Weekly Roundup (Jun 23 - Jun 28, 2025)
2025 (3) KLT 779 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2122
Haridasan v. Padmavathi Amma
Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 (Kerala) – Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Madras) – A reading of Section 3(c) of the Act XXII of 1933 shows that in the absence of an eldest male member, the eldest female member is entitled to manage the affairs of the family
2025 (3) KLT 791 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2109
State of Kerala v. Thankamma Mathew
Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss. 28A & 4(1) – Constitution of India, Art.300A – In matters involving compulsory acquisition of lands from citizens it would be the duty of the Court to try and ensure that, notwithstanding the technical objections to their claim for compensation, they are paid compensation at par with what has already been paid to other persons from whom lands were compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the same project.
2025 (3) KLT 795 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2039
State of Kerala v. Rajeev
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (Kerala), Part II R. 39 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, Ss. 3, 20(1), 20(2) & 45 – If any public place remains inaccessible to differently abled persons, that failure cannot be construed to their detriment – A differently abled person cannot be subjected to disciplinary or other actions due to the Government’s failure to provide a physical environment conducive to his abilities.
2025 (3) KLT 799 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2083
Dipin Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala
Police Act 2011 (Kerala), S.120(o) – To attract the offence under Section 120(o) of the KP Act, a person should cause a nuisance of himself to any other person through a means of communication.
2025 (3) KLT 803 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2111
Deepa v. Permanent Lok Adalat
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, Ss. 22C(1) & 22A – Merely because the insured did not raise a dispute the delayed issue of policy by itself does not curtail the right of the petitioner to seek refuge under the provisions of the Act.
2025 (3) KLT 807 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2121
Secretary cum Manager, Majilis Arts and Science College (Autonomous) v. National Council
National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993 – National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014 – Recognition and Affiliation – Compliance of timeline – When the NCTE itself has not adhered to the timeline prescribed in Maa Vaishnoo Devi Mahila Mahavidyala (2012 (4) KLT Suppl.79 (SC)), the NCTE cannot put the blame on the petitioner College for no fault of theirs.
2025 (3) KLT 822 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1920
Soni Gabriel v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.XIV (A) R. 37(2) – Education – G.O.(MS) No.198/79/G.EDN Dt.22.11.1979 – G.O.(MS) No.198/79/G.Edn. Dt.22.11.1979 nowhere states that seniority for appointment as Headmaster should be based on the seniority in the category of HST.
Sujith Kumar v. State of Kerala
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, S. 21(2) – The expression, 'amount and particulars of their claims' would include their claims with respect to compensation as well, wherefore, a factum which affects the compensation, namely the classification of the land, should also be read into Section 21(2) for a meaningful purpose, as contemplated in the statute.
Ria Thomas v. Tata Realty And Infrastructure Ltd.
Interpretation of Statutes -- Consumer Protection Act 2019, S. 38(3)(c) -- Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020, R. 12(4) & 12(9) – When there is a conflict between the provision contained in the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules made thereunder, the stipulations contained in the Act would prevail over the provisions in the Rules.
Prasath v. State of Kerala
Police Manual (Kerala) -- Constitution of india, Art.19 & Art.21 -- What is permitted by the provision is only, 'informal watching' of history sheeters and 'close watch' over those leading criminal existence -- Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permit domicile visits at night.
St. Mary's English Medium School v. State of Kerala
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, Ss. 18 & 19 – When the Schedule contemplates a building to have a playground, it means it should have a playground of sufficient area in which sports can be played.
Nowfal Salam v. Principal Sub Registrar
Registration Act 1908, Ss.17(2)(xii) & 89(4) -- Constitution of India, Sch.VII List III Entry 47 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, R. 9(6) -- Stamp Act 1959 (Kerala), Ss. 2(j) & 34 -- A certificate of sale of immovable property issued by the authorised officer of banks or financial institutions does not constitute a conveyance, nor is it an instrument that is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act -- The mere act of filing a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1, as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, does not attract stamp duty.
Hakkim v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, 67 & 37 -- Constitution of India, Art. 21 -- When a case is made out for grant of bail, Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail, even if the allegations of the prosecution are very serious as otherwise, it would turn out to be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, 67 & 37 -- After the final report is filed, the prosecution cannot rely upon the statement of the accused under Section 67 of NDPS Act as the sole material to connect an accused with the crime -- There must be some other incriminating material to connect the accused with the crime.
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.
Vadakara Muncipality v. Municipal Nikuthi Dayaka Samithi
Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules 2011(Kerala), R. 16(7) – The revision under sub rule (7) is a remedy provided to a person having objection against the decision taken by the Standing Committee either on an appeal under sub rule (1) or by a decision taken by the Sub Committee either on a complaint or suo motu -- The Rule does not contemplate submitting of appeals to Standing Committee by persons other than aggrieved owners of buildings.
Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules 2011 (Kerala), R. 16 -- Going by the scheme of Rule 16 remedies are available only to the owners of buildings who have objection against the assessment made by the Secretary.
George Alexander v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.321, 397 & 401 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss. 360,438 & 442 – The accused cannot challenge the order u/S. 321 of Cr.P.C (360 of BNSS) purely on merits, seeking reappreciation of evidence.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.321, 397 & 401 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.360 – If the trial court fails to exercise its discretion judicially while taking a decision either to grant or decline consent for withdrawal from prosecution by considering all materials placed before it independently and applying its mind to find out whether application is moved in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, the order passed by it is amenable to revision before the High Court.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.321, 397 & 401 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.360,438 & 442-- If the order passed under Section 360 of BNSS (Section 321 of Cr. P.C.) is vitiated by non- application of mind, the accused has every right to bring it to the notice of the High Court by way of a revision.
Laly Joseph v. Chazhikattu Hospitals Private Limited
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 9 & 11(6) -- Any finding entered into by the Court dealing with Section 9 Application is not an absolute finding -- The finding in the Order disposing of Section 9 Application is not binding on either the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) or the Arbitrator appointed by the High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 11 – The High Court under referral jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, has only very limited jurisdiction to examine whether a non-signatory is a ‘veritable’ party to the Agreement or not -- If such examination is complex in nature and requires deeper enquiry, the Court has to leave it for the Arbitrator to decide.
Lake Mount Educational Society v. Global Educational Trust
Trade Marks Act 1999, S. 2(1)(h) -- When the school of the plaintiff is referred to by its name, the phonetic representation alone is relevant and the visual representation is irrelevant.
Saneer v. State of Kerala Represented by Sub Inspector of Police
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.233 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 22(c) -- The accused is facing a charge u/s. 22(c) of the NDPS Act, which exposes him to a minimum sentence of 10 years and a minimum fine of Rs.1 lakh -- Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the trial Court to ensure that the proceedings also demonstrate that a fair chance was given to the accused to adduce evidence in defence, if any.
Mathai v. Senior Enforcement Officer
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, S.130 -- Proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the Act would be without jurisdiction if notice is not served on the person interested and the owner.
Jasmin Shaji v. State of Kerala
Prisons and Correction Services (Management) Act 2010 (Kerala), S. 42 -- Prisons and Correction Services (Management) Rules 2014(Kerala), R.339(2) – Constitution of India, Arts.226 & 21 -- Emergency parole for the convict sentenced to death -- It is the duty of the constitutional court to see that the fundamental needs and basic rights of a prisoner is protected till the sentence is finally executed.
Aathika Mariyam Bindu Nowfal v. University of Kerala
Education -- Equivalence Certificate -- The Equivalence Certificate granted by the Association of Indian Universities is sufficient for the qualification for admission to a bachelor’s degree.
Varghese C.Philip Kutty v. Varghese Mathai
Succession Act 1925, S. 63(c) – Evidence Act 1872, S. 68 -- There is nothing in law which prevents a scribe being an attesting witness provided that he intends to affix his signature as an attesting witness -- The requirement under Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 63(c) of the Succession Act 1925 cannot be laid down in a rigid manner and it requires to be interpreted depending on the facts of each case.
Succession Act 1925, S. 63 -- There is no requirement of law under Section 63 of the Act that a scribe should affix the signature in the Will.
Hisham Transports v. Food Safety Standards Authority of India
Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Ss. 34 & 26 -- Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives Regulations 2011 – Petitioners having registered under the Act 34 of 2006 are bound by Section 26 and incumbent to assert the exact nature of the water being supplied, if they contend that they do not fall within the categories specified in the Regulations of 2011, and that no notices can be issued to them.
Rajendra Kumar v. State of Kerala
States Reorganisation Act 1956, S. 76 -- Irrespective of manner by which the relinquishment of the plaint schedule property took place in favour of erstwhile State of Travancore, once Act 37 of 1956 was promulgated, the State of Kerala became the custodian of all the assets of the erstwhile princely State -- When there is a statutory vesting of the property, in the favour of the State of Kerala, the plaintiff’s cannot be heard to contend that the relinquishment in the year 1952 was not proper and hence the consequent holding is also invalid.
Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Customs Act 1962 -- Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 -- Notification No.96/2009 dated 11.09.2009 – Advance Authorization Scheme -- In as much as the classification of the imported items had no bearing on the legality of imports for the purposes of the advance authorization scheme, and the authorities entrusted with the administration of the said scheme have not viewed the different descriptions used by the assessee at the time of import of the product under the advance authorization scheme to be in breach of the terms and conditions of the advance authorization, the stand of the Revenue that the assessee would lose the benefit of the notification in question, cannot be accepted.
Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd.
Registration Act 1908, S. 17(1) & 49 -- Registration (Kerala Amendment) Act, 2012 – There is nothing in the newly introduced provisions or in Section 49 that supports the proposition that an unregistered document can be used in a suit for specific performance only for the limited purpose of claiming alternate relief, such as a refund of the payment made towards the purchase price or earnest money.
Chief Engineer, PWD National Highways v. Satheek
Constitution of India Art.226 – Contract Act 1872 – Interest Act 1978, S. 3 -- Interest on delayed payment – Arriving at an amount of interest by summarily fixing the rate at 12% in a Writ Petition, basing on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in appeals arising out of civil disputes cannot be termed as legally correct and tenable.
Constitution of India Arts.226 & 142 – Contract Act 1872 – Interest on delayed payment – It may not be proper for the High Court to fix rates of interest on amounts payable under works contracts exercising discretionary power akin to that exercised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Anilkumar v. Vasudevan
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.118 & 139 --- When prosecution is launched on dishonour of a cheque, on evidence, the consideration involved in the cheque and the transaction thereof are found to be an outright impossibility, then the same is indicative of the fact that the complainant failed to prove his initial burden regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque and the presumptions would not apply.
Biju v. Ayyappan
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.210 & 210(1)-- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.233 & 233(1) – Penal Code 1860, Ss.324,326 & 34 – For clubbing the two cases for trial it is enough that congnizance is taken by the Magistrate of any offence against any accused in the complaint case in the report of the police who investigated the occurrence which led to the complaint case -- It is not necessary that all the offences and all the accused in the complaint case and the police case should be the same.
Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – The court should assess the entire testimony of a witness, considering its overall consistency and coherence, rather than focusing on isolated statements.
Binu Sebastian v. Yousuf
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 --- When there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant that the cheque was issued for the amount borrowed by the accused from the complainant and the issuance of cheque is towards the balance amount due for the work the complainant had done is the defence case, the trial court went wrong in finding that the case of the accused is more probable and the accused did not issue cheque for the discharge of the liability as alleged in the complaint.
Anzar v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial --- Merely because the Prosecutor failed to tender the arrest memo in evidence, that by itself is insufficient to acquit an accused, where evidence is available to prove the guilt of the accused.
M/s. M.D. Esthappan v. Reserve Bank of India
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 26E - Banking Regulation Act 1949, S. 21 - If, at the stage of classification of the loan accounts as NPA, the writ petitioners-borrowers do not bring to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and allowed the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to go through, then they will be precluded from raising it at the belated stage.
Dr. Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala
University Act 1974(Kerala), S. 10(19) – The specific use of the word “arrangement” (and not “appointment”) in Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974 indicates the legislative intention of a broader and more flexible scope, taking note of the temporary nature of this arrangement.
Rajiv Nahar v. Gopakumar
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, S. 43(5) -- The statute does not provide that in all cases, the pre-deposit has to be insisted and only in an appeal preferred by the promoter, the pre-deposit is required -- The Tribunal is bound to consider the question as to whether the appellants are promoters or not and depending upon the further orders, has to proceed with the appeal.
Murukan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.256 & 266 -- When issuing summons to defense witnesses, the court primarily need to ensure that the application is not intended for vexation or delay the proceedings and that the evidence of the witness/witnesses sought to be summoned, is relevant to the case and is relevant to the defense of the accused and the same is necessary for the just decision of the case.
Southern Railway v. Jeena Jose
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987,Ss. 22A & 22C(1) – When the carriage of passengers by air, road and water is specifically included, by omitting the inclusion of Railways, the legislature has deemed it fit not to extend the benefits of the Act with respect to the service provided by the Railways.
Mariyappan v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C.1973, S.332 --- The Magistrate or court cannot mechanically or blindly rely on a medical certificate issued by a psychiatrist as if it is the end of the matter and if the accused is put to trial without arriving at the independent satisfaction after independent scrutiny of the facts and circumstances to ensure that the rights of the accused are fully safeguarded and by recording the finding to that effect, the trial itself will be vitiated.
Southern Gold Private Ltd. v. Federal Bank Ltd.
RBI Master circular No. RBI/DOS/2024-25/118 Dt.15.07.2024 – Non Performing Asset -- The banks are duty bound to follow the directions of the Apex Court in Rajesh Agarwal’s (2023 KLT OnLine 1243 (SC)) and also the conditions in the master circular dated 15.07.2024 issued by the Reserve Bank of India -- Banks to ensure that the opportunity of hearing, including an opportunity to file a detailed objection to the findings in the forensic audit report is afforded before taking a final decision as to whether the account is to be classified as fraudulent.