Weekly Roundup (Jul 14 - Jul 20, 2025)
2025 (4) KLT 227 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2166
Mohankumar v. Union of India
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, S.8 -- Challenge against order under PML Act by invoking Article 226 -- Unless there is an extraordinary situation, the High Court need not interfere with an order passed under Section 8 of the PML Act, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2025 (4) KLT 237 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1897
Travancore Regal Resorts Ltd. v. District Collector
Land Tax Act 1961 (Kerala) -- Transfer of Property Act 1882, S.54 -- Registration Act 1908, S.17(1)(b) -- Companies Act 2013, S.366(1) -- Companies Act 1956, S.565 -- Even a partnership firm is entitled for being registered as provided in Section 565 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2025 (4) KLT 247 (SC) : 2025 KLT OnLine 1929 (SC)
Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnawar
Contract Act 1872, S.27 – Whether the employment contract clause stipulating the employee to work for a minimum term and in default to pay liquidated damage is violative of Section 27 of the Contract Act.
2025 (4) KLT 255 : 2024 KLT OnLine 3511
Shanavas v. Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department
Contract Act 1872 -- Tender -- Termination -- An opportunity of being heard and of preferring objections prior to a drastic step as termination of contract at the risk and cost of a contractor, is the sine qua non of a fair procedure -- This cannot be violated, even if there had been review meetings in the past.
2025 (4) KLT 257 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2219
Xavier Raj v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.227 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.250, 438 & 442 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, S. 14A -- An order passed in a discharge petition is not an interlocutory order, and it is an intermediate order -- In such case, an appeal is maintainable under Section 14A of the Act, 1989.
2025 (4) KLT 261 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1418
Confident Projects India (P) Ltd. v. Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, Ss.40, 43(5), 57 & 58 -- The pre-deposit made by the promoter at the first appeal stage enables him to file the second appeal without any further deposit
2025 (4) KLT 264 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2236
Kumaran v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.326 – If the instrument used to cause grievous hurt is an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting (such as a gun, knife, sword, etc.), it is not necessary to prove that such an instrument is likely to cause death -- The prosecution needs to establish that the weapon used for causing grievous hurt is likely to cause death only in a case of ‘any instrument’ which falls under the second category.
2025 (4) KLT 271 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2253
Sini v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.16 -- Service – Reservation -- Selection process – A reservation cannot be claimed based on fortuitous circumstances, and if at the time of notification the reservation cannot be claimed, it cannot be claimed subsequently.
2025 (4) KLT 274 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2241
Thrissur Corporation v. Sangeetha Hotels
Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules 2011 (Kerala), R.4(4) -- Constitution of India, Art.265 & Art.243X -- The Rules is to bring to the notice of the people within the territorial limits of a local area, the rates of property tax fixed by the local authority in respect of their properties within those territorial limits.
2025 (4) KLT 283 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2243
xxxxxxxxxx v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, Ss.82, 2(24) & 2(21) -- A teacher who subjects a child to corporal punishment in a school for the purpose of disciplining or reforming the child, cannot be charged with an offence under Section 82 of the J.J. Act.
2025 (4) KLT 300 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2224
Susan John v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.386(b)(iii) -- While entertaining an appeal from a conviction, the appellate court, though entitled to alter the finding and nature and extent of the sentence, cannot enhance the sentence.
2025 (4) KLT 304 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2262
Saju v. Shalimar Hardwares
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- The service of notice on the relative of the accused is not sufficient, especially when there is no evidence from the side of the complainant that the accused was aware of the service of notice on his relative.
2025 (4) KLT 308 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2263
Mohammedali v. Union of India
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, Ss.26(1), 26(2), First Schedule Sl. No.1 & First Schedule Sl. No.3 -- S.O. 425(E) Dt. 09.02.2016 -- It would be unreasonable and unfair to fix a multiplication factor as applicable to urban areas solely for the acquisition under the 2013 Act -- In the absence of a notified urban area in Lakshadweep from where the distance to the project area can be measured for the purposes of Sl.No.2 under the First Schedule to the 2013 Act, the project area had to be treated as a rural area and the multiplication factor taken as 2 [two] -- It might be apposite to note in this connection that vide notification S.O.425(E) dated 09.02.2016, the Central Government has notified that in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied shall be 2 [two].
