Weekly Roundup (Aug 11 - Aug 17, 2025)
2025 (4) KLT 675 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2376
Neethu v. Pradeep
Family Courts Act 1984 -- Whether an Original Petition can be maintained by a wife even against her husband-whether divorced or otherwise-for compensation for defamation.
2025 (4) KLT 678 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2137
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
2025 (4) KLT 681 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2290
Badusha v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 42 (2) -- The term ‘immediate official superior’ in Section 42(2) of NDPS Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that destroys the purpose of the provision.
2025 (4) KLT 686 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2283
Lima Mathew v. Nirmal Mathews Babu
Guardians and Wards Act 1890 -- To even suggest that a woman be constrained, and her professional dreams be enervated solely because she fulfills her obligations as a mother, is unacceptable in today’s times and out of place with modern thought.
2025 (4) KLT 690 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2295
Cherian v. Ammini
Civil Law – Null and void document – Recovery of possession – If a document is null and void, there is no need to declare the same as null and void or to set aside the same -- It is non-est -- The plaintiff in such a case can seek recovery of possession of the properties covered by a null and void document even without declaring such document as null and void or without setting aside the said document.
2025 (4) KLT 699 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2552 (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 -- 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)).
2025 (4) KLT 705 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2508
Bindhu Varghese v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Mediclaim reimbursement -- Mediclaim reimbursements are generally made for specific expenses, such as hospital bills, which can be quantified and directly linked to a corresponding claim under the same head in the compensation awarded in the motor accident claim petition -- In such cases, to prevent duplication of compensation for the same pecuniary loss, deduction of the amount received towards medical expenses pursuant to a mediclaim policy is deductible, and the same is justifiable.
2025 (4) KLT 713 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2558
Thykandy Rajan v. District Disaster Management Authority
Disaster Management Act 2005, S. 33 – The District authority can issue an order under S.33 only to any officer or any Department at the District level or any local authority to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of disaster and not to an individual.
2025 (4) KLT 716 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2547
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.
2025 (4) KLT 720 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2553
Adv. Adeen Nazar v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.153 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Defiling the statue of Mahatma Gandhi – Immoral and illegal -- All immoral acts are not illegal acts.
2025 (4) KLT 724 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2473
AAA v. State of Kerala
Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, S. 15 -- Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (Kerala), R. 11 -- Evidence Act 1872, S.112 -- The powers conferred on a Registrar under Section 15 and Rule 11 are circumscribed and limited to the correction of clerical or formal errors or entries fraudulently or improperly made, and not matters of disputed paternity, which require a full-fledged trial and adjudication, and a judicial imprimatur.
2025 (4) KLT 729 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2554
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.
2025 (4) KLT 732 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2562
Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971, S. 2 Expln. 4(a) -- Mere lapse or inaction on the part of a person in not lowering the flown National Flag after sunset cannot be said to be an act of gross affront or indignity, or insult to the National Flag.
2025 (4) KLT 736 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2561
Director General of Police v. Rajeswari
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Ss.190 & 166 -- It is the bounden duty of the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle to have exercised ordinary care before putting the vehicle on road -- This includes regular maintenance checks, proper tyre pressure and condition, ensuring loose parts, such as nuts and bolts on tyres.
2025 (4) KLT 741 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2549
Margret v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha
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.
2025 (4) KLT 747 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2517
Noorudheen v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 Proviso (b) -- The Apex Court has not considered the situation in which the notice is served to a third person other than the accused, and there is no evidence before the court to the effect that the accused was aware of the notice served to the third person in Vinod Shivappa’s case (2006 (3) KLT 94 (SC)).
2025 (4) KLT 761 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2573 (SC)
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.439 & 438 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.483 & 482 -- No Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs -- The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case -- The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.
2025 (4) KLT 770 (F.B.) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2582 (F.B.)
Board of Directors, Kozhippally Service Co operative Bank Limited No.167 v. Joint Registrar of Co operatives (General)
Co operative Societies Act 1969 (Kerala), S. 65 (1) -- The Registrar’s discretion to hold an inquiry, only if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so, evenly applies to all situations covered by Section 65(1)(a) to (f).
2025 (4) KLT 782 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2542
Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. v. Pooja Milk Foods Private Ltd.
State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2005 (Kerala), Reg. 2 (1)(e) -- The CGRF is contemplated as a Forum for addressing the grievances of the ‘complainants’ as defined under Regulation 2(1)(e).
Chirag Sen v. State of Karnataka
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 -- While jurisdiction to quash must be exercised with caution, the law equally mandates that courts must not remain passive in the face of manifest injustice.
