Weekly Roundup (Nov 17 - Nov 23, 2025)
2025 (6) KLT 211 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3117
Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar
Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 -- Cruelty -- Wife continued with the matrimony in spite of the alleged unceasing abuse and harassment -- One can never countenance the view that she has condoned it, because cruelty can never be condoned.
2025 (6) KLT 217 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 3244 (SC)
State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil
Interpretation of Statutes -- Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.195(1)(b)(i), 195A & 340 -- Penal Code 1860, S.195A -- Casus Omissus -- It is not permissible for the Court to apply the doctrine of casus omissus where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous as the words used by the statute speak for themselves and it is not the function of the Court to add words or expressions merely to suit what the Court thinks is the intent of the legislature.
2025 (6) KLT 229 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3354
Farookh v. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144, 144(1)(a) & 144(1)(d) -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125, 125(1)(a) & 125(1)(d) -- The right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her -- A mother can claim maintenance from her children even if her husband is maintaining her, and the son can be legally required to contribute if the mother is unable to maintain herself and the husband is not providing sufficient support.
2025 (6) KLT 232 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3356
Sameer Khan v. Special Deputy Tahasildar
Revenue Recovery Act 1968 (Kerala), Ss. 8, 9 & 19 -- Movable properties mentioned under Section 8 are tangibles.
2025 (6) KLT 235 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3348
Rifa Fathima v. Salim
Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S. 60(1)(g) – Constitution of India, Art. 15(3) & Art. 39 -- The right of a wife or a minor child to maintenance supersedes the employee’s right to claim exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC.
2025 (6) KLT 239 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3301
Anshad v. State of Kerala
Rationing Order 1966 (Kerala), Cl. 59(1)(c) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.106 -- Clause 59(1)(c) comes into play only when search of a vehicle or vessel engaged or used or intended to be engaged or used for or the movement of rationed articles.
2025 (6) KLT 242 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3352
Sigmatic Nidhi Limited v. Suresh Kumar
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 7(3) & 7(4) – Plain reading of sub-section (4) gives the impression that not only a document signed by the parties can be considered as an arbitration agreement ‘in writing’ and other communications as provided under clause (b) or even non-denial of existence of the agreement by an opposite party in its defence to a statement of claim can be construed as an arbitration agreement ‘in writing’.
2025 (6) KLT 251 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3240
State of Kerala v. Thankachan
Land Assignment Act 1960 (Kerala), S. 8 -- Land Assignment Rules 1964 (Kerala), R. 8 – Right over trees naturally grown/planted by the assignee subsequent to the assignment -- Land includes what is attached to it -- What is in existence at the time of assignment is the subject matter of the assignment.
2025 (6) KLT 259 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 3338 (SC)
Preetha Krishnan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Split Multiplier -- Split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation of the compensation.
2025 (6) KLT 267 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3349
Jatin v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Ss. 2(iv), 2(iii)(b) & 20(a) – The definition does not state that a plant assumes the character of a cannabis plant only when it bears flowering or fruiting tops.
2025 (6) KLT 275 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3368
Vinumon v. District Collector
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala) -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R. 4(4d) – Constitution of India, Art.300A – When a citizen says that his property is not a paddy land or wetland, or it cannot be used as a paddy land, and an appropriate application is filed to remove his land from the data bank in which his property is included, a great and important duty is there to the authorised officer to consider that application -- None should be deprived of enjoying their property, which is a constitutional right, but the larger interest of the state, as shown in the object and reason shown in the Act 2008, is also to be in mind while considering those applications.
2025 (6) KLT 290 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3366
Mathew K. Cherian v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer Protection Act 2019, Ss. 2(42) & 2(7) -- When the expression ‘service’, is specifically defined under the Act, by including the facilities in connection with Banking and financing, the same has to be given effect to, by extending a wider meaning possible, so as to include all possible transactions forming part of the instances referred to in the said provision.
2025 (6) KLT 300 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3309
Aneesh v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 50 -- Provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act will come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of anything which the accused may be carrying in his hands.