2025 (4) KLT 314 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2242
Shahina v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S.37 – The period of custody has no bearing in the matter of bail in a case involving commercial quantities of drugs under the NDPS Act.
2025 (4) KLT 326 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2259
Jayasree v. Sindhu Ajayan
Evidence Act 1872, S.68 -- Mere admission by the plaintiff regarding the ‘Will’, will not ipso facto enable the defendants to contend that the Will need not be proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act -- The defendants could always contend that the admission of the Will by the plaintiff would prove a long way to show the genuineness of the Will
2025 (4) KLT 333 : 2025 KLT Online 2260
Chandy Chandy v. District Collector
Land Assignment Rules 1964 (Kerala), R.8(1) & 8(3) -- Rule 8(1) provides for the power to resume lands on discovery of a mistake/fraud etc. -- Since the statutory provision itself indicates that the monitoring period for the Patta is only 25 years and that if any action, for cancellation of the Patta for breach of the conditions under which it was granted, is taken, it has to be taken within that time.
Gavaz v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.307 -- If a person commits an act with intention or knowledge that under such circumstance if death has been caused the offence would amount to murder or the act itself is of such nature as would cause death in the usual course of its nature, then the person said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, for which, the victim shall not suffer any injury/injuries fatal to him.
Suresh Babu v. Varadarajan
Civil P.C. 1908, O.VIII R.6A -- Once the tenant admits the jural relationship and does not dispute the termination of tenancy, the landlord is well within his rights to utilize the platform of the tenant’s suit to seek recovery of possession by filing a counter claim.
Aneesha v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.8,118(a),138 & 139 -- In a case where the ‘cash cheque’ is issued, the person who is in possession of the ‘cash cheque’ cannot be treated as a ‘holder’ and consequently, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act is not applicable to such cheques.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.118(g),138 & 139 -- A person in possession of a ‘cash cheque’ cannot be treated as a ‘holder’ of a cheque as defined in Section 8 of the N.I Act, but a person in possession of a ‘cash cheque’ is a ‘holder in due course’.
Suhyb v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Ss.218(1) & 223(2) – When dealing with complaints alleging commission of offence by a public servant in course of the discharge of his official function or duty, the Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 223(2) of BNSS.
Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby
Practice and procedure – Roster – A litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble Chief Justice as per the roster.
M/s. Artech Realtors Private Ltd. v. Savithri
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016,S.43(5) –The contention put forth placing reliance on the dictum in Sivaraman (2009 (3) KLT 482), Muhammadkutty (1978 KLT 619), Varkey (1980 KLT 632 (F.B) that the word ‘any’ used before the word ‘decision’ does not mean that every ‘Order’ passed in the proceeding by the Tribunal is appealable cannot be accepted -- The contention that no appeal would lie from an order rendered by the Appellate Tribunal in an I.A. cannot be accepted.
Indo Thai Calicut Private Ltd. v. Airport Director, Airport Authority of India
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S.11(6) -- When a dispute resolution mechanism is provided in an Agreement, the parties can seek reference to arbitration provided therein only after exhausting the previous modes for dispute resolution.
Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi)
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 -- Civil Services (Pension Rules) 1982 (Maharashtra), R.2(a) – A mere estrangement would not disentitle the husband from the benefits due to the family of a deceased employee.
Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug
Advocates Act 1961,S.16(2) -- The process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal influences -- The conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and institutional integrity.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 --- When the delay is not the sole responsibility of the claimants, in that circumstance necessarily interest must run from the date of filing of the claim petition, to the date of payment.
Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy
Criminal P.C.1973, S.482 --- The pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.
Pandurangan v. Jayarama Chettiar
Civil P.C. 1908, O.VII R.11 --- Enquiry into the question whether the ex parte decree would or would not operate as res judicata barring a new suit, could not be decided under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, based on the averments made in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief.
