Fortnightly Updates (Nov 01 - Nov 16, 2025)
2025 (6) KLT 1 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3157
CISF Ex Service Welfare Association v. Union of India
Constitution of India, Art. 14 & Art.226 -- Central Liquor Management system -- Retired CISF personnel are entitled for purchase of liquor through CLMS System from CRPF Liquor Canteen or any other Liquor Canteens of CAPFs.
2025 (6) KLT 6 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3144
Malayalam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- One Time Settlement Scheme 2025 -- B.O. (FTD) No.210/2025/TRAC/GL/OTS-2025/24-25 Dt. 30.4.2025 -- Kerala Electricity Board -- The Board, having come up with the Ext.P17 scheme, cannot be permitted to add more conditions that are absent in the said scheme.
2025 (6) KLT 10 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3160
Rameshan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.351 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.313 -- Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021, R. 8(16) -- Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 – There is no legal impediment in permitting the accused to answer the questions under Section 351 BNSS either by adopting the procedure laid down in Section 351(5) BNSS and Basavaraj R. Patil’s case (2000 (3) KLT SN 69 (C.No.74) SC) or by getting his answers recorded via the electronic video linkage under the Linkage Rules and getting the statement signed as per the procedure under Rule 8(16) of the Rules. It would be up to the accused to choose the method.
2025 (6) KLT 19 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3131
Babu v. Vijaya Bank
Limitation Act 1963, Ss. 14(2) & 2(b) -- Though the provision employs the expression “application”, Section 2(b) of the Act defines “application” to include a petition; hence, an Execution Petition would fall within its ambit.
2025 (6) KLT 28 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3186
Baybin J. Korah (Employee No:293) v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd.(KMRL)
Service -- Office Memorandum No.37/2023 on 06.06.2023 – Educational qualification obtained through regular and distance mode – The relaxation granted to the employees of KMRL making them eligible would not ipso facto give them a right to equal marks in comparison to those employees/ candidates, who have obtained educational qualification in regular mode.
2025 (6) KLT 37 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3189
M/s. Thiruvonam Industries v. Hero Fincorp Ltd.
Practice and Procedure -- Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 13(4) -- Writ of certiorari -- Courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned -- Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations.
2025 (6) KLT 49 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3199
Chandran v. Aliamma George
Limitation Act 1963, Schedule Art. 55 & S. 22 -- Article 55 provides that in the case of breach of a contract, when the breach is continuous, limitation begins to run from the date of cessation of the breach -- On expiry of the period of the contract, the breach ceases -- The breach was a continuing one, but, during the currency of the contract -- The breach cannot be said to continue thereafter since, the period fixed by the parties have expired.
2025 (6) KLT 56 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3223
Suo Motu JPP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala
Rules of the High Court of Kerala 1971 -- The judicial orders of general nature, issued from time to time, cannot mean that the process involved under the Rules of 1971 and the issuance of Office Memorandum can be bypassed.
2025 (6) KLT 78 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3155
Nisham v. Chavakkad Municipality
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme 2019 (Kerala), Reg. 16 -- Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, S.38 -- Municipality Act 1994 (Kerala), Ss.476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 & 482 -- Constitution of India, Art. 21 & Art.226 -- Even assuming that the street vendor did not have a trade license or was vending without a certificate, the Municipality had to conform to the procedure.
2025 (6) KLT 83 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3227
State of Kerala v. Shaji
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S. 27A & 27A(1) -- The procedure u/S.27A applies only when land is proposed to be utilised for other purposes—it does not extend to land that has already been converted and developed.
2025 (6) KLT 87 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3228
Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 29A, 2(1)(e), 11, 14 & 15 -- Neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court will retain any power or control of the Arbitration proceedings after the nomination happens, except under specified circumstances, including under Sections 14 or 15 of the ‘Act’.
2025 (6) KLT 95 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3226
HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jyothi Madhavan
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations 2017, Reg. 8 & Reg. 14 -- The failure to communicate non-acceptance of proposal within the stipulated period fastens liability on the insurer, and the plea of non-acceptance raised only after the death of the proposer is unsustainable in law -- If the insurer does not do that and retains the premium till the death of the sum assured, they must be estopped from contending that the policy had not come into existence or that the proposal was rejected.
