Weekly Roundup (Jul 28 - Aug 03, 2025)
2025 (4) KLT 455 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2250
Union Bank of India v. M/s. Suwique Traders
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 18, 18(1) & 18(1) Second Proviso -- There is an absolute bar to the entertainment of an appeal under Section 18 unless the condition precedent, as stipulated in the second proviso to Section 18(1), is fulfilled.
2025 (4) KLT 464 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1512
Jemini Anil v. Food Safety Officer
Interpretation of statutes – Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Ss. 42(2) & 46(3) – The mere use of the term ‘shall’ in a statute by itself does not mean that it is of such mandatory nature that the non-compliance of the provision in letter and spirit would vitiate the whole procedures initiated thereunder
2025 (4) KLT 474 (F.B.) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2430 (F.B.)
Faizal v. State of Kerala
Value Added Tax Act 2003 (Kerala), Ss. 2(xxiii), 11(1) & 11(5)(m) – Input tax credit (ITC) should be available to purchasing dealers even if the selling dealer fails to remit the tax
2025 (4) KLT 482 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2423
Abhiram Namboothiri v. State of Kerala
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2009 (Kerala), Rr. 6 & 5(1) -- It is only after preliminary satisfaction on feasibility of the plea in the application is arrived at by the Tribunal, will it issue notice to the respondent.
2025 (4) KLT 484 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2429
Dr. Saji Chacko v. State of Kerala
Service – Constitution of India, Art.226 – Whether teachers of Aided college are entitled for grant of special leave for the period, during which they have admittedly worked as Presidents of the respective Panchayats, along with such other benefits that are available to them.
2025 (4) KLT 490 : 2025 KLT OnLine 244
Prabhakaran v. Jeena
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss. 6 & 138 -- Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, S. 2(1)(a) -- Validity of cheque drawn on State Bank of Travancore after its amalgamation with State Bank of India -- To be legal tender, the cheque must have been drawn on a specified banker.
2025 (4) KLT 494 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2433
xxx v. xxx
Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 – Civil P.C. 1908, O.XX R. 10 -- Every decree has to be interpreted and obeyed in the manner framed; and that it is only if thus becomes impossible for any valid reason, that the alternate relief would come to play.
2025 (4) KLT 501 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2432
Saran Kumar v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Ss. 3(1), 181, 185, 203(1) & 204 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, S.281 -- Drunken driving -- Breathalyzer Test – It is mandatory to conduct an Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at ‘zero’ before taking breath sample using a breath alcohol testing device -- This precisely is the reason why, the DGCA made it mandatory to run an Air Blank Test on the instrument and obtain the reading ‘0.000’ before each breathalyzer test.
2025 (4) KLT 504 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2428
Chandran v. State of Kerala
Advocates Clerks Welfare Scheme Rules 1985 (Kerala), R. 4 -- The provisions of Rule 4 of the Scheme provides for benefits upon “completion of 30 years as an advocate clerk” or on the attainment of 60 years of age -- The stipulation is not with reference to the commencement of the Rules in January, 1985 -- Even earlier period of service can be reckoned for calculating the benefits under the Scheme.
2025 (4) KLT 507 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2366
Godavarma Raja v. Land Board
Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 1971, S. 4(1) & 4(3) – The expression ‘after such inquiry as it deems necessary’ enables the Land Board to look into all relevant aspects -- Hence in an appropriate case it may not be outside the purview of the proceedings to hear persons other than the applicant and the Government also.
2025 (4) KLT 517 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2389
Devaki Amma v. Divakaran
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI R. 97, O.XXI R. 99, O.XXI R. 35 & O.XXI R.101 – When the Execution Court receives a petition either under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC, at first, the Execution Court has to conduct an enquiry under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, to find out whether the resistance or obstruction is made by a person bound by the decree -- If it is found that the resistance or obstruction is caused by a person who is bound by the decree, the Execution Court can remove the obstruction under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC without resorting to a full-fledged trial.