M/s. House Master Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.I Corporation
Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Ss.39, 40, 44 & 45 -- If an Authority acts on the basis of an Inspection Report to fix any liability on any person, it is elementary that the Authority shall give opportunity to such person to represent against the proposed action after providing copy of the inspection report and thereafter pass a speaking order considering the representation, if any, made by such person.
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.
M/s. Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ahmedabad III
Drugs and Cosmetics (3rd Amendment) Rules 2011 -- Notification No. GSR 899(E) - Notification No.25/2012-ST Dt. 20.06.2012 -- Healthcare Services -- Services relating to enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells – fall within the definition of "Healthcare Services", so as to qualify for exemption from service tax .
Vibhor Garg v. Neha
Evidence Act 1872, S.122 -- The privacy of communication exists between spouses, as has been recognised by Section 122, but the said right of privacy cannot be absolute and has to be read also in light of the exception provided in Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
IBS Software Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Income Tax Act 1961, S.144C(1) -- Procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory -- Failure to follow the procedure by the assessing officer is a fatal error.
Appachan v. S.I. of Police
Cinematograph Act 1952, S.7(1)(b) – Simply because a movie contains a scene creating panic or distress to its viewers, it will not constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act unless it is established that the said scene was not part of the original film certified by the Censor Board and it was an interpolation.
Assistant Engineer KSEB Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority
Electricity Act 2003 – LT – IV(A) – The activity of freezing carried on in the chilling section was only an integral part of the industrial activity and the same would attract the classification under LT-IV(A) alone.
Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.372 -- The right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC.
Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.141(2) & 138 -- A director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company cannot be proceeded against per se by virtue of the position they hold in the company but can be proceeded against only when there is proof that the offence under Section 138 was committed by the company with their consent or connivance or due to negligence on their part.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881,Ss.138 & 141(2) --There is no separate liability on each of the partners unless sub-section (2) of Section 141 applies, when negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of any individual partner of the firm has been proved.
Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Constitution of India, Art.14 & Art.320(3) -- University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 -- The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution -- Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned, and not arbitrary.
Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya
Constitution of India, Art.142 --- When the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law, it a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and grant the relief of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Kannur University Act 1996 -- University reviewing its own order recognizing educational agency -- Whether Sustainable -- Unless a statute provides for review, orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities are generally considered final, subject to challenge through appeals or judicial review by higher courts -- Allowing self-review without statutory backing would lead to uncertainty and endless litigation.
Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar
Family Courts Act 1984, S.7 -- Guardians and Wards Act 1890 – The core and inalienable standard is the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare, which is affected by an array of factors, is ever evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket.
Chathu Kottollathil v. Parveettil Haris
Partnership Act 1932, S.14 -- What is to be looked into is the conduct of the parties and their intention as to whether they intended to bring the plaint schedule property into the stock of the firm.
Partnership Act 1932, S.14 – A property exclusively belonging to an individual partner will become the property of the partnership only if there is an agreement to treat the property as that of the partnership -- The intention of the parties in that respect is the deciding factor.
Sobin v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Art.19(1)(g), 21 & 226 -- Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 (Kerala), S.40(2) -- Obstruction to conduct technical study to ascertain the effect of blasting in the watertank and effect on the stability of slopes -- Police protection granted – Every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law -- Whether such an avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide.
Mala Devi v. Union of India
Railway Pension Rules 1993, R.75 -- Benefit of family pension is accrued to the family of the deceased railway servant who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous service, without any discrimination, whether the post was temporary or had been regularized.
Shiv Baran v. State of U.P.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.319 – The power to be exercised is to be with utmost caution and not in a casual, callous or cavalier manner – for the same is only to advance the cause of justice and not be a tool to harass the individual or result into an abuse of the process of law.
Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand
Penal Code 1860, Ss.376,377 & 302 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Ss.5 & 6 -- The Courts below have only commented on the brutality of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the appellant -- No other circumstance came to be discussed by the Courts in reaching the conclusion that the case forms part of the “rarest of the rare” category -- Such an approach cannot be sustained.