2025 (6) KLT 107 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3123
Shinoj v. State of Kerala
Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 65A & 65B -- When conversations between two persons on platforms such as WhatsApp/Telegram, etc., are produced before the court and are sought to be relied upon in evidence, the failure to produce the entire conversation between two specified dates would result in a completely different meaning being ascribed to the conversation
2025 (6) KLT 128 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3276
Ananthapuri Rubbers Pvt. Limited v. M/s. Kuttiyanickal Rubbers Private Limited
Company Law – The mere fact that the directors of the first defendant company started a partnership venture for some other businesses does not mean that it was intended to defraud the creditors of the first defendant.
Company Law – When there are no materials to find the alleged siphoning of funds from the account of the first company, the mere non-production of accounts by the other defendants to prove the source of funds, is of no consequence -- The mere fact that the Directors of the company entered into a partnership in the name of the second defendant, to do yet another business, cannot by itself amount to fraud on the creditors of the first defendant.
2025 (6) KLT 131 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3250
Taha v. Kerala State Election Commission
Constitution of India, Art.226 & Art.243E -- Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (Kerala), S. 45 -- Municipality Act 1994 (Kerala), S.101 -- Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1995 (Kerala), R. 39 1) -- In future elections, the State Election Commission should seriously consider and arrange a sufficient number of polling booths to ensure that all voters have adequate time to cast their votes -- The Election Commission cannot assume that all voters will not come to cast their vote, and therefore, a 1200/1500 voter cap can be fixed in one booth.
2025 (6) KLT 140 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3239
Joseph v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 2(30) – Doctrine of relation back/Date back -- Once the transfer of ownership was found valid and was approved by the Registering Authority, the effect of such approval must relate back to the date of the original application, i.e., 21.09.2023.
2025 (6) KLT 150 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3281
Bhavesh Anil Kumar v. Assistant Labour Officer (Grade II)
Minimum Wages Act 1948, Ss. 2(e), 20 2) & 20 3) -- Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, S. 2(f) -- Managing Director of the company is a statutorily recognized person to be treated as the “employer” as defined under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, in a proceedings initiated under Section 20(2) of the said Act by the competent authority
2025 (6) KLT 154 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3282
Muhammad Shareef v. State of Kerala
Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008 (Kerala), R. 11 -- The Registrar is not vested with the power to decide the validity of the marriage.
Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008 (Kerala), Rr. 11 & 9 – Muslim Law – Constitution of India Art. 14 -- If a Muslim man wants to register his second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008, when his first marriage is in existence and the first wife is alive, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife for the registration -- If the husband wishes to register his second marriage, the law of the land will prevail, and in such a situation, an opportunity of hearing for the first wife is necessary.
Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008 (Kerala), Rr. 11 & 9 -- Muslim Law – Constitution of India Art. 14 – Customary Law is not applicable when the question of registering a second marriage arises -- Second marriage cannot be registered unless an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife by the statutory authorities, while a second marriage of a Muslim man is to be registered.
2025 (6) KLT 163 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3247
Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India
Income Tax Act 1961, Ss. 80P, 80P 1), 80P 2)(d) & 194A 3) -- As far as the tax liability on income from interest is concerned, for a Co-operative society, it is not an absolute exemption, but it is a deduction permissible for such a Society, on submitting the returns -- Therefore, since the benefit under Section 80P is not an exemption from paying tax, but a benefit of deduction subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions including filing of return, it cannot be held that, there is no tax liability at all.
2025 (6) KLT 182 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3274
Malabar Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v. Kerala University of Health
Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations 2023, S. 9 -- When the application is not supported by an Essentiality Certificate issued by the concerned State Government or Union Territory Administration or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, and the Consent of Affiliation/provisional affiliation letter obtained from a recognised University, both valid at the time of application, the application on the face of it would be incomplete and liable to the rejected -- Such an application, which does not fulfill the basic requirements, is not required to be considered at the next stage.
