Weekly Roundup (Dec 01 - Dec 07, 2025)
2025 (6) KLT 417 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3370
Kerala Civil Judicial Staff Organisation v. State of Kerala
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (Kerala), Part II R. 31(a)(i) – Rule 31(a)(i) enable the appointing authority to promote employees whose probation is not declared temporarily, on condition that seniority in the lower category is maintained while effecting such temporary promotion.
2025 (6) KLT 425 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3443
Devaki v. Managing Director, KSRTC
Succession Act 1925, S. 33(a), 33(b) & 33(c) -- Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala), R. 2(k) -- It is only when there are no “lineal descendants”, the question of the parents of the deceased also joining the claim petition arises
2025 (6) KLT 429 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3132
Mini v. Jacob Mathew
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, S. 20(6) -- Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Ss. 11 & 12 -- Constitution of India, Art. 215 -- Non- compliance of order to pay compensation -- The remedy is to execute the order as per the procedure established by law and not to move High Court by filing a contempt petition.
2025 (6) KLT 432 : 22025 KLT OnLine 3424
Ramesh v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 -- Constitution of India, Art. 21 -- Practice and procedure -- The request to shift the venue of the trial to a court hall situated on the ground floor of the court complex – Directions issued.
2025 (6) KLT 436 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3236
Gokul Sudarsanan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.232 Second Proviso -- The 2nd proviso to Section 232 of BNSS does not interdict the committal courts from considering applications filed by the accused or victim, while the matter is pending before the court but only makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to forward all pending applications to the Court of Session with the committal of the case -- To be more precise, the applications to be forwarded along with the committal are those applications which are pending as on the date of committal and the committal court is not prevented from deciding applications while the proceeding is pending before that court.
2025 (6) KLT 440 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3486
Jomy Joseph v. Varghese Thomas
Practice and Procedure -- Challenge against Statutory Provisions -- Scope of Interim Order -- The operation of the statutory provisions cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the Court is fully convinced that the particular enactment or the rules are ex facie unconstitutional and the factors, like balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest are in favour of passing an interim order.
2025 (6) KLT 450 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3444
Natural Wood and Veneers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 2(28) -- Where a machine is structurally capable of road movement—equipped with rubber tyres, functional steering and braking systems, lighting, and mobility features—it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28), even if it is predominantly operated within private premises -- The determinative test is road-adaptability, and machinery such as forklifts, mobile cranes, dumpers, or similar equipment, if structurally capable of being driven on roads even incidentally or occasionally, squarely falls within the definition of “motor vehicle” under the Act.
2025 (6) KLT 459 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3445
Rajeevan v. Rantin
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144 -- The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance.
2025 (6) KLT 463 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3481
Pranav Mohanan v. District Geologist
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, S. 21(1), 21(4) & 21(5) – Scope and meaning of ‘transport’ -- The focus of Section 21(4) is on seizure; and not on punishing the wrongdoer -- Therefore, the term ‘transport’ as employed in Section 21(4) has to be interpreted in the light of the very purpose for which Section 21(4) has been engrafted to the statute.
2025 (6) KLT 468 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3483
Somasekharan v. Radhakrishnan
Easements Act 1882, S. 38 -- Transfer of Property Act 1882, Ss. 11 & 40 -- When an easement of grant is made under a document, there is no question of the same being construed as a covenant and unenforceable under law.
2025 (6) KLT 476 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3362
Jissy v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, Ss. 75 & 79 -- In order to attract the offence under Section 75 J.J. Act, it is to be proved that the accused was in actual charge of the child or control over the child -- In order to attract the offence under Section 79 J.J. Act, the child should have been kept in bondage by the accused or the earnings of the child should have been used by the accused, for his own purpose.
2025 (6) KLT 480 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3246
Usman Kunju v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 68B(g), 68E & 68F -- The power to seize or freeze a property can be exercised only if there is reason to believe, based on inquiry, investigation or survey, that the property is illegally acquired -- The ‘reason to believe’ should be based on cogent materials and not mere assumptions.
