Fortnightly Updates (Jun 01 - Jun 15, 2025)
2025 (3) KLT 464 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1772
Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode v. Augustin Joseph
Explosives Rules 2008, Rr.112, 116 & 118 – Land Reforms Act 1963 (Kerala), S. 81 – Application for renewal of explosive licence refused by referring to initiation of proceedings under Act 1963 – Unless and until the proceeding under the Act 1963 culminates in the Petitioners ceasing to have any right for the lawful possession over the property, the District Magistrate under the Explosives Act and the Rules, could not have refused to renew the licence
2025 (3) KLT 470 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1800
Muhammeed Fazil v. Rasvana
Muslim Law – Talaq was pronounced without following the mandatory conditions as held in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. (2002 (3) KLT 537 (SC)) – “Talaq” is not legally valid.
2025 (3) KLT 479 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2011
Mathew B. Kurian v. National Council For Teacher Education
Bar Council of India Rules 1975, Rr. 11, 12, 28, 29 & 38 – Advocate has to be compensated for the time, skill and effort, and when a fee is stipulated and accepted by both parties, the client is legally obligated to pay
2025 (3) KLT 487 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2015
State of Kerala v. Hazeena
Service Rules (Kerala), Part I R.144 – When an employee is on deputation, it is the duty of the foreign employer to draw and disburse the arrears of salary during the period of deputation and the same cannot be fastened on the Government
2025 (3) KLT 495 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2013
Sabarimala Special Duty Employees v. Travancore Devaswom Board
Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950 (T.C.), S. 15A – Constitution of India, Art.226 – Sabarimala Special Duty Employees – In case the employees have grievance regarding the deployment of Devaswom employees on special duty at Sabarimala during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival seasons or Maasapoojas or in the preparation of the list of employees for special duty, they should approach this Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions.
2025 (3) KLT 505 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2009
Sukanth Suresh v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.482 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Ss.108, 45 & 45(a) – The crucial ingredient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide, is the element of mens rea, while the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide lies in, not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.
2025 (3) KLT 511 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2005
Arun Antony v. State of Kerala
Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 1-1-1977) Special Rules 1993 (Kerala), R. 3 – G.O.(M.S) No.450/2009(REVENUE) Dt.16.11.2009 -- When the Special Rules, 1993, do not limit the shop in the assigned property as a small shop, the Government cannot restrict the usage of the assigned land only for small shops without amending the Rules -- G.O.(M.S) No.450/2009 (REVENUE) Dt.16.11.2009 is only an expression of opinion and does not have the force of law.
2025 (3) KLT 514 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2006
Idukki District Police Co operative Society Ltd. No.1-490 v. Rasheed
Constitution of India, Art.226 – One time settlement scheme – Writ of mandamus – If the borrower had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the OTS Scheme, the writ court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the bank/financial institutions to extend the benefit of OTS Scheme.
2025 (3) KLT 518 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1985
Sreehari v. State of Kerala
Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Ss. 42(3) & 46(4) – Food Safety and Standards Rules 2011, R.2.4.6, 2.4.6:1 & 2.4.6:3 – If the Food Business Operator files appeal under Section 46(4), the Designated Officer will have to await the outcome of the second analysis, for deciding whether recommendation should be sent to sanction prosecution of the Food Business Operator.
2025 (3) KLT 536 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2017
Muraleedharan v. Malabar Devaswom Board
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (Madras), S. 49 & 49(1) – Section 49(1) of the Act while prescribing with punishments, treats suspension also as a punishment which can be ordered after following the procedure prescribed.
2025 (3) KLT 547 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2023
Bindhu Thomas v. Biju Dominic
Family Courts Act 1984, Ss. 3, 7, 19(4) & 10 – Criminal P.C. 1973, S.397 & Chap.IX – When an order is passed by the Family Court under Chapter IX and a revision is desired, it must be filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and not under Section 397 of Cr. P.C
2025 (3) KLT 565 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1773
Baburajan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.2(1)(y), 273, 395, 396 & 399 – Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.2(wa), 250, 357, 357A & 358 – The remedy available to a wrongly prosecuted or convicted person is the private law remedy by instituting a suit against the State before the ordinary civil court, claiming damages based on tort.
2025 (3) KLT 574 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1913
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate Education
Right to Information Act 2005, S.7 – Service – A Public Information Officer has no power or obligation under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to cross verify the documents on receipt of RTI Application.
