Weekly Roundup (Jul 21 - Jul 27, 2025)
2025 (4) KLT 341 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2001
Sumisha (Minor) v. Shaji
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – The petitioner an orphan is entitled to get just and reasonable compensation due to her, as in the case of any other victims of road traffic accident.
2025 (4) KLT 356 : 2025 KLT OnLine1744
Sasidharan v. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.320 -- When the parties to the lis in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act had arrived at a compromise, the usual and normal method is to file a compounding petition, either under Section 320 of the Code or under Section 147 of the NI Act, or both.
2025 (4) KLT 366 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2292
Kerala State United Nurses Association Teachers Association v. Union of India
Indian Nursing Council (Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing) Program) Regulations 2020 -- If private nursing colleges are not implementing the mandate of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing) Program) Regulations 2020, it is the duty of the State Government and the statutory body i.e., the Indian Nursing Council to ensure the implementation of Indian Nursing Council (Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. (Nursing) Program) Regulations 2020.
2025 (4) KLT 367 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2254
Jijin v. State of Kerala
Service -- Appointment -- Past criminal records -- Consideration of -- Nexus test -- Explained.
2025 (4) KLT 380 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2293
Mohandas v. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram
Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (Kerala), S.227 -- Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala) -- Motor Vehicles Act 1988 -- The only mandate of Section 227 of the Act, 1994 is that the prior sanction of the Regional Transport Authority is to be obtained before the opening of a bus stand -- The provisions of the Act, 1994 or the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Rules, 1989 do not contemplate a further permission to be obtained from the Regional Transport Authority for opening the bus stand after the construction is completed.
2025 (4) KLT 384 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2277
Suo Motu v. Rajesh
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Ss. 15 & 2(c) -- Constitution of India, Art.215 -- Rules of the High Court of Kerala 1971, R.164(2) -- Contempt in the face of the Court -- Contempt in the face of the Court is the same thing as contempt which the Court can punish of its own motion, and it really means contempt in the cognizance of the Court.
2025 (4) KLT 399 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2296
Nochikkatte Musthafa v. State of Kerala
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, S. 3(e) -- The ‘appropriate Government’ for the acquisition of land within the territory of a State is the State Government, except when the acquisition is for a public purpose in a district within a notified area, in which case the Collector of that district shall be deemed the ‘appropriate Government'.
2025 (4) KLT 415 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2265
Rajani v. Radha Nambidi Parambath
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, S. 6(5) -- Act 39 of 2005 -- On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005, daughter of a Hindu who dies after 20.12.2004, in the State of Kerala is entitled to equal share in the ancestral property, subject to the exception provided under sub-section (5) of Section 6 and the Explanation to sub-section (5) of Section 6.
Godavarma Raja v. Land Board
Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act 1971, S. 4(3) – Land Board lacks any authority under the provisions of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 to revisit the proceedings that were finalised by issuing an order under sub-section (3) of Section 4.
M/s. United Spirits Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam 1976 (M.P.), S. 3 -- In case a canalising agency or intermediary agency is involved, unless their role is merely that of a name lender, the sale will not be treated as an inseparable or an inseverable sale.
Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajashtan
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.439 & 438 -- High Court Rules and Orders (P. and H.), Vol. V Chap.I Part A(b) R. 5 -- Every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.
Suresh Chandra v. Parasram
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXII R. 3 & O.XXII R. 4 -- As to when an appeal would abate in its entirety for non-substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party depends upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annamma Ninan
Employees Compensation Act 1923, S. 4A -- The interest exclusion clause does not contain or deal with the failure of the employer to comply with the requirements under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 -- Hence if there is a default in payment of compensation or provisional compensation as required under Section 4A, the interest or penalty has to be met by the Insurance Company alone and not the employer.
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.
Ahamed Basher v. Sherif Babu
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI Rr.101, 97 & 99 – It is open to the judgment debtor to file a suit challenging the decree on the ground of fraud and collusion even after effecting delivery and even if he has not raised any objection to the execution or resistance to the delivery -- It is immaterial whether he has filed any petition under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC or not.
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI Rr.101, 97 & 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.