Establishment of Medical institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations 2023, S. 9 -- No application submitted by the eligible entity shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by the Essentiality Certificate (EC) issued by the concerned State Government or Union Territory administration or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, unless otherwise specified, which shall be valid at the time of application, and a Consent of Affiliation (CoA) letter obtained from a recognised university, issued in the name of the applicant entity in writing, which shall also be valid at the time of application.
2025 (6) KLT 197 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3291
Jose v. Jose
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.118 & 139 – Trial – Rebuttal of presumption -- Options available to an accused – Explained.
2025 (6) KLT 201 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3295
Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvila v. Annie Varghese
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 1)(c) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144 1) (c) -- The scheme under Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. (Section 144(1)(c) of BNSS), contemplates that a claim of maintenance by a daughter who has attained majority is admissible only when, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125(1)(c) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144(1)(c) -- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, S. 20(3) – An unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.
2025 (6) KLT 206 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3292
Glenny v. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank
Practice and procedure – Constitution of India, Art.226 & Art.227 – Misquoting the Article of the Constitution, under which relief is sought for, is no ground to refuse relief, if the petitioners are otherwise entitled for the same.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 18 Third Proviso – When the purpose of a pre-deposit at the time of filing an appeal is considered, it can only be said that such deposit cannot be more than the apparent subject matter of the appeal, especially when such pre-deposit is only to entertain the appeal -- Any interpretation otherwise will run foul of the concept of fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 18 Third Proviso – Once a discretion is granted by virtue of the third proviso to Section 18, the same can be exercised only in accord with the mandate of that proviso, wherefore it is imperative and incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to state adequate reasons for fixing the pre-deposit at 40% of the debt due.
Thangam v. Haridasan
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- If the accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.
Harish v. Mathew
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 2(c)(viii) -- The office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association would be 'public servants' within the meaning of the term under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, 1988 in relation to the public duties discharged by them.
Constitution of India, Art.226 & Art. 12 – Kerala Cricket Association -- The definition of “State” under Article 12 takes in not only the Central and State Governments and the Union Territories but also other 'instrumentalities of the State'.
Ranjith Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.468 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss. 354 & 509 -- Delay is to be condoned before taking cognizance and after taking cognizance the court cannot go back to condone the delay to save the period of limitation.
State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri
Evidence Act 1872, S.106 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.34, 302, 323 & 324 -- When the incident occurred within the four walls of the residential house jointly occupied by the accused and the victim, the accused were under a duty, as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to offer a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the cause of death and when no plausible or satisfactory explanation has been offered by the appellants in this regard, it further reinforces the inference of guilt drawn from the prosecution evidence.
Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Ltd.
Trade Marks Act 1999, S. 57 r/w S.124 & S. 57 r/w S. 125 -- Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, Ss. 46, 56 & 107 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S. 20 -- All issues relating to and connected with the validity of registration has to be dealt with by the Tribunal and not by the civil court; In cases where the parties have not approached the civil court, Section 46 and Section 56 provide an independent statutory right to an aggrieved party to seek rectification of a trade mark -- In the event the Civil Court is approached, inter alia, raising the issue of invalidity of the trade mark, such plea will be decided not by the civil court but by the Tribunal under the 1958 Act.
State of Kerala v. Parimal Sahu
Evidence Act 1872, S.118 -- The attempt of the court in a voir dire test is invariably to determine whether, given the scope of his intellectual capacity and comprehension, the witness is capable of providing a rational explanation of what he has observed or heard on a given occasion.
Evidence Act 1872, S. 27 -- If a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence while in Police custody, so much of the that information, which distinctly lead to the discovery of the said fact, can be proved against him, and the same is a valuable piece of evidence which can be used against him.
Anil K Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.216 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.239(1) -- The trial court is well within its power to invoke Section 239 (1) of BNSS (Section 216 of Cr.PC), if the requirement of alteration or addition of the charge is brought to the notice of the court by the public prosecutor by way of a petition.
Vias Bhat v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959, Chap. XIV (A) Rr. 34, 35, 37 & 52 – In view of the proviso of sub-rule (1) of Rule 37, Chapter XIVA of KER, added with effect from 23.07.2010, in the case of an aided school teacher who is relieved under Rule 52, on account of any reduction of posts in the parent school under the orders of the Department, the period of service rendered in the parent school or in another school shall be reckoned for seniority on his re-appointment to the parent school.