2025 (4) KLT 523 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2431
Smitha Francis alias Smitha Ajay v. Shwas Homes Private Limited
Industrial Disputes Act 1947, S. 17B – The expression “employment” in S.17B must be held to include self- employment also -- The self employment should be adequately remunerating.
2025 (4) KLT 529 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2448
Ahamed Basher v. Sherif Babu
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI R.101, O.XXI R. 97 & O.XXI R. 99 – A suit challenging the decree in another suit on the ground that the same is obtained by fraud and collusion will not come within the scope of the suit barred under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC.
2025 (4) KLT 534 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2452
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Thomas Daniel
Registration Act 1908 -- Stamp Act 1959 (Kerala) -- Constitution of India, Sch.VII List III Entry 44 & Sch.VII List II Entry 63 -- The enforcement of the provisions of a fiscal legislation has necessarily to be through the machinery provided under that legislation, not through the machinery provided under a general regulatory legislation.
2025 (4) KLT 550 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2425
Beatrice v. Babu Louis
Civil P.C. 1908, O.IX R. 9 – What is precluded is bringing a fresh proceeding in respect of the same cause of action.
2025 (4) KLT 561 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2414
Joseph v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Ss. 17(1) & 13(4) -- The provisions of Section 17(1), provide for filing of an application within 45 days from the date on which such “measures” had been taken -- The afore “such measures” refers to the measures adopted under Section 13(4) of the Act.
Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 & 142 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.216, 217 & 2(d) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 2(1)(h) -- Practice and Procedure -- Criminal Law -- Amendment of complaint -- Unless expressly prescribed, if to set a criminal case in motion ordinarily an oral complaint would be sufficient, any question about amendment of a written complaint should be considered by giving the widest latitude -- Amendments/alterations are not alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Anila v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate Ottapalam
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007-- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- A purposive interpretation should be given to the word “children” defined under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 especially when the definition of “children” starts with the word ‘includes’ son, daughter, etc., and therefore, a petition under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act 2007 will lie against the daughter-in-law also.
Union of India v. Shankarappa
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, Rr. 13(2) & 14 -- An authority empowered to inflict minor penalties can certainly issue a charge sheet even for imposition of major penalties.
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Krishnaprasad
Service -- Sufficiency of Qualification – If no decision is taken before the issuance of the notification, any decision of the PSC or the Government cannot normally apply retrospectively to have an impact on the ongoing selection process.
Service -- Sufficiency of Qualification –The decision of the Government Department or the PSC must precede the issuance of the notification, so that such decision can be applied and reflected in the notification itself.
Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Criminal P.C. 1973, S. 156 (3) & 482 -- Constitution of India, Art. 226 & Art. 227 -- The powers vested in the court either under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are not for the purposes of appreciating the evidence or examining the correctness of the evidence collected during investigation to record a different conclusion other than recorded by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that a cognizable offence has been disclosed in the application/complaint.
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss. 156 (3) 154 (3) & 190 -- The Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count.
Thankappan v. Union of India
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, R. 41 -- Punishment was on account of the involvement in a scuffle between the employees in the 1970s and the petitioner discharged from service -- The reason for seeking the compassionate allowance arose only in the year 2016 -- The claim has to be considered with reference to the factual situation at that point of time.
Mathew v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 13(2) &13(1)(c) -- Once it is proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment and there was no proper accounting of the amount entrusted, then the burden shifts to the accused to prove that there was no misappropriation and explain the irregularities found in the disbursement.
Dr.Mathew Jo v. Lijo Jose
Contract Act 1872, S. 74 – Only if a party sustains actual loss or damage, reasonable compensation can be awarded under Section 74 of the Contract Act, not exceeding the amount specified.
Abdul Khader v. Arumugan
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Ss. 2(30) & 50 -- The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the Act.
Angels Nair v. Principal Secretary, Forest and Wildlife Department
Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, Ss. 27, 28 & 29 – Government Order dated 30.3.2013 -- Government Order dated 30 March 2013 issued by the State of Kerala does not have the force of law to permit commercial film-making and commercial television serials in the Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks and Tiger Reserves, contrary to the scheme of the Act of 1972.
