All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
K. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
Kerala Private Hospital Association and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
Noormida v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Jasmin Shaji v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Another v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Dr. K.R. Leela Devi v. K.R. Rajaram and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The State Of Kerala Versus S. Ajayakumar And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to consider the representation made by All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation who have claimed imposition of "unilateral terms and conditions" in the agreement entered with State in order to provide various services to citizens.
The Court noted that the main concern of the petitioner is with respect to an email communication (Exhibit P9) sent by the authorities. In Exhibit P9, it was communicated to the Akshyaya Entrepreneurs that they have to execute a revised agreement, the terms of which are yet not known to them.
Justice N. Nagaresh gave a direction to the 2nd respondent (State's Secretary, Information and Technology Department) to consider the Ext. P8 representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision before finalising the revised agreement.
Case Title: Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Police authorities cannot barge into the house of a history sheeter or any suspect in a criminal case— at night, merely under the garb of surveillance.
Justice V.G. Arun emphasized that every man's house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours.
Case Title: K. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
The Kerala High Court has clarified the position of law under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (NI Act) that a manager of a firm cannot prefer a complaint or prosecute in his personal capacity under Section 138 if the payee of the cheque was the firm.
The judgment was passed by Justice A. Badharudeen while considering a Criminal Appeal preferred by the complainant-manager challenging the acquittal of the accused person by the trial court.
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospital Association and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 23) dismissed a plea challenging various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and the Rules therein, including an objection to the provision which mandates display of fees charged by every clinical establishment for its services.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon in his order observed that the High Court had already in an earlier case–Sabu P. Joseph (Adv). V State of Kerala and Others (2021) issued directions to private hospital in the State to display rates and fees of the service given to the public as per Section 39 of the Act.
Case Title: P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to three of the accused persons (petitioners) in the money scam case of Angamaly Urban Co-operative Society.
Justice A. Badharudeen also expressed displeasure regarding the attitude of the Investigating Officer, who had not yet arrested the petitioners even though their earlier bail applications were dismissed in October 2024.
Case Title: Noormida v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a contractor (1st accused/petitioner) under Section 304A IPC for negligently causing the accidental death of her sub-contractor's worker.
Justice V.G. Arun held that the ingredients under the section would not be attracted if the death was caused by unforeseeable harm and not due to any rash or negligent act of the accused person.
Case Title: Jasmin Shaji v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Observing that "Justice, without the soft hand touch of humanity, compassion, and empathy is not justice", the Kerala High Court granted escort parole to a murder convict–awarded death penalty by sessions court–to meet his bedridden and ailing 93-year-old mother.
Notably, Section 42 of the Kerala Prisons and the Correction Services (Management) Act and Rule 339(2) of Kerala Prisons and Correction Services (Management) Rules categorically deny leave or escort visit to convicts who are sentenced to death.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan opined that while it is true that the convict does not deserve any “humanitarian consideration” because the prosecution case against him and the other accused is that they brutally murdered the victim in front of his mother, wife and child, it however said that a court cannot take such an inhuman stand like the prisoner.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to producers of Malayalam movie 'Manjummel Boys' in an alleged cheating case regarding the production of the film.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that a coordinate bench of the high court had already refused a plea for quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court came to the conclusion that this a case where custodial interrogation is not necessary.
Case Title: Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
The Kerala High Court has held that an unregistered agreement for sale, which is a compulsory registrable document, can be considered as evidence to prove a contract in a suit for specific performance.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Satish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar has clarified the position of law as regards the admissibility of unregistered documents as evidence in suits for specific performance by looking into the interplay between Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court stated that 'decalcified fish scale' import covered under advance authorization scheme; customs cannot deny benefit.
The advance authorization scheme enables duty free import of inputs/raw materials required for manufacture of export goods.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.
Case Title: Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court stated that Section 245C of Income Tax Act does not require prior cut-off date; pending 153A/153C notice sufficient for settlement application.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Section 245C does not prescribe any prior cut-off date for an assessee to satisfy the requirements for filing an application before the Interim Board for Settlement, and the only statutory requirement is that the assessee should have a pending 'case' at the time of filing the application for settlement, then so long as the assessee had a 'live and un-adjudicated' notice under Sections 153A/153C as on the date of filing the application, the application had to be considered on merits by the Board.”
Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Another v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court expressed concern over the fact that 12 out of 13 Universities in the State having the Governor as the Chancellor, are functioning without a regular Vice-Chancellor.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji while saying that this might be due to the disagreement between the members of the Senate and the Chancellor, opined that this was not in the best interest of the higher education.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court held that assessment based on DVO's (Department Valuation Officer) valuation cannot be revised under Section 263 of Income Tax Act in absence of concrete material.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that “as on the date of invoking his power under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner could not have had a 'reason to believe' that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the material to inform that 'reason to believe' did not exist on the date of issuance of the show cause notice. His exercise of power under S.263 was therefore clearly unjustified”.