2025 (6) KLT 494 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3498
Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, Ss. 3, 4, 45, 65 & 71 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.482 & 483 – Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.438 & 439 -- The conditions enumerated in Section 45 of the PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of a bail application made under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. (Sections 482 or 483 of BNSS).
2025 (6) KLT 499 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3450
Koshy Kunju v. Lalitha S. Pillai
Specific Relief Act 1963, S. 34 Proviso -- The object of the proviso is to obviate the necessity for multiple suits by preventing a person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and then subsequently seek another remedy without which the declaration granted in the former suit becomes redundant.
2025 (6) KLT 507 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3506
Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer
Income Tax Act 1961, S. 10(23BBA) – Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (Madras) Ss. 6(14) & 58 – The public religious establishments governed by the bodies or authorities referred to, are not eligible for the exemption contemplated under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
2025 (6) KLT 517 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3233
Sivadasan Nair v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 – Penal Code 1860, Ss.306 & 113 – In order to satisfy the requirement of instigation, it is not necessary that the words spoken must be capable of compelling the victims to commit suicide -- It would suffice if the instigation is suggestive of the consequence.
Manjunath v. State of Karnataka
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss.7, 8, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- The mere fact that a decoy/complainant in a trap case turns hostile would not adversely affect the case of prosecution and that conviction can be based even on the evidence of the trap laying officer, if found reliable and trustworthy.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 19(3) & 19(4) -- The Explanation to Section 19(4) would become relevant and come into play only when the question of validity or otherwise of the sanction is under scrutiny before the appellate or the revisional forum as provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 19.
Anish Anand v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.173(8) -- Further Investigation -- Further investigation is to be conducted by the same agency which conducted the earlier investigation and not by a different agency.
Manoj v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Mere variations in the narration of the incident cannot be accepted as a material discrepancy, in as much as the witnesses cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory to narrate the details of the incident in the same manner.
Criminal Trial -- Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial and even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case and if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the court is free to act on it, irrespective of the suspicious role of the investigating officers in the case.
Sagar v. State of U.P
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.439 -- Parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted.
Chandan Pasi v. State of Bihar
Criminal Trial -- One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them, which includes adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words.
A.A. Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co operative Housing Society Ltd.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, Ss. 3(27) & 14 -- Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(e) & Art. 21 -- Courts, while dealing with disputes arising from slum redevelopment, must therefore adopt a purposive and welfare-oriented approach, ensuring that the statutory objective of insolvency resolution does not defeat the social purpose of urban renewal -- The law cannot countenance a situation where insolvency protection becomes an instrument to perpetuate displacement or to defer the promise of dignified housing guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution.
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 29A -- When both parties jointly seek an extension, they signify continued consent and confidence in the tribunal -- Under Section 29A(5), even a single party may apply; the other is free to oppose; Court may, in its discretion, extend the mandate with or without substituting the arbitrator.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 12(5) & 29A -- A joint application under Section 29A amounts to a valid waiver under Section 4, save in cases of statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5) -- Any contrary view would render Section 4 redundant and distort the legislative design.
Thevan Sreedharan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.141(1)(b) -- It is only against the person who executes the bond or bail bond to keep the peace, and who violates the conditions in the bond or bail bond, can be proceeded against by ordering his arrest and detention and not to his sureties.
Tomon v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.498A -- The acts of cruelty which attract the offence under Section 498A IPC are offences committed within the privacy of matrimonial home -- The law does not mandate mathematical corroboration nor it does treat independent evidence as a pre requisite for establishing guilt under Section 498A.
Biju Ettammal v. State of Kerala
Abkari Act 1077, S. 67B -- The confiscation of the vehicle under Section 67B of the Abkari Act cannot be sustained when the petitioner is acquitted in the original criminal prosecution.
Rousanara Begum v. Salahuddin
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, S. 3 -- Constitution of India, Art. 21 -- The construction of the Act, must keep at the forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in the light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day.
Sanjeev Kumar v. Superintendent of Police CBI
Criminal Trial -- Even if the accused is a stranger to the witness, when both have sufficient time to interact so as to imprint the face of the accused in the witness’s memory for later identification, such identification is not the same as a mere dock identification and it is an identification based on the impression formed in the mind of the witness during their interaction.