XXX v. Union of India
Constitution of India, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art.124, Art.141 & Art.218 -- Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 -- In-house PROCEDURE, paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) -- The in-house inquiry or its report forming part of the PROCEDURE in itself does not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally ordained procedure -- The in-house inquiry is not a removal mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional mechanism.
Sincere Securities Private Ltd. v. Chandrakant Khemka
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, S. 14 (1)(d) -- Once the adjudicating authority, by order, declares a moratorium, it would prohibit, amongst other acts, the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or is in the possession of the corporate debtor.
M/s. Shikhar Chemicals v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Practice and Procedure -- Roster -- High Courts -- When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, the Supreme Court may be compelled to step in and take corrective steps.
Shyam Kali Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Penal Code 1860 – The general proposition that merely because the witnesses were related, that would not make them interested witness – Not Followed.
Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra
Civil P.C. 1908, S. 92 -- A trust can be said to have been created for a ‘public purpose’ when the beneficiaries are the general public who are incapable of exact ascertainment -- Even if the beneficiaries are not necessarily the public at large, they must at least be a classified section of it and not a pre-ascertained group of specific individuals.
Arun Kumar v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- When the available materials show that the contention could not be entertained at the pre-trial stage and the same is a matter of evidence, quashment of the proceedings could not be considered.
Sivagami v. M/s. Vinayaka Travels
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XI R. 5 -- If a Court were to pass an order taking away the right of cross-examination, it can be only in exceptional circumstances.
- L. J. A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council Represented by Ramesh S Naik (FDA)
Advocates Act 1961, S. 24(1)(f) -- No State Bar Council(s) or Bar Council of India shall collect any fees of any amount as optional -- They shall strictly collect fees in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the judgment dt. 30.7.2024.
Jayachandran v. Vijayaleskhmi Amma
Contract Act 1872, S. 12 -- Not only from the medical evidence, but from the unreasonable and irrational conduct and behavior also, a person’s mental condition could be established.
Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- The extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions.
Rekha Sundaram v. Kerala State Co Operative Union
Service -- Recruitment -- Filling up of Vacancies -- A candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the Rules in force as on the date a consideration takes place and the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the Rules and there is no obligation on the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event the restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit.
2025 KLT OnLine 2653 (Karnt. Dharwad)
Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar v. State of Karnataka
Karnataka Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules 2010 -- When an application for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that no vacancy exists in the institution where his father was working,it is a clear contravention of the mandate under Clause 1(a) and (b) of the Rules 2010.
Secretary, Kunchachaman Samithi v. Travancore Devaswom Board
Constitution of India Art.226 -- When a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation -- If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter.
Gowri Sankari v. State of Kerala
Disaster Management Act 2005, S. 51 -- Comments against contributions to Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund -- Comments alerting the members of a WhatsApp group to be cautious while making the contributions will not amount to refusal of a direction issued under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, S. 192 -- Police Act 2011 (Kerala), S. 120(o) -- By no stretch of imagination can fair criticism of governmental action be termed as something done with the intention to provoke others to commit rioting.
Biswajit Mandal v. Inspector,Narcotic Control Bureau
Constitution of India Art. 22 (2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 43 -- Criminal. P.C. 1973, S. 46 – The period of twenty-four hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police, but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed.
Words and Phrases – ‘Arrest’ -- Meaning of -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 43 -- Criminal. P.C. 1973, S. 46 – Whenever there is a complete restraint on the freedom of movement or a person is held against his interests in curtailment of his liberty by a person in authority, it can be said that the said person is under arrest -- Actual restraint either by word or action or conduct would suffice.
Dr. Vinu V Gopal v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.304 – Medical Negligence – FIR quashed -- For attracting the offence under Section 304A, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.
Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Penal Code 1860, S.120B -- When the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the accused, who is an Assistant Superintendent of Jail – a role that demands the highest standards of integrity, responsibility and adherence to the rule of law, there is no mitigating factor to warrant any leniency in sentence commensurating with the his culpability and call for neither reduction nor interference.
Santhosh Kumar v. Syamala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.473 – Condonation of delay -- The trial court ought to have considered whether the reason offered by the prosecutor to condone the delay is genuine and reasonable or not – Condoning the delay without ascertaining the veracity of the reason is incorrect.
Vanashakti v. Union of India
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, Schedule Item 8(a) column 5 Note -- The exemption of applicability of 2006 notification, by way of Note 1 in column 5 of Entry 8(a) of the impugned notification, to the projects or activities for industrial shed, school, college and hostel for educational institution does not appear to be in tune with the purpose for which the Environment Protection Act has been enacted.
Dr. S.P. Malarkannan v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 7, 13(1)(d)(i) & 13(1)(d)(ii) -- Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act, where there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
Karunanithi v. State represented by Inspector of Police
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 7, 13(1)(d)(i) & 13(1)(d)(ii) -- To convict a person under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non.
Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, S. 3 -- Constitution of India Art.142 – Custody of children given to adoptive parents by considering best interest of children.
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.483 – Penal Code 1860,Ss.308, 323, 325, 341, 506, 188, 269 & 34 -- Arms Act 1959, Ss. 25, 54 & 59 – An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail -- The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution -- The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail.
Kamal Gupta v. M/S L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 11(6), 35 & 42A -- Code of Civil Procedure 1908, S.151 – The sole arbitrator having been appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act on 22.03.2024, nothing further was required to be done in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) thereafter -- The Court had become functus officio after the sole arbitrator was appointed and the proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Act had been disposed of.
Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. State of Maharashtra
Caste certificate – Scheduled Tribe – Affinity test -- With the change in times, migration and modernisation, the joining of people from the tribal population in the mainstream of the society, the fact that they are not in a position to recollect the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc., of their tribe cannot be solely a ground ipso facto to deny the said claim.
2025 KLT OnLine 2669 (P. and H.)
Amit Rana @ Meeta v. State of Haryana
Penal Code 1860, Ss.364 & 364A -- Considering the time which is likely to take for the turn of this appeal for actual hearing, the amount of ransom being Rs. 50,000/-, coupled with the gun shot injury on leg (right thigh), which is a non-vital part of the body, and the applicant’s custody of more than 8 years 03 months with remission and more than 7 years and 1 months without remission, are sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence.
All Kerala Retail Ration Dealers Association v. State of Kerala
Petroleum Act 1934, S. 7 -- Kerosene Control Order 1968 (Kerala), O. 13 -- Door to door delivery of ration kerosene to the Fair Price Shops -- State of Kerala and the Controller of Rationing directed to take steps to order door delivery of ration kerosene to the Fair Price Shops though kerosene wholesale dealers -- Any coercive proceedings against the Fair Price Shop owners in the matter of non lifting of kerosene due to the transportation issue shall stand stayed till the Government takes a decision in this regard.
Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana
Penal Code 1860, Ss.323, 406, 498A & 506 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 -- Constitution of India, Art.142 -- Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on in their lives individually, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose -- In appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring quietus to personal disputes that have run their course.
Rejanish v. Deepa
Constitution of India, Art.145(3) -- The minimum number of Judges, for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any Reference under Article 143 shall be five.
2025 KLT OnLine 2675 (P. and H.)
Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.167(2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.187(2) -- If the Investigators are unable to complete their investigations within the specified time frame, then an accused, if arrested and in custody, cannot be kept in custody beyond the timeframe specified by the Statute(s) and even the issuance of office orders, notifications, or framing of rules cannot divest the Magistrates of their powers under Section 187 of BNSS, 2023, or Section 167 of CrPC, 1973, to grant the default bail.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.167(2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.187( 2) -- If the Investigators are unable to complete their investigations within the specified time frame, then an accused, if arrested and in custody, cannot be kept in custody beyond the timeframe specified by the Statute(s) and even the issuance of office orders, notifications, or framing of rules cannot divest the Magistrates of their powers under Section 187 of BNSS, 2023, or Section 167 of CrPC, 1973, to grant the default bail.
M/s. Activitas Management Advisor Private Limited v. Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 11 -- When the agreement between the parties states that, “client hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai” it must be understood in the context of arbitration and therefore the seat of the arbitration must be taken to be Mumbai.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 11 -- When the agreement between the parties states that, “client hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai” it must be understood in the context of arbitration and therefore the seat of the arbitration must be taken to be Mumbai.
2025 KLT OnLine 2678 (Bom. Auran.)
Shivshankar v. Sanjay
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Court Fees Act 1959 (Maharashtra), S. 7(2)(ii) -- There is no provision either in the Motor Vehicle Act or in the Maharashtra Court Fees Act to indicate that it is not permissible to restrict the claim for the purpose of Court fees.
Rubeesh Shamsudheen v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 51(5) -- By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9, the transferor or the person who ceases to be in possession or control of the vehicle, would still be held liable along with the transferee, as far as the liability to pay “the said tax” , which is, the tax that remained unpaid at the time of transfer, is concerned.
Saiby v. Mary
Succession Act 1925, S. 78 -- A Will cannot be said to be invalid merely because there is a discrepancy in the description of the property -- Inconsistency, if any, in the description of the property will have to be reconciled to give effect to the intention of the testator.
XXX v. None
Muslim Personal law (Shariat) Application Act 1937, S. 2 -- When parties to the Muslim marriage come to an agreement to mutually dissolve their Nikah, they are at liberty to do so and by virtue of this mutual agreement, the Nikah stands dissolved.