Torrent Power Limited v. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission
Electricity Act 2003, Ss.16, 18, 19 & 20 -- Whilst an ERC may not directly regulate a franchisee, it exercises regulatory oversight over the distribution licensee’s functions and duties, including the process of a distribution licensee delegating some of its functions and activities to a franchisee.
Joseph v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 17(1) -- Provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act does not extend any leeway to the Presiding Officer to ignore the limitation, assuming that there are certain procedural irregularities.
District Registrar General v. Cherupushpam Roman Catholic Church Parakkadavu
Stamp Act 1959 (Kerala), Schedule Art.21, Schedule Art.22 & Schedule Art.29 -- An instrument of exchange has to be treated as a conveyance under Articles 21 or 22 for the purposes of stamp duty, with the only distinction that, for valuation purposes, only the property of the greater value, as set forth in the instrument, can be taken.
Byaluru Thippaiah v. State of Karnataka
Penal Code 1860, S.302 -- Probation Report reveals that the Appellant-convict has no antecedents -- Appeals are partly allowed to the extent that the convict is released from death row -- Instead, he shall await his last breath in prison, without remission.
All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association v. Transport Commissioner
Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala), Rr.12, 15 & 15(3) -- The Transport Commissioner or the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department cannot depart from the provisions contained in Rule 15 though the Transport Commissioner may issue instructions for conduct of driving tests effectively as per the provisions contained in Rule 15(3) -- Such instructions cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and should be for effective implementation of Rule 15.
District Collector, Wayanad v. Deviprasad
Land Conservancy Rules 1958, R.11 -- Land Conservancy Act 1958 (Kerala), S.15 – The summary power for resumption of lands, allegedly under the unauthorized occupation cannot be exercised after a considerable length of time without the Government first establishing before a Civil Court, the jurisdictional fact of the lands in question being Government lands for the purposes of the Act and Rules.
Ram Charan v. Sukhram
Constitution of India Art.14 – Female heir – Right in property – Unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination.
Gurdial Singh v. Jagir Kaur
Civil Law – Will – Proof of – When suspicious circumstances exist and have not been repelled to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court would not be justified in holding that the Will is genuine since the signatures have been duly proved and the Will is registered one.
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.
Anil v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Penal Code 1860, S.326 -- Discrepancy between medical and ocular evidence -- The ocular evidence can be undermined only when the medical evidence conclusively disproves the possibility of occurrence and cuts the root of the ocular evidence.
Criminal Trial -- Testimony of Injured Witness -- There is no illegality in convicting an accused in a criminal case on the basis of the evidence of injured witnesses, provided such evidence is convincing and reliable.
Beatrice v. Babu Louis
Civil P.C. 1908, O.II R.2(2) – Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, Order II bars a suit or other proceeding in respect of any portion of a claim that was intentionally relinquished in earlier litigation.
Civil P.C. 1908, O.IX R.9 – Termination of a previous round of litigation by non-prosecution cannot be set up as a bar under Rule 9 of Order IX if the subsequent proceeding is based on a fresh cause of action.
M/s. Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006, S.18(2) -- A settlement agreement for a time-barred claim arrived at between the buyer and supplier through conciliation under Section 18(2) is precisely in the nature of a contract recognised and declared valid under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act -- Hence, it is not correct to exclude time-barred claims from being settled through conciliation under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S.2(4) -- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006, S.18(3) -- The applicability of the ACA to arbitrations under the MSMED Act is not determined by Section 2(4) of the ACA, and is rather determined as per Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act.
Faizal v. State of Kerala
Value Added Tax Act 2003 (Kerala), S.2(xxiii) – The input tax credit can be legitimately availed by the purchasing dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, even in cases where the selling dealer failed to remit the tax due to the government, provided that the purchasing dealer has strictly complied with all statutory requirements including possession of genuine tax invoices as required under the statute.
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.
M/s. Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, Ss.2A & 7A -- Section 2A can be applied if ostensibly two separately registered entities under the Companies Act are involved.