Bindhu Varghese v. Divisional Manager
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Ss.166 & 168 -- The amount received under the statutorily mandated social security scheme, including personal accident coverage, cannot be deducted from the compensation awardable under Section 168 of the MV Act -- The amount payable under personal accident coverage is not meant to enure to the benefit of the tortfeasor.
Domestic on Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission
Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules 2005, R. 3 -- Physical public hearing -- Having modulated the Rules of 2005 to provide physical public hearing in furtherance of strengthening the participatory democratic process, the Commission should not roll back or dilute the process unless there are valid reasons.
Manoj Kumar v. Secretary, Thalassery Municipality
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S. 9 -- Municipality Building Rules 1999 (Kerala), R. 4 -- Municipality Act 1994 (Kerala), Ss.381 & 382 -- When the authorities under the 2008 Act permitted conversion of the property to the limited purpose of construction of residential building, the Municipality would not be justified in seeking to place reliance on the development scheme wherein the property is shown as falling under “agricultural zone”.
Padmaja Devi v. Vidhya
Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021, R. 13(2) -- The relevant date, as far as e- filing is concerned, is the date on which the action is electronically received in the Registry.
Banavathy and Company v. Mahaeer Electro Mech (P.) Ltd.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S. 80 -- While passing the order of sentence after determining the fine/ compensation, the Court shall also pass an order to pay future interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one/two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and High Court in revision the interest of the complainant will be protected.
2025 KLT OnLine 2514 (Karnt. Kalaburagi)
Ningappa v. Prabhatbhai
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation -- Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer.
Devamma v. Kalavathi
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXXIX R. 1(a) -- Registration Act 1908, Ss. 23 & 27 -- Wills are not subject to the four months limitation period applicable to other documents, and may be registered either before or after the death of the testator -- Statute permits its registration at any point in time, without prejudice to its validity.
Noorudheen v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138(b) -- If the accused challenges the non-receipt of notice, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove at least the knowledge of the notice to the accused – There is no reason to reconsider the dictum laid down by the Court in Saju’s case (2024 KLT OnLine 2651 = 2024 (6) KLT 463)
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138(b) -- If, on the evidence of the complainant itself, it is proved that the notice is served to a third person and there is no explanation for the complainant to the effect that the accused was aware of such serving of notice to the third person, it cannot be said that there is service of notice -- The dictum laid down in Saju’s case (2025 KLT OnLine 2262 = 2025 (4) KLT 304) is not against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in C.C. Alavi Haji’s case (2007 (3) KLT 77 (SC)).
Hariharan v. Labour Court
Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 16 & 114 – General Clauses Act 1897, S. 27 -- Industrial Disputes Act 1947, 2A(3) – Neither Section 16 nor Section 114 of the Evidence Act compels the Court to draw a presumption.
Rajeshbabu v. Muralikrishanan
Evidence Act 1872, Ss.114 & 50 -- If there is long cohabitation between a man and woman, the law presumes a valid marriage between them.
Vimalchand Bokadia v. Regional Transport Officer
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 51(1) -- Circular Nos.13/2011 dated 13.06.2011, 14/2011 dated 28.06.2011 and 19/2015 dated 22.07.2015 -- Circular Nos.13/2011 dated 13.06.2011, 14/2011 dated 28.06.2011 and 19/2015 dated 22.07.2015 issued by the Transport Commissioner, restricting endorsements of hire purchases in registration certificates of motor vehicles are in conflict with the provisions of Section 51(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Circulars Quashed.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 51 & 51(1) -- Circular Nos.13/2011 dated 13.06.2011, 14/2011 dated 28.06.2011 and 19/2015 dated 22.07.2015 -- Under Section 51, there is no stipulation that entries in the certificate of registration under Section 51(1) can be made only if the financier is having a registration under any particular law.
Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.311-- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.348 – Attempt to re – examine the rape victim after reaching a compromise with her -- The endeavour of the petitioner amount to degrading the sanctity and credibility of judicial proceedings.