2025 (6) KLT 311 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3195
Maju Susan Babu v. Sunil Mathew
Divorce Act 1869, S. 10(1)(x) -- Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 -- Cruelty -- A wife may not be in a position to produce any documents or any other independent evidence to substantiate her version and the courts cannot lightly throw away the case of the wife on the ground that she did not produce any documentary or independent evidence in respect of the alleged acts of cruelty.
Rajesh Rathi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 (FRSR Part III), R. 43C -- While it is correct that CCL is not an entitlement as of right, the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically, but must be guided by the object and spirit of the rule, which is to support the welfare of the child and the legitimate needs of the mother.
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 (FRSR Part III), S. 43C -- The contradiction between the refusal of CCL on grounds of ‘administrative inconvenience’ and simultaneous approval of EOL undermines the justification for the refusal, and appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory, and not in consonance with the object and spirit of Rule 43-C of the Rules.
Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi
Constitution of India Arts. 21 & 226 -- By mere virtue of conviction, a convict is not denuded of their fundamental rights and the punishment cannot be one which defiles the dignity of an inmate.
Prison Rules 2018 (Delhi), R.1198 -- Parole is not a legal right, it is a privilege conferred on a prisoner to enable them to maintain a regular contact with the world and keep up with the latest developments in society and is not a concession towards the sentence that is awarded to a prisoner.
Kolanjiammal v. Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District
Revenue Recovery Act 1864 (T.N.), Ss. 37-A & 38 -- Sections 37-A and 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act prescribe a limitation period of 30 days from the date of sale, leaving little room for collateral challenges once the period expires.
Revenue Recovery Act 1864 (T.N.), S. 37-A -- Even though payments were made in good faith, pursuant to interim directions of the High Court, and not as part of any statutory application under Section 37-A, it cannot retrospectively validate non-compliance with the statutory requirement since the law under Section 37-A mandates both a deposit and a formal application to the Collector within 30 days of sale.
BRMSCO Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Practice and Procedure -- National Green Tribunal Act 2010, Ss. 20 & 33 -- National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules 2011, R. 20 -- The vast powers vested with the Tribunal, can be invoked and exercised only based on the factual situation emanating from the materials before the Court/Tribunal; and the same cannot be invoked out of the context -- The existence of the powers, which only justifies the jurisdiction and authority, cannot be an answer to justify the impugned order in the absence of adequate justification on facts to invoke the same.
Rajendran v. State of Kerala
Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 1971 (Kerala), Ss. 3(2)(d) & 6(1) -- Civil P.C. 1908, S.114 & O.XLVII R. 1-- The possession mentioned in Section 3 (2)(d) of the KDH Act cannot be termed as symbolic possession, but direct possession, when the wording of the Act is plain and clear.
Prasad v. Land Revenue Commissioner
MoRTH Guidelines dated 26.06.2020, Cl. 2.6 -- Constitution of India Arts. 19(1)(g) & 21 -- Establishment of Petroleum Retail Outlet – The only thing to be verified after issuance of Provisional Permission and before the grant of Final Permission is whether the Applicant has constructed the outlet and the access as per the approved drawing -- The Highway authorities have no right or authority to consider whether the site satisfies the norms under the MoRTH Guidelines again at that time.
Agi Kumar v. Divisional Manager and Assistant General Manager
Contract Act 1872, S.171 -- Civil P.C.1908, S. 60(1)(i) -- By exercising the right of lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act with respect to salary, banks should not be allowed to bypass and defeat Section 60(1)(i) C.P.C.
M/s. Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala
Value Added Tax Act 2003 (Kerala), S. 8(f)(iv) -- Period of five years could be fixed as the limitation period for initiating the proceedings under Section 8(f)(iv) of the KVAT Act for cancellation of permission to pay tax at compounded rate on the principle that where there is no limitation period prescribed under a taxing statute for taking action against an assessee, a reasonable period of limitation has to be read into the statutory provision by the Court.
