Weekly Roundup (Jun 16 - Jun 21, 2025)
2025 (3) KLT 667 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2025
Libi v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 – Adverse remarks against officer – Natural justice – Being an issue that has serious ramifications on the future service of the petitioner, the material relied on by the Court ought to have been given to him, and he ought to have been heard in person.
2025 (3) KLT 670 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1736
Anoop Varkey v. Sajiprasad
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (Kerala), Part II R.28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) – Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 19 – Inasmuch as the provisions in Note (i) are concerned, the sanction order under Section 19 has no relevance.
2025 (3) KLT 676 : 2024 KLT OnLine 2886
Prasanna v. State of Kerala
Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, S. 65 – In cases where failure on the part of the Officers of the State in ensuring the safety and health of citizens is established, that the former would stand liable to compensate the victim or his/her family.
2025 (3) KLT 685 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1959
Dr. Joseph John v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.304A – Medical Negligence – Even in a case where a patient’s death results merely from error of judgment or an accident, no criminal liability could be attached to it, and mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care and caution might create civil liability, but would not suffice to hold the medical professional concerned criminally liable.
2025 (3) KLT 692 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2040
XXX v. XXX
Divorce Act 1869, S. 10(1)(x) – A woman will forgive and condone to protect her matrimonial union and family – Forgiveness in such sense is not a passive act, but is an active and transformative one, to heal emotional wounds and to obtain inner peace.
2025 (3) KLT 696 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2031
Latheef v. Hosdurg Service Co operative Bank Ltd.
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI R. 97 & O.XXI R.101 – The word ‘any person’ used in Order 21 Rule 97 has been interpreted to be either the person bound by the decree, claiming title through the judgment debtor or claiming independent right of his own including a tenant not party to the suit or even a stranger – The same cannot however in view of the precedent laid down in Sriram Housing Finance (2022 (4) KLT OnLIne 1218 (SC)) extend to a judgment debtor for whom, right/remedy, if any, lies elsewhere and not under Order 21 Rule 97.
2025 (3) KLT 703 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2044
Adam Veettil Muhammed Saleem Madani v. Perinkadakattil Kamal Sherif
Civil Law – When the suit is not upon a negotiable instrument but upon an agreement, the mere proof of its execution does not entail in any presumption regarding consideration or truth of the contents – Mere proof of execution of a document does not amount to proof of the contents and the truth of the recitals.
2025 (3) KLT 717 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2100
Principal, Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Union of India
High Court Act 1958 (Kerala), S. 5(i) – 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.
2025 (3) KLT 730 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2103
Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
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
2025 (3) KLT 744 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2078
Sharooq Mohammed v. State of Kerala
National Medical Commission Act 2019 – National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations 2021 – Apprenticeship and Internship – Explained.
2025 (3) KLT 769 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2084
Rasiya v. State of Kerala
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), S. 3(1) – There is no law that precludes the competent authority from passing a detention order against a person who is under judicial custody – However when a detention order was passed against a person who is under judicial custody, the authority that passed the said order should be cognizant of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody while passing such an order
2025 (3) KLT 773 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2117
Bastin v. George
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.
Musthafa v. Safiya
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, S. 3 – At the time of divorce, the Muslim husband is required to contemplate the future needs and make preparatory arrangements in advance for meeting those needs -- Reasonable and fair provision is meant to enable the divorced wife to take care of herself for the rest of her life.
Bina Mathew v. State of Kerala
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2010, R. 6(3) -- Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 i.e. 6th January 2011 -- Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2019 – Constitution of India Art.300A – The finding of the Single Bench that protecting the area from the impact of the environment cannot be a ground for violation of the Article 300-A, would not have any force.
Devidas v. Cochin Devaswom Board
Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950 (T.C.), S. 62 & 62A -- The details regarding the official website and official Instagram account of the temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board shall be exhibited at prominent places in the respective temples, for the information of the devotees, so as to enable them to avail online facility -- The Temple Advisory Committees of the temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board or its members shall not be permitted to collect money from the devotees through websites, Instagram accounts, etc.
Sasikala v. Anzil
Civil P.C. 1908, O.VIII R.5, O.VIII R. 9 & O.VIII R. 10 -- When the Suit is one for return of advance amount and the defendants only raised the plea of discharge, there is no scope for filing any additional pleading and as such non-filing of replication cannot be taken as admission of the plea of discharge.
M/s. Winter Wood Designers and Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer
State Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (Kerala), S.161 -- When an error is brought to the notice of the officer concerned or otherwise the officer becomes aware of such error which is apparent on the face of record, the officer concerned can suo motu initiate the proceeding of rectification as well.
IBS Software Services Private Limited v. Union of India
Income Tax Act 1961, S.144C(13) – Assessing Officer is bound to adhere to the time limit stipulated in S.144 C (13 ) of the Income Tax Act and assessment order issued in breach of it shall be invalid.
Income Tax Act 1961, S.144C – Section 144C was incorporated with the objective of providing a speedy mechanism for assessments involving transfer pricing, to reduce possibility of disputes and to avoid time consuming litigations.