2025 (3) KLT 577 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2010
Nettoor Sreedharan v. Chandran
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1959 (Kerala), S.52 & Sch.I Art.1A – Finance Act 2025 (Kerala) – The newly introduced Article 1A reduced the court fee and is beneficial to the litigant and hence the appellants in all appeals filed after 01.04.2025 arising from the proceedings mentioned in Article 1A Schedule I KCF & SV Act are liable to pay court fee at 1% as provided therein.
2025 (3) KLT 580 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2066
Zahhad v. State of Kerala
Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, S.12 -- Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (Kerala), R. 8 & Form 5 -- Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 -- Issuance of Birth Certificate to the child of transgender parents by not recording the gender of the parents -- Necessary modifications can be made in appropriate cases where the interests of the transgender persons are involved.
Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, S.12 -- Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (Kerala), R.8 -- Issuance of Birth Certificate to the child of transgender parents by not recording the gender of the parents -- All the information available with the Registering authority, need not be furnished while issuing a certificate, as the expression used is ‘extracts of the registration entries’.
Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, S.12 -- Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (Kerala), R. 8 -- Issuance of Birth Certificate to the child of transgender parents by not recording the gender of the parents -- Section 12 of the Act does not provide that all the information furnished before the Registrar and included in the Register should be included in the certificate.
2025 (3) KLT 597 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2061
Sudhin Krishna v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.VI R.3 – G.O. Dt. 30.06.2022 – When the Statutory Rule prescribes the provision for effecting the changes of the date of birth, religion and caste etc, the same authority, who has been notified by the Government vide Government Order dated 30.06.2022 will be empowered to effect changes in date of birth, caste and religion, etc. -- The Commissioner of Examination, is competent to effect the changes in caste and religion of School Leaving Certificate.
2025 (3) KLT 616 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2047
Kunjumol v. Ponnamma
Transfer of Property Act 1882, S.53A – The equitable right under Section 53A cannot be claimed for restraining the sale of suit property, but can be sought for seeking protection against dispossession.
2025 (3) KLT 622 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2037
National Collateral Management Service Ltd. v. Valiyaparambil Traders
Partnership Act 1932, S. 69(2) – Limitation Act 1908, S. 14 – The dismissal of the earlier suit on the ground of bar under Section 69(2) falls within the purview of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
2025 (3) KLT 627 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2038
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Zeenath
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – Separate notice or intimation regarding cancellation of policy is required only when the policy was cancelled after it was executed and delivered to the insured.
2025 (3) KLT 632 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2079
Selvi v. State of Kerala
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), S. 3(1) – When there is unreasonable delay in making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay.
2025 (3) KLT 638 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2069
Premkumar v. Shaiju Jacob
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S. 12(1) & 12(3) – It is only when a tenant commits default to pay the rent that subsequently falls due, by not honouring the order of the court, it would result in passing a final order under Section 12(3) of the Act.
2025 (3) KLT 641 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2068
Sheela George v. Alexander
Divorce Act 1869, Ss. 37 & 10A – For the purpose of Section 37, a decree u/S.10A can be considered as ‘obtained by the wife’, though the husband also joined her in that endeavour.
2025 (3) KLT 656 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2076
Apputty v. Yahutty
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 Proviso (b) – Presence of addi-tional claims in the demand notice would not negate its validity, provided the cheque amount is specified.
2025 (3) KLT 658 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2067
Tahsildar v. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd.
Practice and Procedure – Non-compliance of directions issued by the court – Filing of review once contempt filed after long delay – Deprecated – The State must realise that they do not stand in a privileged position vis-a-vis a citizen when it comes to matters of litigation and the procedures to be followed while pursuing the same – On the contrary, their actions must be informed by fairness and reasonableness
2025 (3) KLT 661 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2085
Thomas Mathai v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 – Environment Clearance – Decision of the SEIAA to reject the application for Clearance in difference of the SEAC’s recommendation for grant was set aside by the High Court and remanded with directions – The SEIAA again rejected without referring to the specific directions of the High Court and the recommendations of the SEAC – The orders of the SEIAA were set aside and individual members of the SEIAA were imposed with cost.
Pushpangadan v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.307 -- Even if the act does not cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years -- If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is punishable with imprisonment for life.
Benny Joseph v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.378 -- Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Abjijith v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.258 -- The court need not consider the ingredients of the offences alleged in detail while considering a Section 258 Cr.P.C. application to stop the proceedings, like an application for discharge considered by the court in the trial of warrant cases or the trial before the court of Sessions.