Didar Singh v. State
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 34 & 302 -- Evidence Act 1872, S. 32(1) -- It is not necessary that a dying declaration must be recorded by a magistrate and it may be recorded by a doctor, a policeman, or even any other person, and so long as the statement satisfies the requirement of being genuine and made by the person in a fit state of mind, it can be accepted.
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 34 & 302 -- Evidence Act 1872, S. 32(1)-- If a dying declaration is found to be tainted with any kind of doubtful circumstance, making it vulnerable to doubt and suspicion, then the same should not be acted upon without there being any corroboration.
Managing Committee of Vallappuzha Service Cooperative Bank v. Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies
Co operative Societies Act 1969 (Kerala), S. 83(1)(c) -- The appellate authority, under Section 83(1)(c) has the power to reconsider all matters considered by the general body, as it is a matter of substance.
Ramesh v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.523 -- Practice and procedure -- Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 -- The request to shift the venue of the trial to a court hall situated on the ground floor of the court complex – Not Permitted.
Musthaffa v. State of Kerala
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, S. 2(1)(c) -- Grama Panchayat does not fulfil the definition of a 'Local Authority' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Street Vendors Act, inasmuch as it is not a local authority functioning in an urban area.
Pradeep v. Station House Officer
Penal Code 1860, S.376 -- Absence of consent cannot be presumed in every case where the prosecutrix alleges that she indulged in sexual intercouse with the offender believing the offer of marriage made by him -- For bringing home the offence of rape, it has to be established that from the very beginning the accused was not having any intention at all to marry the prosecutrix and that the offer of marriage was made as a ploy to make her surrender to him in order to satiate his carnal desires.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mini Devadas
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – Adoption of multiplier method in cases where the injured person dies pending claim proceedings due to reasons unconnected with the accident -- The law laid down in Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shailaja (2021 (3) KLT 371) is to be applied.
Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, Para.2 & Para.8 -- Ex post facto Environmental Clearance -- The judgment in the case of Common Cause (2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC)) cannot be considered a precedent to hold that no ex-post facto EC can be granted – The Judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025 KLT OnLine 1940 (SC) = 2025 (3) KLT 445 (SC) recalled.
Lalachan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.478 & 483 -- A bail application filed after suppressing the filing of bail petition before the Special Court, may disentitle any relief in the petition.
Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki v. State of Maharashtra
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Ss.115(2), 310(2), 351(2), 351(3) & 352 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.326, 504 & 506 -- Constitution of India, Art.142 -- When the factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable and arises from a single transaction, there is no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS alone, once the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the all the other offences.
Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of Nct of Delhi
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Ss.147 & 148 -- Evidence Act 1872, Ss.144 & 145 -- In every case where, it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing and any previous written statement of such witness or a matter in writing is available and the party concerned is desirous of confronting the witness with such previous statement/matter in writing, the trial Court shall ensure that a copy of the statement/document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial.
Evidence Act 1872, S.9 -- When it stands established from the record that the TIP attempted by the prosecution was fundamentally flawed, and a doubt is created that the identifying witness herself may not even have been present to participate therein, the very foundation of the identification proceedings falls flat to the ground.
Jomon Jacob v. State Election Commission
Mental Health Care Act 2017, S. 4(1))a), 4(1)(b) & 4(1)(c) -- Municipality Act, 1994 (Kerala), S. 74 -- There is a legal presumption that every person, including a person with mental illness, shall be deemed to have the capacity to make decisions regarding their mental health care or treatment, if such person has the abilities mentioned in sub clauses (a) to (c) of Section 4 -- Without any documentary evidence, the Court cannot declare persons as unsound mind.
Secretary (IPH) v. Mangal Devi
Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss. 12 & 18 -- In case a party present in the Court either personally or through his representative, when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award -- Having regard to the scheme of the Act knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
XXX v. XX
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Guardians and Wards Act 1890 -- The paternal grandfather, unless appointed as a guardian by a competent Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, cannot assume the capacity of a natural guardian or file legal proceedings representing the child.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- When both parties consented to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and has an arrangement, once accepted and recorded by a competent Court, attains finality, neither party can, under the guise of a new proceeding, indirectly modify or nullify its effect.