Manju Saud v. Union of India
Foreigners Act 1946, S. 3 -- Audi Alteram Partem – Natural justice – Constitution of India, Art. 21 – In cases where, the interest of the State or public is not sacrificed/jeopardised, or where the purpose of the special statute is not being defeated by affording an opportunity of being heard, it is only logical – besides being in consonance with the settled principles of law - to vote for an opportunity being granted, especially when such Orders are to visit the foreign citizen with serious and dire consequences.
Foreigners Act 1946, S. 3 – Administrative law – An opportunity of being heard cannot be deprived for the reason that such pre-decisional hearing cannot impact the post hearing decision.
Ison George v. State of Kerala
Building Tax Act 1975 (Kerala), S. 5 – Constitution of India, Schedule VII List II Entry 62 – The mere fact that Entry 62 of List II in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India had been amended to take away the field of 'taxes on luxuries' from the ambit of legislative competence of the State Legislature did not necessarily follow that the levy of tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act was unconstitutional.
Vimala Sneham v. Babu Joseph
Specific Relief Act 1963 -- Specific performance -- Contract Act 1872 -- In case the agreement was terminated by the seller, there should be a prayer for declaration that the termination of the agreement for sale is bad in law, or that it does not bind the plaintiff and in the absence of such a prayer, the suit filed for specific performance will not be maintainable.
Hussain v. State of Kerala
Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008 (Kerala), Rr.11 & 13 -- The enquiry envisaged under Rule 11 is summary in nature -- The Registrar is not empowered to conduct a comprehensive enquiry regarding the validity of the marriage or the competence of the parties to get married at the time of considering the memorandum.
Ramachandran v. Gopi
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- In a prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138, pursuant to dishonour of the cheque issued in favour of a firm or a company or a concern, the person who is legally entitled to lodge a complaint against the payer of the dishonoured cheque is the firm, company or the concern.
Kanjiramullakandy Sarada Amma v. Sreenivasan Nair
Evidence Act 1872, S. 68 Proviso -- Succession Act 1925, S. 63 – Will – A reading of the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act would show that it is the bounden duty of the propounder of the Will to examine at least one attesting witness -- The mandate of Section 68 stops there.
Dr.Satheeshsankarannamboothiri v. State of Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (Kerala),R. 4(4d) & 4(4f) – Civil P.C. 1908,O.XXVI & S. 75 – If the authorised officer does not directly inspect the property but calls for the satellite data, then it is incumbent upon him to accord due weightage to the imagery -- In the absence of any other reliable or corroborative material, the findings derived from the satellite images have to be treated as substantial evidence and cannot be disregarded without cogent justification.
Suo Motu Writ Petition Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala
Environment (Protection) Act 1986, S. 23 -- Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 – Constitution of India, Arts. 47, 48A & 51A(g) – Use of plastic water bottles of capacity below five litres, plastic soft drink bottles of capacity less than 2 litres, plastic straws, plastic plates, plastic cups and plastic cutlery are banned in all wedding auditoriums, hotels, restaurants etc., in the entire State of Kerala.
Environment (Protection) Act 1986, S. 23 -- Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 – Constitution of India, Arts. 47, 48A & 51A(g) – Use and sale of single use plastics including plastic food containers, plastic plates, plastic cups, plastic straws, plastic sachets, plastic bakery boxes are banned in the hilly tourist areas of the State that are specified -- Ban shall not apply to 5 litre plastic water bottles and 2 litre plastic soft drinks bottles.
Environment (Protection) Act 1986, S. 23 -- Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 – Constitution of India, Arts. 47, 48A & 51A(g) – Use of plastic water bottles of capacity below five litres, plastic soft drink bottles of capacity less than 2 litres, plastic straws, plastic plates, plastic cups and plastic cutlery are hereby banned in all Official/Central/State Government functions to be conducted within the State of Kerala.
Dr. C.M. Aboobacker v. State of Kerala
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Ss. 3 to 13 & 41 – Penal Code 1860, S. 354A(1)(i) – Medical examination of the victim conducted in the presence of the mother of the victim on the first occasion, and in the presence of the elder sister of the victim on the second occasion -- There is no case for the mother of the victim, or for the elder sister of the victim, that the physical examination of the victim was conducted by the petitioner beyond the visibility of the above persons -- Neither the statement to the Police, nor the statements to the Magistrate contained any indication that the alleged act committed by the petitioner was with sexual intent – Whether the proceedings initiated is sustainable.
Rajalakshmy Rajagopal v. Leela Kidavu
Specific Relief Act 1963, S. 17(1)(a) & 20 – Though the statute prescribes an independent right under Section 20 to approach the Civil Court for a suit for a specific performance, the right is not unqualified and would operate subject to the reservations as provided under Section 17.
Specific Relief Act 1963, S. 20 – Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is a statutory right which cannot be curtailed by agreement -- But, even then, the right under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is not an unqualified right.
Biju Molla v. State of Kerala
Evidence Act 1872, S. 6 – Term 'transaction" used in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act must be interpreted broadly and flexibly to encompass not merely a single act, but the entire sequence of closely connected acts that collectively constitute the occurrence.
