Weekly Roundup (Jun 09 - Jun 14, 2025)
2025 (3) KLT 565 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1773
Baburajan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.2(1)(y), 273, 395, 396 & 399 – Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.2(wa), 250, 357, 357A & 358 – The remedy available to a wrongly prosecuted or convicted person is the private law remedy by instituting a suit against the State before the ordinary civil court, claiming damages based on tort.
2025 (3) KLT 574 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1913
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate Education
Right to Information Act 2005, S.7 – Service – A Public Information Officer has no power or obligation under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to cross verify the documents on receipt of RTI Application.
2025 (3) KLT 577 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2010
Nettoor Sreedharan v. Chandran
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1959 (Kerala), S.52 & Sch.I Art.1A – Finance Act 2025 (Kerala) – The newly introduced Article 1A reduced the court fee and is beneficial to the litigant and hence the appellants in all appeals filed after 01.04.2025 arising from the proceedings mentioned in Article 1A Schedule I KCF & SV Act are liable to pay court fee at 1% as provided therein.
2025 (3) KLT 580 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2066
Zahhad v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.14, Art.15, Art.16, Art.19 & Art.21 – Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, S.12 – Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (Kerala), R. 8 – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 – Issuance of Birth Certificate to the child of transgender parents by not recording the gender of the parents – Social Context Adjudication – The law has to evolve, in tune with the new concepts of human life and changes in Society, and when the statutory provision on a particular point is not in tune with such societal changes, the Court has to intervene to redress the genuine grievances of the parties concerned.
2025 (3) KLT 597 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2061
Sudhin Krishna v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.VI R.3 – G.O. Dt. 30.06.2022 – When the Statutory Rule prescribes the provision for effecting the changes of the date of birth, religion and caste etc, the same authority, who has been notified by the Government vide Government Order dated 30.06.2022 will be empowered to effect changes in date of birth, caste and religion, etc. -- The Commissioner of Examination, is competent to effect the changes in caste and religion of School Leaving Certificate.
2025 (3) KLT 603 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2020 (SC)
Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XVIII R.17 – Evidence Act 1872, S.165 – If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit – The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court
2025 (3) KLT 614 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2021 (SC)
Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. Registrar, State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu
Constitution of India, Art.21 – Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, S.2(1)(d) – Every citizen of India who goes to a Police Station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity –That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – A citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal.
2025 (3) KLT 616 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2047
Kunjumol v. Ponnamma
Transfer of Property Act 1882, S.53A – The equitable right under Section 53A cannot be claimed for restraining the sale of suit property, but can be sought for seeking protection against dispossession.
2025 (3) KLT 622 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2037
National Collateral Management Service Ltd. v. Valiyaparambil Traders
Partnership Act 1932, S. 69(2) – Limitation Act 1908, S. 14 – The dismissal of the earlier suit on the ground of bar under Section 69(2) falls within the purview of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
2025 (3) KLT 627 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2038
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Zeenath
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – Separate notice or intimation regarding cancellation of policy is required only when the policy was cancelled after it was executed and delivered to the insured.
2025 (3) KLT 632 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2079
Selvi v. State of Kerala
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), S. 3(1) – When there is unreasonable delay in making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay.
2025 (3) KLT 638 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2069
Premkumar v. Shaiju Jacob
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S. 12(1) & 12(3) – It is only when a tenant commits default to pay the rent that subsequently falls due, by not honouring the order of the court, it would result in passing a final order under Section 12(3) of the Act.
2025 (3) KLT 641 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2068
Sheela George v. Alexander
Divorce Act 1869, Ss. 37 & 10A – For the purpose of Section 37, a decree u/S.10A can be considered as ‘obtained by the wife’, though the husband also joined her in that endeavour.
2025 (3) KLT 650 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2074 (SC)
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
Environment (Protection) Act 1986, S. 3(2)(v) – Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, R. 5(1)(viii) – ESZ for National Parks and Wild Life Sanctuaries –Mining – The area delineated in the MoEF draft notification shall be treated as ESZ until the final notification is issued, specifically in the context of the State of Kerala.I.A. Nos.132289 & 132290 of 2025 WITH I.A.NO.138819 OF 2025
2025 (3) KLT 656 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2076
Apputty v. Yahutty
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 Proviso (b) – Presence of addi-tional claims in the demand notice would not negate its validity, provided the cheque amount is specified.
2025 (3) KLT 658 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2067
Tahsildar v. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd.