Sri. Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 31(7) & 34 -- Any difference or controversy as to rate of interest clearly falls outside the scope of challenge on the ground of conflict with the public policy of India unless it is evident that the rate of interest awarded is so perverse and so unreasonable so as to shock the conscience of the Court sans which no interference is warranted in the award, whereby interest is awarded by the Arbitrator.
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, Ss. 3(1), 3(7), 5, 7(1) & 33 -- Constitution of India, Art. 14, Art. 21 & Art. 50 -- All appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, shall be protected - Such appointments will continue to be governed by the parent statutes and by the conditions of service as laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V), rather than by the truncated tenure and altered service conditions introduced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, Ss. 3(1), 3(7), 5, 7(1) & 33 -- Constitution of India, Art. 14, Art. 21 & Art. 50 -- The validity of legislation may, and must, be tested against structural principles such as separation of powers and judicial independence when the legislation in question directly implicates the constitutional design of the justice system - Judicial enforcement of these principles is an essential feature of constitutional adjudication, not an overreach.
All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Service -- Higher Judicial Service -- If the recruitment process from any source is not completed in the year in which it began, but appointments are made before the end of the following year, those appointees shall be placed at their respective roster points for the year of initiation -- Provided that no appointments from any source are made for the next recruitment year before these appointments are effected.
Service -- Higher Judicial Service – If the High Court, for any valid reason, decides not to initiate the recruitment process from any of the three sources in a given year, the person subsequently appointed from those sources shall not be eligible to be placed within the roster for that year in which recruitment from the source did not take place.
Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India
EIA Notification 2006, Para. 10 -- National Green Tribunal Act 2010, S. 16(h) – It is the first accrual that would trigger the period of limitation prescribed under Section 16(h) of the Act -- The person aggrieved cannot pick and choose later communications from other duty bearers for reckoning the period of limitation.
State Bank of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Income Tax Act 1961, S.201 -- It is only when the appellant-assessee, after having a liability to deduct tax, fails to do so, the question of invoking Section 201 of the Act and treating it as an ‘assessee in default’ arises.
Ismayil Poongadan v. State of Kerala
Delimitation Commission Act 1962, Ss. 8, 9 & 10 -- Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Final delimitation orders of the State Delimitation Commission are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2025 KLT OnLine 3442 (J. and K.)
Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India
Service -- If departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
Devaki v. Managing Director, KSRTC
Succession Act 1925, S. 33(a), 33(b) & 33(c) -- Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala), R. 2(k) -- It is only when there are no “lineal descendants”, the question of the parents of the deceased also joining the claim petition arises.
Natural Wood & Veneers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 2(28) -- Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Central), R. 2(cab) – Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1976 (Kerala), S. 3 -- When Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act is read with Rule 2(cab) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, every construction-equipment vehicle capable of movement on public roads clearly falls within the definition of “motor vehicle,” making it taxable under Section 3, irrespective of whether it is actually used, or claimed to be used, only within factory premises.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 2(28) & 39 -- Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Central), R. 2(cab) -- A combined reading of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 2(cab) thus establishes that any construction equipment vehicle capable of movement on public roads—however occasional or incidental—satisfies the road-adaptability test under Section 2(28) and is a motor vehicle requiring registration under Section 39, while only purely off-highway machines exclusively adapted for enclosed premises stand outside the statutory framework.
Rajeevan v. Rantin
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144 -- The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance.
Seetha v. Anandan
Land Reforms Act 1963 (Kerala), S. 72K -- Assignee of the Mortgagee -- Though, a conclusiveness is attached to the purchase certificate under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the conclusiveness is available only to a validly issued purchase certificate. Once it is held that the exchange deed itself is void, then no further deliberation on the validity of the purchase certificate is required.