Shaji v. Varghese
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- It was the duty of the insurer to verify the documents submitted by the owner for taking out a new policy and to issue the policy accordingly -- After issuance of the policy, the insurance company cannot turn around and say that there was suppression of material facts.
Remadevi v. Dy.Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- In order to find out whether an order passed by the authority of a quasi-judicial nature may not be a nomenclature to the officer to describe him as a Judge or a Judicial Officer and what would require is whether, by the virtue of the said Act, the officer declares rights or imposes obligation upon parties affecting their civil rights and whether the investigation, enquiry or the proceedings are subject to certain procedural articles contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party ascertaining the facts by means of evidence on the fact disputed and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal arguments and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.
Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road.
Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Employees Compensation Act 1923, S. 3 -- Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Ss. 46(1)(d) & 2(8) -- Both under the EC Act and under the ESI Act the entitlement arises to the employee for recompense if the accident arises out of and in the course of his employment.
Boris Paul v. Union of India
Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules 2017 -- The State Government and the State Wetland Authority as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 shall constitute a specific Unit for the Ashtamudi Wetland Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit, as stated in the remarks placed on record by way of memo dated 7 July 2025 by the State Wetlands Authority, within a period of two months from today by issuing an official notification in that regard.
Manohar v. State of Maharashtra
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S. 18 -- Industrial Development Act 1961 (Maharashtra), S. 32(2) -- Compensation payable to the owner of the land is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser.
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (Kerala), R. 10(i) -- National Highway Authority of India will issue necessary instructions to the concessionaire, either by way of a separate communication or by incorporating the stipulation into the agreement, to erect metallic boards at regular intervals as specified along the stretch of road where quarrying activities are being carried out -- These boards will display the details required under Rule 10(i) of the Rules of 2015, as well as the contact information of the officer in-charge of the Project Implementation Unit of the National Highway Authority of India for the relevant area.
Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. State of West Bengal Service
West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act 1976, S. 4 -- The purpose of using the phrase “in any State-aided University or Government-aided College” is only to denote that the employer, being a University or College must be an aided institution as against institutions which do not receive aid.
Shivegowd v. Nanjeshgowda
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Only because the appellant was not holding driving license to ride his vehicle which is involved in the accident it cannot be held that he contributed to the accident to occur when all other convincing evidence speaks that the rider of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident was solely at fault.
M/s. Everspace Realty LLP. v. M/s. Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Ss. 13 & 14 -- Mere insinuations of unfairness do not meet the legal threshold necessary to establish fraud and collusion.
Lenish v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.468 -- When the prosecution records show that by describing a property for which patta was obtained by a person, and sale deed was forged by impersonating him, and the forensic reports prima facie show that the said document was not executed by him as the signatures as well as the thumb impressions are not that of him, prima facie, forgery of title document is well established.
M/s. Musthafa & Almana International Consultants v. Smartcity (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Special Economic Zones Act 2005, Ss. 42, 23 & 51 -- Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S. 11(2)(a) & 11(2)(b) -- Under the scheme of SEZ's as regulated by the SEZ Act and the allied State legislations, leased premises within the SEZ are not covered or governed by the KBLR Act, 1965.
Special Economic Zones Act 2005, Ss. 42 & 23 -- Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S. 11(2)(a) & 11(2)(b) -- Not all tenancies are covered and governed by rent control legislations and it is only those ‘pure tenancy’ agreements, wherein the creation of the tenancy is the sole purpose of the agreement and brings into existence the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, that can be seen as covered and governed by rent control legislations and therefore non-arbitrable.
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B. v. Pooja Milk Foods Private Ltd.
Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2005, Regs. 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 5, 8 & 13 -- Electricity Act 2003, S. 42(5) – Under the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, the CGRF has been envisionedas an institutional grievance redressal mechanism maintained by the licensee.
Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2005, Reg. 27( 5) -- Constitution of India, Art.226 -- The licensee, as provided under Regulation 27(5) shall be bound by the awards/orders/directions of the CGRF -- It is not open to the licensee to challenge the awards/orders/directions of the CGRF by invoking writ remedies.