Practice and Procedure – Non-compliance of directions issued by the court – Filing of review once contempt filed after long delay – Deprecated – The State must realise that they do not stand in a privileged position vis-a-vis a citizen when it comes to matters of litigation and the procedures to be followed while pursuing the same – On the contrary, their actions must be informed by fairness and reasonableness
2025 (3) KLT 661 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2085
Thomas Mathai v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 – Environment Clearance – Decision of the SEIAA to reject the application for Clearance in difference of the SEAC’s recommendation for grant was set aside by the High Court and remanded with directions – The SEIAA again rejected without referring to the specific directions of the High Court and the recommendations of the SEAC – The orders of the SEIAA were set aside and individual members of the SEIAA were imposed with cost.
Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 --- In exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must delve into the material on record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Trial --- There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused, because, the weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance.
Criminal Trial -- Mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial and ought to have been substantiated by undeniable, reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible circumstantial evidence, which does not leave the probability of any other theory.
Dhanya v. State of Kerala
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), S. 3 — Even when the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the State to approach the competent Courts for cancellation of bail, it cannot be said that the same warrants preventive detention of the accused.
M/s. Balaji Traders v. State of U.P
Penal Code 1860, Ss.383 & 387 -- Putting a person in fear would make an accused guilty of an offence under Section 387 IPC; it need not satisfy all the ingredients of extortion provided under Section 383 IPC.
Principal Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Union of India
High Court Act 1958 (Kerala), S. 5(1) -- Writ Appeal against interim order -- Maintainability -- When the interim relief as sought for in the writ petition has already been granted by the Single Judge, the writ petitioner, who is not a person aggrieved by that interim order, cannot maintain a writ appeal against that order.
Jose v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.161 --- Non examination of independent witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, could not be held fatal to the case of the prosecution.
M/s. Hedge Finance Ltd. v. Vipin Kumar
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 – Even if there is no provision in the NDPS Act, on confiscation, the property shall absolutely vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances -- The confiscation itself is sufficient to hold that the confiscated property shall vest with the Government without any encumbrance.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 60(3) – Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 51(4) – When a vehicle is confiscated by the authorities it would not amount to transfer of ownership of the vehicle -- It is vesting of ownership with the Government -- Hence Section 51(4) dealing with transfer is not applicable -- There is no repugnancy between Section 51(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.
Headstar Global Pvt. Limited v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss. 106 & 107 – Attachment under Section 107 can be effected only upon the orders of the Magistrate.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 107 – Section 107 confers the jurisdictional Magistrates with explicit authority to act swiftly in cases involving proceeds of crime.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 107 – Section 107 confers the jurisdictional Magistrates with explicit authority to act swiftly in cases involving proceeds of crime.
Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.439 -- While entertaining an application for grant of bail, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations against the accused; period of custody undergone; nature of evidence and the crime in question; likelihood of influencing witnesses and other such relevant grounds and does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques.
Constitution of India, Arts. 20(3) & 21 -- Criminal Trial -- There is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco analysis test, for upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court, must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analyis test.
Raju Thomas v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial --- In cases involving delay in producing the recovered MOs before the Court and sending the same to the FSL, it could not be said that the items recovered from the accused itself reached the hands of the expert to examine its nature and the said procedural irregularity would go to the root of the matter.
Criminal Trial --- When, on the same evidence, one accused is acquitted, similar benefit should be given to the co-accused to avoid discrimination among accused, who faced trial, where common evidence regarding their complicity was let in.
Byju v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss.299 & 304 --- In a prosecution alleging offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, defined under Section 299 of IPC, the prosecution has the duty to prove that the accused has done an act/acts with intention to cause death, or with the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
Penal Code 1860, S.304 --- In cases where the offence under Section 304 of IPC is alleged, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle carelessly driven the vehicle and caused death of human beings, there must be convincing evidence to show that the accused driven the vehicle at the time of occurrence, in a manner so as to endanger human life and which resulted in the death of human being, with exact identity of the accused.
State of Kerala v. Thankamma Mathew
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S. 28A & 4 1) – Constitution of India Art.300A -- In matters involving compulsory acquisition of lands from citizens it would be the duty of the Court to try and ensure that, notwithstanding the technical objections to their claim for compensation, they are paid compensation at par with what has already been paid to other persons from whom lands were compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the same project.
Deepa v. Permanent Lok Adalat
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, S. 22C(1) & 22A – Merely because the insured did not raise a dispute the delayed issue of policy by itself does not curtail the right of the petitioner to seek refuge under the provisions of the Act.
Stephen v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 452 & 442 --- In order to bring home the offence under Section 452 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following: (a) that the accused committed house-trespass and that the said house-trespass was committed after the accused made preparation for causing hurt to, or for assaulting, or for wrongfully restraining some person; or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.
Abdul Hashim v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss.143, 147, 148, 333 & 149 -- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, S. 3(a)(e) -- When on appreciation of the same evidence, benefit of doubt is extended to some among the accused or one among the accused, it is not permissible to find commission of offence by the other accused relying on the very same evidence.