Commissioner of Customs Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot v. Narsibhai Karamsibhai Gajera
Central Excise Act 1944, S. 2(f) -- If the various processes were so interlinked with each other that the end product could not be brought about without undertaking each individual process to which the final product was subjected to, the entire activity of undertaking the various processes amounted to “manufacture” for the purposes of Section 2(f) of the Act of 1944.
Aleyamma Iype v. M/s. Kerala Spinners Ltd.
Civil P.C. 1908, O. II R. 2 -- Specific Relief Act 1963, Ss. 16 & 20 -- The pleading with respect to the bar under order 2 rule 2 is a relevant criteria and consideration while exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
Jinesh v. Aswathy
Criminal P.C. 1973,S.125(4) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144(4) -- When the husband alleges that the wife is living in adultery and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC -- Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971(Maharashtra), Ss. 14(1) & 3D(c)(i) -- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 (Maharashtra), S. 2(19) -- The power of the State Government under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner.
Sajith v. State of Kerala
Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 (Kerala), Rr. 43A & 176 -- In view of the provision for no-confidence motion under Rule 43-A being the only mode by which a member could be removed from the managing committee, the decision rescinding the resolution of the committee to remove respondent from the managing committee, is within the powers of the Registrar.
Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal
Practice and Procedure -- The Police at the stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system -- The tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system.
Raju v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988, S. 3(1) -- Merely because the detaining authority had not specifically recorded that “the detenu is likely to be released on bail”, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from a non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the possibility of the detenu being released on bail.
Praveen v. State of Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007(Kerala), S. 15(1)(a) -- The minimal delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the externment order after the date of the last prejudicial activity has no serious impact at all, and the same is only liable to be discarded.
2025 KLT OnLine 3556 (J. and K.)
Sarwa Zahoor v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, Ss. 2(b), 26 & 42 -- From a plain reading of Section 26, in particular subsection (4) thereto, it is abundantly clear that the words “may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit” are of the widest amplitude and would vest in the Appellate Tribunal powers of remand as consequential to the power to set aside the order appealed against.
Paul Simon v. State of Kerala
Service Rules (Kerala), Part III R.100 -- The duty pay can only be the pay which the employee would have drawn if he were on duty -- As regards a person who is re-employed, he is governed by Rule 100 of Part III of KSR, and he will be eligible only for the pre-retirement pay minus pension towards the leave salary.
Mission Accessibility v. Union of India
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 -- Constitution of India, Art. 14, Art. 16, Art. 19 & Art. 21 -- The rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
Income Tax Act 1961, S. 197A, 197A(1), 197A(1A), 197A(1B) & 197A(1C) -- When the statute has been expressly amended through the insertion of sub-section (1B), it is a pointer to the effect that the liability on non-deduction and the requirement to check whether the payee is in receipt of interest in excess of the basic exemption limit should have to be prescribed through the statute itself.
Narayanan Kutty v. State of Kerala
Service -- Merely because the Government has adopted some of the provisions including Pay Revision applicable to the Government servants and has accorded sanction to the SPCA to make payments to their employees in that line, cannot make the SPCA employees at par with the Government servants.
Bhaskar Govind Gavate (Now Deceased) v. State of Maharashtra
Land Acquisition Act 1894 -- Absence of any grievance by other landowners would not imply that the directions issued in favour of the original petitioner either stood complied with or were inconsequential.
Canara Bank v. Rajendran
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 -- The Workmen ought to have raised the dispute within a reasonable time -- The Management could not be ordered to pay back wages for the period of delay in raising the Industrial Dispute caused by the Workmen -- Hence, whichever be the date of denial of work, in case of unreasonable delay on the part of raising the dispute, the Management could be ordered to pay back wages only from the date of raising the dispute before the District Labour Officer.
Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.120, 409, 471 & 477A -- An accused willfully not cross-examined the witnesses, despite having provided repeated opportunities, cannot contend that he would deserve acquittal because he could not cross examine certain witnesses, when an appeal being considered by the Appellate Court after 15 years of the verdict, when the availability of the witnesses for cross-examination found to be practically not possible.
Ranimol v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.200 & 482 -- By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.
Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
Practice and procedure -- Pre-arrest bail -- Any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance.
State of Karnataka v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish
Words and Phrases -- 'Residential dwelling' meaning of -- Any residential accommodation meant for long term stay can be referred to as “residential dwelling”.
Abdurahiman v. Safiya
Muslim Law -- Nikah Halala -- For a remarriage of a divorced Muslim woman with her ex-husband to be valid, the intervening marriage, its consummation, and legal dissolution are necessary.
Muslim Law -- Nikah Halala -- If a woman whose marriage to a living man subsists under the Muslim Law, marries another man, her second marriage will be batil (void) under Muslim law.
Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.161 & 319 -- While a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is not substantive evidence in itself, it may be used to corroborate the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC.
Evidence Act 1872, S. 32 --, The law does not require that a declarant of a dying declaration, at the time of making the statement, to be under the shadow of death or the expectation that death is imminent but the statement must relate either to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.
Manoharan v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing And Marketing) Corporation
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, S. 2(e), 4(5), 5 & 14 -- Exclusion from the definition of employee under Section 2 (e) requires two aspects to co-exist, ie, he must be holding a post under the Central Government or a State Government and must be governed by another Act or by any Rules providing for gratuity payment -- The latter part alone cannot be extrapolated to deny entitlement to gratuity.
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, S. 2(e), 4(5), 5 & 14 -- Receipt of amounts/emoluments under a scheme/fund evolved under law and simultaneous receipt of a statutorily ordained gratuity cannot be termed unjust enrichment.
Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swawlambi Society Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand
Self Supporting Co operative Societies Act 1996 (Jharkhand), S. 5(7) -- The certificate of registration is conclusive evidence of the existence of the cooperative society -- The State and its instrumentalities are bound by this certification and no further question should arise about the existence or authenticity of the cooperative society.
Yogendra Prasad v. State of U.P
Arms Rules 2016, R. 32 -- Before a licence can be cancelled under Rule 32, it is necessary that the authority forms an opinion as to whether any licensed fire arm was either not carried in the proper protective gear or was brandished, discharged or whether any blank firing took place in any public place or fire arm free zone.
Suryadev Pathak v. Union of India
National Highways Act 1956, S.3G(5) & 3G(6) -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss.2(1)(e)(i) & 29A(4) -- Once the statutory period prescribed under Section 29A has expired, the mandate of the arbitrator stands exhausted, and he becomes functus officio -- Any extension of the mandate can be granted only by the competent civil court upon a proper application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
National Highways Act 1956, S. 3G(5) & 3G(6) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Ss.2(1)(e)(i) & 29A(4) -- Constitution of India, Art. 226 -- The existence of a specific statutory remedy under Section 29A(4) before the competent civil court bars the maintainability of writ petitions seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings, especially when the statutory period has expired.
Regus South Mumbai Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 34 -- The Court needs to be cautious and must show deference to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if it feels that an alternate view is also possible.
Nem Kumar Jain v. Union of India
Master Direction Reserve Bank of India (Interest Rate on Deposits) Directions 2016, Cl. 4 -- Fixed deposit receipts -- When a Fixed Deposit Receipt is issued with a specific contracted rate of interest, the depositor is entitled to proceed on the basis that the terms expressly recorded therein shall continue to govern the transaction until maturity.
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. NTC Industries Ltd.
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXIX R.2(a) & 2(b) -- On a meaningful reading of sub-rule (a) and (b), it is clear that the conditions stated therein are independent to each other and cannot be read in a conjunctive manner and those are disjunctive by their nature and expressions -- If hand service of summons upon any designated person, as defined under sub-rule (a) takes place, that is sufficient and no further requirement is there to avail of any of the procedure defined under sub-rule (b) to Rule 2 under Order XXIX of CPC and vice-versa.
Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil Major
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, S.79 -- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017 (Karnataka), R.26 -- Civil P.C. 1908, Ss.2(2), 47 & O. XXI R.1 -- The order of the Adjudicating Officer or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under the Act, does not assume the mantle of a decree, within the contemplation of Section 2(2) of the CPC - such an order/orders cannot traverse the path of execution delineated under Order XXI of the CPC.