Sreelekha v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.319 – The trial court cannot exercise the extraordinary power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C mechanically and on guesswork based on some stray evidence that has come on record implicating the person sought to be proceeded against, unless the involvement of such a person in the commission of a crime is manifested from the evidence.
Commissioner of Cutoms v. M/s. Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Customs Act 1962, Ss.2(21) & 87 -- Merely because the vessel was not actually engaged in repair activities on any one or more days during the time charter, it could not be said that the vessel was not engaged in the activities contemplated under the agreement -- So long as it was under an existing obligation by contract to carry out the activities, the mere fact that on particular days, it was not actually engaged in carrying out those repair activities, was irrelevant.
Radhakrishnan v. Nandakumaran
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XLI R.27 -- The litigation has been pending for four decades -- The request for admitting additional evidence raised at the appellate stage, that too after a second round of trial pursuant to the remand of the case – Not allowed.
Radhakrishnan v. Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 – If a cheque is issued to secure repayment of debt or liability and if the debt is not discharged and if on the date of presentation of the cheque, the liability to pay the amount exists and if the said cheque dishonours upon presentation, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 of N.I.Act would follow.
Antony v. Kunjumol
Civil Law – Victim died because of the injuries inflicted by the elephant – Invocation of strict liability principle upheld.
Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanical Garden And Research Institute v. Padmesh Pandaram Pillai
Service Rules & Other Relevant Rules and Regulations of Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment, Rr. 3,5 & 8.9 -- An incident of retirement from service or death while in service or termination from service under Rule 3 or resignation under Rule 5, is an essential condition for claiming leave salary for the leave with salary earned by an employee of the appellant Institute, subject to the limit proscribed in Rule 8.9, and for encashment of the same.
Leela v. Vasu
Transfer of Property Act 1882, S.127 – Contract Act 1872, S. 11 -- Not only that a minor is competent to accept a non-onerous gift but, there is also a presumption of acceptance.
Dr. K. Rajagopalan v. Regha
Penal Code 1860, S.304 – Criminal Trial – If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if accepted before the cross-examination or rebutted by defence, if any, cannot show that the accused has committed the offence, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
Penal Code 1860,S.304 & 304A – Medical Negligence – An act of medical negligence, even if resulting in death, would not automatically constitute culpable homicide unless there is intent or knowledge that the death would be a likely consequence.
Sharooq Mohammed v. State of Kerala
National Medical Commission Act 2019, S.10 – Circular No: U.15024/01/2022-UGMEB Dated 19-05-2022 – GO(Rt) No.987/2025/H&FWD dated 03.04.2025 – When the NMC Act, 2019 mandates payment of stipend to medical interns for their service, the State will not be justified in levying internship fee from the Medical Graduates.
National Medical Commission Act 2019, S.10 – Circular No: U.15024/01/2022-UGMEB Dated 19-05-2022 – GO(Rt) No.987/2025/H&FWD dated 03.04.2025 -- As the NMC Circular dated 19.05.2022 unequivocally prohibits levy of internship fee and describes the levy of any internship fee as illegal, the GO dated 03.04.2025 is legally unsustainable.
XXX v. XXX
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- In a proceedings for maintenance, there is no purpose in referring the petitioners for assessing their mental status to decide the question of maintenance.
Vishnu Prasad v. Gracy Yohannan
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 -- In a prosecution alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant has an initial burden to prove the transaction, which led to execution of the cheque alleged to be issued by the accused in his favour.
State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas
Kerala Co operative Societies Act 1969 (Kerala) (As Amended by Act No. 9 of 2024) Act No.9 of 2024, Ss. 14AA, 28(2A), 32, 33, 34A, 56 & 57E -- Constitution of India, Art.19 & Art. 43B -- The right to stand as a candidate and contest election is not a common law right but a special right created by a statute and can be only exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute -- It is not a fundamental right, much less to be violative of directive principles as per Article 43B of the Constitution of India, PART IV, Directive Principles of State Policy.
Dipin Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala
Police Act 2011 (Kerala), S.120(o) – There is no specific assertion that the petitioners caused any nuisance to the complainant or any other person -- The only allegation is that the messages are derogatory and defamatory against the Kerala Chief Minister and other Ministers -- The said allegations are not sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 120(o) of the KP Act.
Rasiya v. State of Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), S.3(1) – A statement in the impugned order that if the detenu is released on bail, he would be involved in criminal activities is not sufficient to establish that the competent authority has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the case registered against him.