Mahaboob v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Practice and procedure -- Electricity Act 2003, S. 126 – Power of Appellate Authority – An appellate power is necessarily confined in its scope by the extent to which appellant chooses to impugn the order of the original authority before the appellate authority -- It was not open to the appellate authority to enhance his powers by adjudicating matters that were not impugned before him.
Electricity Act 2003, S.126 – The usage of electricity in circumstances where such usage is in violation of one of the terms of supply of electricity viz. usage with a higher connected load, is to be seen as an unauthorised use of electricity for the purposes of Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
Moideen Koya v. M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Ss. 17 & 13(4) -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, R. 13A Appendix X – When multiple tenants challenge the same secured creditor’s action, such as the taking of possession or auction of a property, their grievances arise from a common cause of action, even if their lease agreements differ -- The insistence on separate filings is an overly rigid interpretation unsupported by the Act or Rules.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 13(4) -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, R. 13A Appendix X – Neither the Act nor the Rules contains any express prohibition against multiple aggrieved persons filing a single, consolidated application -- The absence of such a prohibition suggests that the legislature did not intend to bar joint applications -- This interpretation aligns with the general legal principle that procedural rules should facilitate, rather than obstruct, access to justice.
Bastin v. George
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S. 138 -- The drawer of the cheque needs to provide satisfactory and convincing evidence to show that the address shown is not his address. The drawer cannot frustrate the legal process by not receiving the notice or by shifting residences without informing the complainant.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S. 138 – The initial burden to prove that upon receiving dishonor memo from the Bank, notice was sent to the drawer of the cheque intimating the factum of dishonor and demanding the amount covered by the cheque is on the complainant.
Xxx v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, Ss. 2(40), 12 & 47(1) -- Though retention of a child in conflict with law in an Observation Home is, to an extent, a measure of rehabilitation, continuing a child for long periods in such home cannot be said to be in the best interests of a child, unless there are other compelling reasons.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, S. 12(1) –- The seriousness of the offence or the manner in which the offence was committed, are not considerations under the proviso to section 12(1) of the JJ Act, while considering the question of release of a juvenile on bail.
Sheela Francis Parakkal v. Authorised Officer
Banking Law -- Circular No.DOR.MCS.REC.38/01.01.001/2023-24 Dt. 13.09.2023 – Delay in returning the documents -- The Reserve Bank's Circular applies in all its rigour.
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- A direction incapable of compliance cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution.
M/s. Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 -- As per the Regulations, the appellant is entitled to receive only those documents, that were mentioned in the show cause notice and the enquiry report that was drawn up by the Enquiry Officer during the adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner.
Secretary Cum Manager Majilis Arts and Science College (Autonomous) v. National Council For Teacher Education
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act 1993 -- National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014 – Recognition and Affiliation – Statutory bodies are required to be governed effectively and efficiently, and if they are not being governed effectively and efficiently, the Colleges which are seeking recognition and affiliation cannot be made to suffer.
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act 1993 -- National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014 – Recognition and Affiliation – Compliance of timeline – When the NCTE itself has not adhered to the timeline prescribed in Maa Vaishnoo Devi Mahila Mahavidyala (2012 (4) KLT Suppl. 79 (SC)), the NCTE cannot put the blame on the petitioner College for no fault of theirs.
Haridasan v. Padmavathi Amma
Hindu Succession Act 1956, S. 14 -- Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 -- Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Madras) – When parties are governed by the Marumakathayam Act, the provisions of Section 14 has no application.
Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 -- Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Madras) – It is for the person who asserts that the property is a joint family to prove that the same was acquired for the benefit of the family.
Ratheesh v. Joe Jacob
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 --- While giving money to a person on the strength of issuance of a cheque or by executing a promissory note or by executing any other similar documents acknowledging the debt, there must be an independent witness or any other witnesses to prove the said transaction.
Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala
Passport Act 1967, S. 6(2) --- Pendency of proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant, pending before a criminal court in India, is a valid reason to refuse passport or travel documents.
Passport Act 1967, S. 6(2)(f) --- When it could not be held that there are any criminal proceedings pending against the accused within the meaning of section 6(2)(f), permission of the court is not necessary for renewal of the passport.
Dr. Sethulakshmi v. Canara Bank
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Ss. 8 & 13 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S.115 -- Constitution of India, Art.227 -- The remedy of the litigant who suffered an adverse judgment and decree from commercial appellate court has to approach the high court under Section 115 CPC; but it is not a bar to approach the High Court under Art.227.
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Ss. 8 & 13 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S.115 -- The only restriction under Sec.8 in exercising powers under section 115 is against interlocutory orders -- This is with an objective to safeguard the purpose and intend of promulgation of the Commercial Courts Act 2015.