Case Title: Dr. K.R. Leela Devi v. K.R. Rajaram and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The Kerala High Court has clarified the procedure to be followed for providing proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested, including wills. According to the Court, Section 68 of the Evidence Act lays down the mode to be followed. Section 69 provides an alternative procedure when Section 68 cannot be resorted to.
The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar while considering a Regular First Appeal (RFA) that challenged the validity of a Will.
Case Title: The State Of Kerala Versus S. Ajayakumar And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerela High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has held that when the payment due to the petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court order explicitly directing it as full and final settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner also issued a letter accepting the same, he cannot subsequently claim that the letter was issued under duress or out of necessity.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the same allegations.
Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court on Friday (27th June) directed the Registry to register a suo motu case to look into whether Dr. V. A. Arun Kumar, who is the current Director of Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD) got into the position due to his political connection.
Justice D. K. Singh enquired whether Dr. Arun Kumar has the qualification to be a Director when it was alleged that he was appointed as a clerk of the institution and has not taught a single day. The Court said that the post of Director of IHRD is equivalent to the post of Vice Chancellor of a University. The Court wondered how a person with no teaching experience can be appointed as a Director when as per UGC Regulations, a VC should have 7 years teaching experience.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Corporation of Cochin & Ors. and Connected Case
Case No: WP(C) No. 40564 of 2022 and Connected Case
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 23) issued detailed directions to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) and the Cochin Municipal Corporation to issue notices to entities that are responsible for polluting Thevara-Perandoor canal in Kochi.
The KSPCB has been directed to issue notice of closure and the Municipal Corporation has been asked to issue notices for cancellation of occupancy certificates— of entities that do not have STPs and are functioning in violation of the conditions prescribed under Rule 19A(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No: Bail Application No. 7487 of 2025
The producers of Malayalam movie 'Manjummel Boys' recently moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in alleged cheating case regarding the production of the film.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had passed an interim order granting time till June 27 for the petitioners to appear before the Police Station considering that the Court could not take up the bail application for hearing.
Case Title: Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP(C) 33093/ 2022
The Kerala High Court today (24 June) expressed its discontent with the State government's inaction to take steps to curb the practices of black magic, witchcraft, sorcery, or other inhuman, evil and sinister practices by enacting a law.
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a PIL filed by Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham seeking enactment and implementation of 'The Kerala Prevention of Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill, 2019'.
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others
Case No: WP(C) 23326/ 2025
Cosmos Entertainment, the company which has produced the Malayalam movie 'JSK – Janaki v/s State of Kerala', has moved the Kerala High Court against the delay by the Central Board of Film Certification in certifying the film.
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others
Case No: WP(C) No. 23326 of 2025
Responding to the plea moved by producer of Suresh Gopi starrer 'JSK – Janaki v/s State of Kerala' over delay in the film's certification, the Central Board of Film Certification today informed the Kerala High Court that the movie has been referred to its Revising Committee, for further scrutiny.
On hearing this, Justice N. Nagaresh directed that the Committee's decision be placed before it immediately, on June 27.
Case Title: Beylin Das v The Bar Council of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 23137/ 2025
Advocate Beyline Das, whose practice was barred by the Kerala Bar Council for allegedly assaulting a woman advocate, has moved the High Court challenging the Council's disciplinary action against him.
Justice N. Nagaresh issued notice on his petition and asked the Bar Council to file its reply by July 01, the next date of hearing. Das has argued that the Bar Council had no legal existence at the time of initiating disciplinary action (May 14, 2025), in view of its term having ended on May 06, 2024.
The Kerala High Court has introduced e-filing facility in 57 jails in the state for filing jail appeals and other petitions/applications seeking judicial remedy moved by prisoners before the High Court.
Till now, the jail appeals, filed under Section 424 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other petitions/applications were being prepared in the paper form. Thereafter, these would be sent to the High Court for filing.
Case Title: Murugesh Narendran v. Union of India and others
Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1366 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has reserved its orders on the writ petition seeking CBI investigation into the alleged case of illegal phone tapping by former Nilambur MLA P.V. Anvar (13th respondent).
The petitioner, who is a business man, has alleged that Anvar illegally tapped his phone to take vengeance. According to the petitioner's affidavit, the ex-MLA has tapped the telephone conversations of many persons, including high police officials and politicians. The petitioner submitted that for this reason, there would not be a fair and impartial investigation into the case.
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others
Case No: WP(C) No. 23326 of 2025
The Kerala High Court today orally question the Central Board of Film Certification over objection to the use of name 'Janaki' in Suresh Sopi starrer 'JSK – Janaki v/s State of Kerala'. The Court eventually told the production to either reply to the show cause notice or to prefer an appeal against it.
Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar, who is set to retire from the Kerala High Court on June 30 expressed his concern over social media posts or comments criticizing the judiciary, judges or judgments without giving context or without having knowledge of the issue.