Suhail v. State of Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), S.15(1) – Order of externment for maximum period without assigning reasons – Non application of mind – Interfered with.
Shubha Kumar v. District Collector
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S.4 -- There cannot be an arbitrary fixation of market value based on no evidence.
Mujeeb v. Micheale Fathima
Civil P.C. 1908, S.100(4) -- The court can suo motu frame the question of law, if it feels that the Substantial question of law as such framed does not arise for consideration, but on the face of arguments advanced, a different question of law ought to be framed.
Gopala Krishnan v. Sarath Lal
Civil P.C. 1908, S.96(2) r/w O. XLI & O.IX R.13 - When regular first appeal is filed under Section 96(3) and Order 41, the court is only empowered to look into the finding entered into by the trial court while passing the exparte decree on its merits in accordance with law as in the case of a decree on contest so as to decide upon whether interference is called for inasmuch as the exparte decree is concerned.
Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple v. State of Kerala
Civil P.C. 1908, S.92 -- Points which are to be satisfied by the Court before granting an Application for leave by the Court under S.92 CPC, detailed.
XXXX v. XXXX
Criminal P.C 1973, S.482 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.450, 506(i),376(2)(f) & 376(2)(l) - Non-disclosure of a serious offence within a reasonable time orat least when an earlier crime was registered against the same accused at the instance of the same de facto complainant would show falsity of the allegations and making the procedure of law as an abuse.
Principal Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Union of India
High Court Act 1958 (Kerala), S. 5(1) -- Writ Appeal against interim order -- Maintainability -- When the interim relief as sought for in the writ petition has already been granted by the Single Judge, the writ petitioner, who is not a person aggrieved by that interim order, cannot maintain a writ appeal against that order.
Jose v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.161 --- Non examination of independent witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, could not be held fatal to the case of the prosecution.
M/s. Hedge Finance Ltd. v. Vipin Kumar
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 – Even if there is no provision in the NDPS Act, on confiscation, the property shall absolutely vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances -- The confiscation itself is sufficient to hold that the confiscated property shall vest with the Government without any encumbrance.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 60(3) – Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 51(4) – When a vehicle is confiscated by the authorities it would not amount to transfer of ownership of the vehicle -- It is vesting of ownership with the Government -- Hence Section 51(4) dealing with transfer is not applicable -- There is no repugnancy between Section 51(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.
Headstar Global Pvt. Limited v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss. 106 & 107 – Attachment under Section 107 can be effected only upon the orders of the Magistrate.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 107 – Section 107 confers the jurisdictional Magistrates with explicit authority to act swiftly in cases involving proceeds of crime.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 107 – Section 107 confers the jurisdictional Magistrates with explicit authority to act swiftly in cases involving proceeds of crime.
Raju Thomas v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial --- In cases involving delay in producing the recovered MOs before the Court and sending the same to the FSL, it could not be said that the items recovered from the accused itself reached the hands of the expert to examine its nature and the said procedural irregularity would go to the root of the matter.
Criminal Trial --- When, on the same evidence, one accused is acquitted, similar benefit should be given to the co-accused to avoid discrimination among accused, who faced trial, where common evidence regarding their complicity was let in.
Byju v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss.299 & 304 --- In a prosecution alleging offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, defined under Section 299 of IPC, the prosecution has the duty to prove that the accused has done an act/acts with intention to cause death, or with the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
Penal Code 1860, S.304 --- In cases where the offence under Section 304 of IPC is alleged, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle carelessly driven the vehicle and caused death of human beings, there must be convincing evidence to show that the accused driven the vehicle at the time of occurrence, in a manner so as to endanger human life and which resulted in the death of human being, with exact identity of the accused.
State of Kerala v. Thankamma Mathew
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S. 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.
Deepa v. Permanent Lok Adalat
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, S. 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.
Stephen v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 452 & 442 --- In order to bring home the offence under Section 452 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following: (a) that the accused committed house-trespass and that the said house-trespass was committed after the accused made preparation for causing hurt to, or for assaulting, or for wrongfully restraining some person; or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.
Abdul Hashim v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss.143, 147, 148, 333 & 149 -- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, S. 3(a)(e) -- When on appreciation of the same evidence, benefit of doubt is extended to some among the accused or one among the accused, it is not permissible to find commission of offence by the other accused relying on the very same evidence.
