Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294 - 304]J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 295Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 296Sumisha (Minor) v Shaji P. Y. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 297X v. FACT and...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294 - 304]
J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Sumisha (Minor) v Shaji P. Y. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
X v. FACT and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Sheeba M.R. v. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Puthiya Purayil Shaji v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd v. State of Kerala and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no omnibus or complete exemption on stamp duty provided under S. 8F of the Indian Stamp Act, read with S.5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for asset reconstruction agreements.
The Court looked into the Amendment Act that brought in S. 5(1A) of SARFAESI Act and added S.8F to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It rejected the contention of the petitioners that no stamp duty is applicable as per the non obstante clause in S.8F.
Justice T. R. Ravi went on to apply the golden rule of interpretation along the Supreme Court's rulings on the subject of interpretation of non obstante clauses to find that there is no complete exemption from levy of stamp duty.
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 26) denied anticipatory bail to Sukanth Suresh, an intelligence officer allegedly involved in the suicide of his girlfriend/colleague.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the investigation has revealed that the officer had relationships with other women. Further, it was also found out that the deceased got pregnant from the petitioner and she had undergone abortion. The Court also took into account the fact that the deceased used to transfer her salary to the petitioner every month.
Case Title: Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council for Teacher Education and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Kerala High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by an advocate against the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) seeking payment of over Rs 12 Lakh unpaid legal fees, imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 on NCTE finding its conduct "blameworthy".
Rejecting NCTE's argument that a writ petition for payment of legal fees is not maintainable, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. clarified that the maintainability of the writ petition for "unpaid professional fees" is not barred unless there are complex factual issues that prevent adjudication. It was further found that there is no legal backing or court ruling to state that such a petition cannot be admitted merely on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact.
Case Title: Sumisha (Minor) v Shaji P. Y. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
While considering a plea involving a woman, who as a minor in 2006 suffered serious injuries and was rendered disabled in a road accident, the Kerala High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to her by increasing the notional income for assessing loss of disability after taking into account the girl's severe condition.
The DLSA Secretary's report stated that since the woman cannot do anything of her own, she always needs someone's help, for all her daily necessities. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar further observed that just because the girl's counsel before the tribunal canvassed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.3000, does not mean that the insurer can be permitted to take advantage of this suggestion.
Case Title: X v. FACT and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Kerala High Court recently held that denial of public employment to a person who is afflicted with Hepatitis B is illegal, unfair, unjustifiable and is violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the judgment while hearing the appeal preferred by an individual denied the post of Assistant General at Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT), on finding him medically unfit.
Case Title: Sheeba M.R. v. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (May 28) disposed of appeals moved by the mother of veterinary student Sidharthan J.S., who allegedly committed suicide last year. The writ appeals were filed against a single judge's order, which had quashed the expulsion of eighteen students of the College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences at Mannuthy.
The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has passed the judgment in the mother's appeal as well as connected appeals, in accordance with the finding of the respondent University.
The University had earlier passed order debarring these eighteen students, who were implicated as accused in the case, for three years.
Case Title: Puthiya Purayil Shaji v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of the trial court which had added the charge of abetment of suicide against man whose wife is stated to have committed suicide by allegedly jumping into a well days after a draft divorce agreement was given to her.
Referring to the ingredients of Section 306 Justice Kauser Edappagath said that there is nothing in the allegations to show that there was any instigation or intentional aiding or direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide by the petitioner.
Case Title: Adarsh E. v The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
The Kerala High Court recently came down heavily on the Sankaracharya University for denying fellowship to a research student.
The Court opined that when the Vice-Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there is no reason for the non–payment of the petitioner's fellowship.
“If the Vice Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there can be no justification for non-payment of the petitioner's fellowship”, observed Justice D. K. Singh
Benefit Of S.14 Limitation Act Can't Be Construed So Liberally Just To Save A Lis: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Kerala High Court has held that the benefit of exclusion of limitation period under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available in the subsequent suit unless all the ingredients under the provision are satisfied. The Court found that the provision cannot be liberally construed, just to save a lis.
A division bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, while hearing the appeal, set aside the trial court order, which decreed the suit in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs), after finding that the respondents' pursuit of an earlier suit can be excluded in view of the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 30) directed the state government to release within two weeks all pensionary benefits due to Dr. Ciza Thomas who retired as Principal of Government Engineering College on March 31, 2023.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John remarked that the Government was harassing Dr. Thomas for accepting the appointment to the VC post.
Case Title: Akhil Raj v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (May 28) granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam Movie Director Akhil Marar in the case of allegedly endangering the sovereignty and unity of India by posting a Facebook video about the Pahalgam terror attack and the retaliation by the Indian force.
"Since the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation, I am of the view that this is a fit case to protect the petitioner with an order of anticipatory bail" ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Other Important Developments This Week
Shahabas Murder Case: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Fresh Bail Pleas Moved By Juveniles
Case Title: X v State
Case No: Bail Application 6291/2025 and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 26) reserved its verdict in the fresh bail pleas moved by juvenile accused, who were allegedly involved in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas, a class 10 student.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas heard detailed arguments in the matter.
Case Title: Shekhar Kumar v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 6918 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 26) sought State's response on a bail plea filed by an officer who is posted as an Assistant Director with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Kochi.
It is alleged that the officer, through another person, demanded Rs. 2 Crore bribe for letting the complainant in a matter off the case. The plea was listed before Justice G. Girish.
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: Bail Application 5091/ 2025
Intelligence Bureau (IB) Officer Sukanth Suresh, who is accused of abetting the suicide of his girlfriend/ colleague, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction against the Police not to leak the sensitive materials related to the case under investigation.
According to Suresh, the sole custody of these materials was with the investigating agency and these have been released selectively to the media.
Businessman Who Accused ED Officer Of Bribery Gets ED Summons; Kerala High Court Stays His Arrest
Case Title: Aneesh Babu v Assistant Director
Case No: BA 7121/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (29th May) directed not to arrest the businessman, Aneesh Babu who raised allegation of bribery against the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate, Ernakulam Office. Justice Kauser Edappagath has posted the case after a week.
The petitioner stated that after he registered the vigilance case against the Enforcement Officer, he has got a summons from the Delhi ED office. As per the notice, he was asked to bring all the documents relating to the Vigilance Case. It is further mentioned in the notice that failure to appear and give evidence will lead to proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and other provisions of BNS, 2023. The court has issued a direction not to arrest in this matter.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 22750/ 2018
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (May 29) passed an interim order directing the Secretary of Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI), which is the competent authority, to submit a detailed report on the actions taken on the complaints registered on K-SMART.
The direction was passed by Justice Devan Ramachandran while hearing a 2018 plea concerning unauthorized boards/banners in public places. The Amicus Curie in the case, Advocate Harish Vasudevan, submitted to the Court that the complaints in the K-SMART app were not being properly accounted for or any action taken.
Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(PIL) 14/ 2025
While opposing a plea against increase in Court Fees, the Kerala Government told the high court that the hike in court fees was done keeping in mind inflation of the past 20 years, after a detailed study and deliberating with all the stakeholders.
The submission was made in the State government's counter affidavit to the PIL filed by Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA), challenging the increase in Court Fees and imposition of Ad-Valorem fees without an upper limit brought about through an amendment in the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.