Mohammed Abbas v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.465 -- Forging of University Certificates/Mark lists will result in causing harm to the reputation, credibility and integrity of academic institutions apart from causing harm to the students and their future, hence it is an offence under Section 465 IPC.
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 24, 25, 463 & 464 -- In order to fall within the ambit of 'fraudulently', apart from the act of deceiving, there must be an injury caused to any person, and such injury is other than economic loss and includes, any harm whatever caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or such others.
Koshy Kunju v. Lalitha S. Pillai
Specific Relief Act 1963, S. 34 -- Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, merely gives statutory recognition to a well-recognised type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 34.
2025 KLT OnLine 3602 (Karnt. Dharwad)
Pandurang v. Durdundi Malagouda Patil
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.173(1) -- Courts have to look whether the de facto complainant has utilized the time to give wings to his imagination, to wreck vengeance against his opponents, for discussions and deliberations, to settle scores or to prepare grounds for false claim -- In case none of these exist and where the delay is due to genuine cause coupled sometimes with inability to approach police immediately, then such delay cannot come in the way of victim to get justice.
In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills By The Governor and The President of India
Constitution of India Arts.200 & 143 -- In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.
Sidhique v. Zakariya
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), Ss. 12 & 18 -- Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Zeenath Ibrahim (2024 KLT OnLine 2681 (L.B.)) has not directed that in every Appeal filed under Section 18 challenging an eviction order on the ground of non- payment of rent under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, the entire procedure under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 has to be repeated by the Appellant-landlord, even if he has succeeded before the Rent Controller.
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), Ss. 12 & 18 -- It is essentially in cases where supervening events have taken place during the pendency of Appeal, that the parties have the liberty to file an application under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 once again before the Appellate Authority like where rent has been paid till the date of filing of the Appeal, but by the time the Appeal has matured for hearing, further rent has accrued, which has not been paid -- In such a case, it would be open to the Appellate Authority to entertain a fresh application under Section 12(1) by the landlord and decide the same in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Section 12 of the Act, 1965.
Jalgaon District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S.26E -- EPF & MP Act, S. 11(1) & 11 (2) -- There being a clear first charge created under the EPF&MP Act, it overrides the priority under Section 35 and Section 13 as also that conferred under Section 26-E since a priority cannot be equated with a first charge and cannot be given prevalence over the first charge statutorily created.
Dr. Mohan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 7(a) -- When the prosecution materials are in abundance to see that the allegations against the accused are well made out, prima facie, quashment of the FIR is found to be totally unwarranted and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Shihab v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.244, 245, 246 & 247 -- The evidence already recorded during the summons trial can be used even after it is converted into a warrant case.
Jimmy Elias v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Limitation Act 1963, Schedule Art.1 & Schedule Art. 14 -- When there is only a contract for sale of goods and to pay for them and the payments made by the defendants go in reduction of their debt to the plaintiff, the suit is not based on a mutual, open and current account falling within the description of a suit under Article 1 of the Limitation Act.
Government of Tamil Nadu v. Jaganathan
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act 1997 (Tamil Nadu), Ss. 7 & 12 -- A contract voluntarily entered into between the parties, shall not be disturbed by taking recourse to the statutory provisions, which are sought to be excluded by such contract -- A party to a contract cannot be permitted to have recourse to two different modes, especially after having accepted the compensation under the contract without any demur or protest.
Soni Gabriel v. State of Kerala
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1959 (Kerala), S.52 & Schedule II Article 3(A)(2)(c) -- Finance Act 2025 (Kerala) -- High Court Act 1958 (Kerala), S. 5(i) -- court fee to be paid in the case of a writ appeal is at the rate that existed as on the date of filing of the writ petition and not at the enhanced rate, as on the date of filing of the writ appeal.
Sumesh v. Babija Balakrishnan
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Showing some amounts as deductions from the salary under the heads of availing of loans by the husband and its repayment, payment towards insurance premium, payment towards GPF, SLI, etc., by itself, would not absolve the liability of the husband to canvass reduction in the quantum of maintenance.