Padhmanabhan v. Sunitha
Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 -- If parties who enter into agreements, based on which judgments and decrees are issued under the ambit of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC - to resile from it in a casual manner, the majesty of the judicial system would stand eroded; and the integrity of the processes severely compromised.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. JSW Hydro Energy Ltd.
Constitution of India Art.226 - Electricity Act 2003, Ss. 7, 10 & 79 - CERC Regulations 2019, Regs. 55 & 44 - Constitutional courts must enable the regulator to comprehensively regulate all aspects of the sector such that remedies are not fragmented and certain issues are not left outside the regulator’s domain - The regulator has the expertise, specialisation, and institutional memory to conduct such an interpretative exercise to further the objective of the regulatory regime and systematically lay down legal principles.
Sreedhania v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), XIV A R. 43 Note -- The mandate of the note under Rule 43 is to consider qualified hands as on the date of occurrence of vacancy.
Revenue Divisional Officer V. Thomas Daniel
Stamp Act 1959 (Kerala), Ss. 2(8), 3 & Schedule Art. 16 -- Registration Act 1908, S. 17 -- It is only when the sale certificate becomes an ‘instrument’ that it will attract the charge of stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act, and the duty chargeable in terms of Article 16 thereof becomes payable by the auction purchaser concerned.
Stamp Act 1959 (Kerala), Ss. 2(8) & 3-- Registration Act 1908, S. 17(1) – A sale certificate, at the time of its issuance to an auction purchaser, only records the fact of a transaction of sale having been concluded between the parties, without going further to adjudicate or express any opinion on the rights or liabilities of the parties to the said transaction and at the time of its issuance to an auction purchaser, a sale certificate cannot be seen as an “instrument”, and consequently will not attract the levy of stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act.
Registration Act 1908, Ss. 17 & 89(4) -- Under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act the registering authority is only required to file a copy of the sale certificate as and when it is forwarded to him by the authorised officer -- Such filing of the copy of the sale certificate is merely intended to inform persons interested in the property, of the circumstances under which the property came into the hands of its present title holder -- It is only when the said title holder uses the original of the sale certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty etc. would arise.
Seema v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 13(2) & 13(1)(a) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.482 -- It is the duty of the court to ensure, in corruption cases in particular that, none of the corrupt person, should get liberal relief, so as to perpetuate corruption, taking such cases in a light manner.
BGM and M RPL JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 9, 11 & 7 -- The appellant is relying on just one clause in the contract which, constitutes an arbitration agreement whereas according to the respondent, though the clause is not disputed, the same does not constitute an arbitration agreement -- In such circumstances, the Court while exercising power under Section 11 would not have to hold a mini-trial or an enquiry into its existence rather a plain reading of the clause would indicate whether it is, or it is not, an arbitration agreement, prima facie, satisfying the necessary ingredients of it, as required by Section 7 of the 1996 Act.
Ismail Iyyathum Kadan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Ss. 108 & 45 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.482 -- The act alleged as instigation must have been done with the intention that the deceased had to commit suicide -- The essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.
Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metapalli Muthaih
Civil Law -- Will -- Registered Will -- Burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful.
Jayakumar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 19 --- When the prosecution case or verification of the prosecution records were neither considered, referred to, nor made the basis for any reasoned decision, justifying denial of sanction, it is evident that the authority failed to apply its mind and no rational decision was taken.
X v. State of Bihar
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Ss. 14(A)(2) & 15A(3) -- Constitution of India Art.136 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.341, 323, 328, 376, 120B & 34 -- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, Ss. 3 & 4 – Grant of bail to the person accused of grave offences without assigning reasons shakes the conscience of the Court and would have an adverse impact on the society.
Sakshi Chauhan v. Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar
Constitution of India, Art.142 --- Jurisdiction under Article 142 needs to be exercised for regularizing the respondent’s admission to the M.Sc. Environmental Management course and thereafter upholding the conferring of the postgraduate degree, as depriving her of her degree would not be appropriate and may end up in injustice to a student who had invested two important and valuable years of her career leading to an irreparable loss, when the case is limited to the extent that the respondent possesses a graduation degree but from a private university, and that she had passed the relevant papers after fulfilling the course curriculum, including the minimum required attendance, etc.
Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal
Constitution of India, Art.142 -- Penal Code, 1860, S.498A -- The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad, with regard to ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC to remain in effect and to be implemented by the appropriate authorities.
Sanal Satheesh v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.187 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 36A(4) – General Clauses Act 1897, S. 10 -- If the period prescribed in section 187 of BNSS falls on a public holiday, filing of the final report on the next working day cannot be treated as filed within the time specified therein, to deny statutory bail to an accused.
Ravi Kumar v. John Franklin
Transfer of Property Act 1882, S. 55(6)(b) -- An Agreement for sale confers rights as well as obligations to both parties to the Agreement -- Rights and obligations arising out of an Agreement could not be transferred by one of the parties to the Agreement without the consent of the other parties.
Sreeraj v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.120B, 409 & 420 -- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 13(2) & 13(1)(d) -- While quashing the FIR registered for the offences under the PC Act, liberal view is not the sanction of law.
M/s. ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, Ss.107, 129(3) Form GST MOV 07 -- Constitution of India, Art.265 -- Even if the payment was made, voluntarily or otherwise, the proper officer could not be absolved of the statutory obligation to pass a reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09 and upload the corresponding summary in Form GST DRC-07.
Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. v. Additional Director of Income Tax
India and UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Art.5 -- One of the sine qua non for a fixed place PE is that the place through which the business is carried on must be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise -- A principle commonly referred to as the "disposal test".
India and UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Art.5(2)(i) -- Once it is found that there is continuity in the business operations, the intermittent presence or return of a particular employee becomes immaterial and insignificant in determining the existence of a permanent establishment.
Suresh v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Whenever police conduct a search or seizure, video graphing the same is crucial as it brings transparency to searches, deterring any planting or tampering with evidence and protecting officers from false allegations and immediate submission of the video to a magistrate adds a layer of accountability and preserves the chain of custody.
Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala
Companies Act 2013, S.248 -- When a company is dissolved or came to an end by operation of law, then also the offence committed by the company can be prosecuted, because striking off or dissolution does not erase liability of the company and in such cases the company has to be restored to the register.
Companies Act 2013, S.252 -- Aggrieved parties or regulators like ROC, SEBI, IT Department, may apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for restoration, within three years from the date of dissolution or striking off.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G and M Industrial Products Land Mark Enclave
Redressal of Public Grievances Rules 1998, Rr. 4(i) & 13(2) -- Though nowhere in the Rules there is any express exclusion of complaints submitted other than by individuals, conjoint reading of the provisions gives the impression that the Rules were intended for redressal of grievances of individuals -- There is no indication in the Rules that adjudication of disputes arising from policies issued on commercial lines to entities like companies, partnership or other business establishments including proprietorship concerns by the Ombudsman was envisaged under the Rules.
Redressal of Public Grievances Rules 1998, R. 4(k) -- Maintainability of complaints filed by proprietorship -- Ombudsman was erroneous in holding that proprietorship business is not separated from the owner unlike a partnership or a company and hence complaints raised by proprietors can be considered --The relevant issue which should have been addressed was as to whether a complaint pertaining to a policy obtained on commercial lines and not in an individual capacity.
Sayyad v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, S.310(2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.187(3) -- When the offence of dacoity, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, is under investigation, the right to statutory bail arises as per section 187(3)(i) of BNSS on completion of ninety days from the date of custody.
Hari v. Shine Varghese
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 & 139 -- Income Tax Act 1961-- Debt created by a cash transaction above Rs.20,000/- in violation of the provisions of Act 1961 is not a “legally enforceable debt” unless there is a valid explanation for the same.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 & 139 -- Income Tax Act 1961-- If anybody pays an amount in excess of 20,000/ to another person by cash in violation of Act 1961, and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions.
Neyyattinkara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.931 v. State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 -- Banking Regulation Act 1949 -- Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala) – The State Commissioner for persons with Disabilities has no authority to issue a direction to the bank to appoint a physically disabled person in a permanent post of peon in the bank.