Mahaboob v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Practice and procedure -- Electricity Act 2003, S. 126 – Power of Appellate Authority – An appellate power is necessarily confined in its scope by the extent to which appellant chooses to impugn the order of the original authority before the appellate authority -- It was not open to the appellate authority to enhance his powers by adjudicating matters that were not impugned before him.
Electricity Act 2003, S.126 – The usage of electricity in circumstances where such usage is in violation of one of the terms of supply of electricity viz. usage with a higher connected load, is to be seen as an unauthorised use of electricity for the purposes of Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
Moideen Koya v. M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Ss. 17 & 13(4) -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, R. 13A Appendix X – When multiple tenants challenge the same secured creditor’s action, such as the taking of possession or auction of a property, their grievances arise from a common cause of action, even if their lease agreements differ -- The insistence on separate filings is an overly rigid interpretation unsupported by the Act or Rules.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 13(4) -- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, R. 13A Appendix X – Neither the Act nor the Rules contains any express prohibition against multiple aggrieved persons filing a single, consolidated application -- The absence of such a prohibition suggests that the legislature did not intend to bar joint applications -- This interpretation aligns with the general legal principle that procedural rules should facilitate, rather than obstruct, access to justice.
Bastin v. George
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S. 138 -- The drawer of the cheque needs to provide satisfactory and convincing evidence to show that the address shown is not his address. The drawer cannot frustrate the legal process by not receiving the notice or by shifting residences without informing the complainant.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S. 138 – The initial burden to prove that upon receiving dishonor memo from the Bank, notice was sent to the drawer of the cheque intimating the factum of dishonor and demanding the amount covered by the cheque is on the complainant.
Xxx v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, Ss. 2(40), 12 & 47(1) -- Though retention of a child in conflict with law in an Observation Home is, to an extent, a measure of rehabilitation, continuing a child for long periods in such home cannot be said to be in the best interests of a child, unless there are other compelling reasons.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, S. 12(1) –- The seriousness of the offence or the manner in which the offence was committed, are not considerations under the proviso to section 12(1) of the JJ Act, while considering the question of release of a juvenile on bail.
Sheela Francis Parakkal v. Authorised Officer
Banking Law -- Circular No.DOR.MCS.REC.38/01.01.001/2023-24 Dt. 13.09.2023 – Delay in returning the documents -- The Reserve Bank's Circular applies in all its rigour.
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- A direction incapable of compliance cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution.
M/s. Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 -- As per the Regulations, the appellant is entitled to receive only those documents, that were mentioned in the show cause notice and the enquiry report that was drawn up by the Enquiry Officer during the adjudication proceedings before the Commissioner.
Secretary Cum Manager Majilis Arts and Science College (Autonomous) v. National Council For Teacher Education
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act 1993 -- National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014 – Recognition and Affiliation – Statutory bodies are required to be governed effectively and efficiently, and if they are not being governed effectively and efficiently, the Colleges which are seeking recognition and affiliation cannot be made to suffer.
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) 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.
Haridasan v. Padmavathi Amma
Hindu Succession Act 1956, S. 14 -- Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 -- Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Madras) – When parties are governed by the Marumakathayam Act, the provisions of Section 14 has no application.
Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 -- Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Madras) – It is for the person who asserts that the property is a joint family to prove that the same was acquired for the benefit of the family.
Ratheesh v. Joe Jacob
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 --- While giving money to a person on the strength of issuance of a cheque or by executing a promissory note or by executing any other similar documents acknowledging the debt, there must be an independent witness or any other witnesses to prove the said transaction.
Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala
Passport Act 1967, S. 6(2) --- Pendency of proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant, pending before a criminal court in India, is a valid reason to refuse passport or travel documents.
Passport Act 1967, S. 6(2)(f) --- When it could not be held that there are any criminal proceedings pending against the accused within the meaning of section 6(2)(f), permission of the court is not necessary for renewal of the passport.
Dr. Sethulakshmi v. Canara Bank
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Ss. 8 & 13 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S.115 -- Constitution of India, Art.227 -- The remedy of the litigant who suffered an adverse judgment and decree from commercial appellate court has to approach the high court under Section 115 CPC; but it is not a bar to approach the High Court under Art.227.
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Ss. 8 & 13 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S.115 -- The only restriction under Sec.8 in exercising powers under section 115 is against interlocutory orders -- This is with an objective to safeguard the purpose and intend of promulgation of the Commercial Courts Act 2015.