Rangan v. State of Kerala
Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on the Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (Kerala) – Payment of compensation is not a pre-requisite for the enforcement of the order under the Act, 1975.
Urmila Devi v. Balram
Penal Code 1860, Ss.419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 -- When no criminal breach of trust nor any cheating by impersonation nor any cheating nor dishonestly inducing delivery of property is found, it cannot be said that the accused cheated and dishonestly induced the alleged victim.
Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana
Constitution of India, Arts.122( 1) & 212( 1) -- The Parliament decided to entrust the important question of adjudication of disqualification petitions, on account of defection, to the Speaker/Chairman expecting him to decide them fearlessly and expeditiously.
Chithranjan Thampan v. State of Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S. 27A(2) -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R. 12(1), 12(2), 12(3), 12(4), 12(5), 12(6), 12(7), 12(8), 12(9), 12(10), 12(11) & 12(12) -- The R.D.O. (authorised officer) is vested with the power to decide the portion of land to be set apart for the water conservancy -- Even though the applicant is required to submit a sketch, showing the area that he proposes to set apart for the water conservancy, based on the reports of the Village Officer and Agricultural Officer, the R.D.O is the competent authority to demarcate the area and approve the sketch.
Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- In a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the mother for maintenance against her son, it is not a defence to the son that there are other children to maintain the mother and therefore he need not pay maintenance.
Margret v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha
Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 57(6) & 85 -- Notaries Act 1952, S.14 -- The mandate of Section 57(6) of the Indian Evidence Act that the Court shall take judicial notice of the seals of notaries public can be made applicable to a power of attorney executed before a notary public in a foreign country only if the foreign country is a reciprocating country -- In the absence of proof of reciprocation of the foreign country where the power of attorney was executed before the notary public the presumption regarding identification and authentication as provided in Section 85 of the Evidence Act would not arise.
Notaries Act 1952, S.14 -- The mandate of Section 14 of the Notaries Act is that unless the foreign country where a power of attorney is executed before a notary public is a reciprocating country by way of recognition under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, the notarial act done in the foreign country lacks sanctity -- In the absence of such recognition and notification as provided in Section 14 of the Notaries Act, an Indian Court cannot unilaterally recognise a notarial act done by a foreign notary.
Dong Yang v. Controller of Patents
Patents Act 1970, S. 15 - If a prior art comes to the notice of the Controller during the pendency of a patent application, though not disclosed by the applicant, and if objection in that regard is raised by the Controller, the applicant would have a right to address such issues by way of amending the specifications, within the norms of amendment that are allowed as per law -- The Controller has the authority to consider such amended specifications in order to adjudicate the patent application of the applicant.
Shereef v. Indrabalan Pillai
Penal Code 1860, S.464 -- In order to constitute an offence under Section 464 of IPC, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused persons should be the makers of the same.
In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
Environment (Protection) Act 1986, S. 3(2)(v) – Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, R. 5 -- Wherever there is a draft notification or where the proposal for notification is sent by the State to the MoEF&CC for consideration, with regard to the ESZ area, the State shall follow the same as per the draft notification while regulating the activities within the ESZ areas -- Only where no such draft notification are issued, the ESZ area would continue upto one kilometer from the boundaries of such wildlife sanctuaries/national parks as per our order dated 26.04.2023 ((2023 (3) KLT 144 (SC)).
Adv. Adeen Nazar v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 -- Penal Code 1860, S.153 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, S.528 -- Defiling the statue of Mahatma Gandhi – Even the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 does not contain any provision against defilement of the images/statues of our national leaders.
S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala
Disaster Management Act 2005 – After taken over the building and used the same invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the authorities cannot decline rent/compensation holding that the building construction was unauthorised.
Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 -- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Audit of Schemes Rules 2011 – Social Audit Unit -- The Chief Secretary of the State, within four weeks from today, will constitute a committee comprising the Chief Secretary, the Principal Accountant General, the Director of the Social Audit Unit, and two persons who have worked in the field of transparency and public accountability related to social audit.