Viswanathan v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.306 & 307 -- While appreciating the evidence of an approver, the courts are required to consider the circumstances under which he was arrested, the specific role attributed to him in the charge, the actual role he played in the commission of the offence, and the timing and manner in which he chose to turn approver, in assessing the creditworthiness of his testimony and determining the nature and extent of corroboration necessary before placing reliance upon it in support of the prosecution case.
Mathai v. Elangulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.3576
Co-operative Societies Rules 1969, R.185,185(8) & 185(8)(h) -- Though the Registrar has the power to relax qualifications, he cannot relax the basic qualification required for holding the post and that the relaxation if any should be obtained before granting promotion to the employee.
Gangadharan v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S. 239 --- When there is a Final Report requesting further action dropped, the Court can accept the report, for the reasons stated therein, or scrutinize the materials to find out as to whether as per the said report any offences are made out, for which cognizance can be taken and to take cognizance for the said offences, or reject the Final Report for valid reasons, followed by direction for further investigation to file a fresh Final Report.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.250 -- A petition seeking discharge of the petitioner filed before the trial court and it was initially numbered but later deleted due to defect in the petition, may be considered under Section 250 of BNSS, if, the revision petitioner bonafidely filed the petition before the date of framing charge along with the vakalath.
Robinson v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.161 & 161(3) -- Recording of statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory.
Raphy v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, S. 10(7) – There must be positive evidence to prove that the Food Inspector made earnest efforts to associate with independent witnesses in the process of taking samples and in the absence of such evidence, the entire trial would be vitiated as provisions of Section 10 (7) are mandatory.
Lalitha v. State of Kerala
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996(Kerala), S. 11 – A caste certificate is personal to the individual and ceases to have relevance upon their death; no other person can avail the benefits of a caste certificate issued in the name of a deceased employee.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996(Kerala), S. 11 – Cancellation of caste certificate only on the basis of the findings of KIRTADS is illegal.
Resmi S. Palan v. Kerala Public Service Commission
Service – Deemed thrown out candidate – Appointment -- Circular No. 34/2022 – When a candidate was not given appointment for want of vacancies despite a valid advice, he should be treated as a deemed thrown out candidate and re-registration has to be given to such candidate.
Noormida v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.304A -- Criminal negligence occurs when there is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise the required care and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances, was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
Navin Scariah v. Priya Abraham
Family Law – Custody of child – Husband and wife can never be divorced as parents -- Their responsibilities as parents will continue as long as they live, notwithstanding whether they are husband and wife.
State of Kerala v. Falcon Infrastructures Ltd.
Interpretation of Statutes -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S. 10 -- Land Reforms Act 1963 (Kerala), S. 81(3) -- Statutory provisions under different State enactments have to be read harmoniously so that the provisions of one statute are not invoked to defeat the rights/privileges obtained by a citizen under the other.
Rajimon K Jacob v. State of Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (Kerala), Rr.33 & 8 -- The statutory licenses to be obtained from other departments concerned, are not liable to be considered while disposing an application for a Letter of Intent.
Union of India v. M/s. Aayana Charitable Trust
Income Tax Act 1961,S.153A, 153C, 245A(b) & 245C -- In the case of an assessee who was served with a notice under Section 153A or Section 153C, he could approach the Settlement Commission with an application for settlement, at any time after the receipt of the said notice but before the completion of the assessment.
Income Tax Act 1961, Chap.XIXA S.245C -- The word ‘pending’ had to be seen as referring to the status of a ‘case’ during the period between its commencement and its conclusion or final resolution.
Harisankar v. State of Kerala
Education Act 1958 (Kerala) -- Insistence for Equivalence certificate, for Master Degree granted from IGNOU, from a State University from Kerala – No insistence for equivalence certificate can be made in respect of the Degrees obtained from the National Institutions such as Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institute of Science (IISs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) or other institutions recognized by UGC.
Education Act 1958 (Kerala) -- Insistence for Equivalence certificate, for Master Degree granted from IGNOU, from a State University from Kerala -- If the courses approved by the UGC offered by a Central University are required to have the equivalence certificate from the State University, it would be the end of the education system.
Remani v. Appu
Civil Law – Ouster – While deciding the question of ouster or exclusion from the joint property in true route which is deductible is that there can be no adverse possession by one co-sharer as against others until there is an ouster or exclusion and that the possession of the co-sharers becomes adverse to the other co-sharer from the moment when there is ouster.
Sujith Kumar v. State of Kerala
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, S. 21 – The question with respect to classification or categorization of land, which has a direct and immediate impact on the compensation amount payable to the affected persons, is certainly an aspect which comes within the scope of the objections under Section 21 of the 2013 Act.
Ria Thomas v. Tata Realty And Infrastructure Ltd.
Constitution of India Art.226 -- Consumer Protection Act 2019, S. 58(1)(b) – When there is an alternate remedy available, it could be a case where the writ petition is not entertainable -- When the order impugned in the writ petition is against a statutory provision, that violates the statutory rights of the party concerned, there is nothing wrong in invoking the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India irrespective of the availability of statutory provisions.