Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371 - 388]Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371Geetha 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...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371 - 388]
Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
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
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court has stated that goods confiscated under Section 130 GST Act can be released during pendency of appeal if not yet auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case where the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against confiscation order passed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, under Section 130 of the GST Act.
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.
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 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).
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Saji John and Another v. Assistant Director
Case No: Crl.MC 5631 of 2025
The Kerala High Court has issued an interim order exempting former Revenue Divisional Officer Saji John and his wife Bindhu Saji from appearing before the CBI/ ED Court in Ernakulam in connection with a money laundering case, till July 03.
The direction was passed on the duo's plea against summons, allegedly issued without giving them an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 223(1) of BNSS.
"An arguable point is made out to be decided in this case," Justice A. Badharudeen observed and deferred the appearance.
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 has once again questioned CBFC's objection to the use of name 'Janaki', another name for Hindu goddess Sita, in Suresh Gopi starrer 'JSK – Janaki v/s State of Kerala'.
Noting that the protagonist, named Janaki, is a victim of sexual assault seeking justice in Court of law, Justice N. Nagaresh orally observed,
“She is not a rapist. If a rapist is named as Rama, Krishna, Janaki, then I can understand. At least we can appreciate that you should not name that character with God's name. Here, she is a heroine of the film, fighting for the cause of justice.”.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) No. 32952 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has orally observed that arrest by the police cannot be a mechanical process, and that the police must take into account the circumstances in which an arrest in made, and maintain the dignity of individuals.
Earlier, the court had constituted a committee to formulate guidelines to address the issue of conflicts between police and lawyers in the court premises. During the last posting, there was also direction to the committee to submit a feedback report regarding the same.
When the matter came up for consideration today (July 2), the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P. M. Manoj orally told the Committee members to give their suggestions in writing.
Kerala High Court To Watch Suresh Gopi Film Before Deciding CBFC Objection To Name 'Janaki' In Title
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 has decided to watch Malayalam film 'Janaki v. State of Kerala' starring State Union Minister Suresh Gopi, before deciding the production's plea for certification.
Counsel for the petitioner also told the Court that there is a practical difficulty since screening of the movie can be done only in the theatres.
Hearing the same, Justice N. Nagaresh passed an interim order as follows: “Considering the allegations raised by the petitioner, I am of the view that it would be only appropriate for this Court to view the movie before passing any final orders. The petitioner in WPC No. 23326/2025 is directed to arrange viewing the movie in an appropriate studio on Saturday (July 5) at 10 am.”
Case Title: Shekhar Kumar v. State of Kerala
Case No: BA No. 6918 of 2025
The Kerala High Court has reserved its verdict in the bail application preferred by 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 reserved the judgment in the case and observed that till pronouncement of the order, the interim protection shall continue.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Corporation of Cochin & Ors. and Connected Case
Case Number: WP(C) No. 40564 of 2022 and Connected Case
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 03) came down heavily on the Kochi Municipal Corporation for not issuing proper notices of cancellation of occupancy certificate to entities responsible for polluting the Thevara-Perandoor Canal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji noted that the notices issued by the Corporation suffer from fundamental errors since they do not mention the provisions of law under which action was taken.
Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v. Government of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) No. 8600 of 2025
The Kerala High Court today (July 03) asked the Working Committee, constituted to give suggestions for amendments to the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act 1998, to keep in mind the legislature's intention to prohibit ragging both within and outside the campus of an educational institution.
While the word 'educational institution' itself is not defined under the Act, the Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran noted that Section 3 contemplates a ban on ragging not just inside the educational institution but also outside its premises.
Case Title: XXX v. City Police Commissioner, Kochi and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court recently observed that once a rowdy sheet/list is opened against a person it is not displayed in the premises of the police station but is actually kept in a secure area which is accessible only to police officials to ensure that "criminal's right to privacy" is not infringed.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan made the observations in his order while directing the removal of a person's name from the rowdy list of Fort Kochi Police Station since he has not been involved in any criminal activity for the past 8 years.
NDPS Trials Affected Due To Delay In Filling Vacancies In Forensic Labs: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sumi Joseph v. The Chief Secretary and Connected case
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 23505 of 2023 and Connected case
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 3) raised concern over pending vacancies in Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL), contributing to delays in concluding criminal trials under the NDPS Act.
The Court passed an interim order requesting the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam to appear before it and assist in curbing the menace of substance abuse among students of schools and colleges in the city.
The Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran was dealing with a petition filed by Kerala State Legal Service Authority (KeLSA) in this regard.
Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala V State Of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 04) sought a report from the State Government regarding the manner of utilisation Rs. 120 crores, which the Centre had freed for immediate use of the State government in connection with the ongoing rehabilitation works at landslide-hit Wayanad.
A division bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P. M. Manoj was hearing a suo motu case initiated by the High Court after the Wayanad landslides on July 30, 2024.
Case Title: In Re: Infrastructural and Other Issues Relating to Administration of Justice in the Lakshadweep Islands
Case No: WP(C) No. 7547 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 04) orally observed that it would pass a detailed judgment outlining guidelines for improving the judicial system in Lakshadweep.
A Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was hearing a suo motu case initiated to address the issues pertaining to the judicial system in the the Union Territory.