Suo Motu v. Government of Kerala
Practice and Procedure -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 -- Mere enactment of laws is not enough rather, their effective implementation is a mandatory obligation.
2025 KLT OnLine 3288
Ammed v. Mohanan
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- When one party asserts that he has paid a certain amount to another while suing him, the party who accepts the same is duty bound to prove the transaction and the execution of the cheque, in consequence thereof when the other party denies the transaction and the liability.
Viswambaran v. State of Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act 1994, Ss. 2(xxix), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) & 10(1B) -- The population refers to the population as assessed at the last Census, the relevant details of which have been officially published.
Kanakkari Service Co operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Co operative Societies Act 1969 (Kerala), S. 57B -- When floating a Scheme under Section 57B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the State should have ensured proportionate compensation -- There is no point in the contention by the Societies that the amounts paid by them are used to compensate the loss of defunct or dormant societies under liquidation due to malfunctioning.
Vasudevan Nair v. Vrij Mohan
Specific Relief Act 1963, S. 12(2) -- Granting of a decree for part of the contract under Section 12(2) is, in the discretion of the Court.
Anshad v. State of Kerala
Rationing Order 1966 (Kerala), Cl. 59(1)(c) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 106 -- Clause 59(1)(c) comes into play only when search of a vehicle or vessel engaged or used or intended to be engaged or used for or the movement of rationed articles.
Rationing Order 1966 (Kerala), Cl. 59 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 106 -- In case where rationed articles are conveyed in violation of the Rationing Order and the Essential Commodities Act, the search under Clause 59 comes into play.
Aneesh v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 50(1) -- Though the obligation of the empowered Officer under section 50(1) of the Act to inform the suspect of his right to be searched is mandatory, the requirement to, endeavour to take him to a nearest Magistrate, cannot be regarded as a mandatory requirement.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 52A – Requirement to comply with section 52A of the NDPS Act will arise when the contraband seized is not produced in its entirety before the Court and instead only a representative sample was produced.
Kamalakshy Amma Sarada Amma v. Velayudhan Jayakumar
Limitation Act 1963, S. 27 -- Section 27 is applicable only to suits and not applicable to execution of decrees -- In such case, the right of the plaintiff over the suit property will not get extinguished as per Section 27, at the determination of the period for executing the decree for possession.
Sreekuttan @ Chemban v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 34, 341, 294(b), 323 & 302 -- When the nature, depth, and direction of the wound clearly establish that it was a grave, homicidal injury, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the Judge has to evaluate the entire evidence and arrive at the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence.
Salahudeen v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- When no witnesses deposed in support of the prosecution to show that there was demand by the accused and as the demand through telephone was not forthcoming in evidence, the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
Venugopal.K.Veloth v. Mahilamani
Civil Law -- Marumakkathayam Act 1932 (Madras) -- Melpattam -- Under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act to grant a lease for more than twelve years or of a lease having fixity of tenure, the written consent of majority of the major members of the Tarawad was necessary.
Director of Kerala State Audit Department v. Indra Balan Pillai
Municipality Act 1994 (Kerala), S.295(13) -- Local Fund Audit Act 1994 (Kerala) -- Whether the Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the District Court is sustainable for alternative remedy.
Ramlath v. Village Officer
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), Ss. 2(xii) & 5 -- Only for the reason that a property has been included as 'nilam' in the Settlement Register, the same cannot be included in the data bank, since the BTR is a vital statutory document and the entries therein cannot be simply ignored merely on the ground that in the Settlement Register the property is described distinctly.
Vittal Sait Popat v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (BPU)
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988, Ss. 2(10), 26 & 24 1) -- Before issuing a show-cause notice, a prima facie belief of the officer concerned that, the party concerned is a benamidar, alone is sufficient.
Rifa Fathima v. Salim
Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 -- Civil P.C. S. 60 1)(g) – Constitution of India Arts. 15 3) & 39 -- . The right of a wife or a minor child to maintenance supersedes the employee's right to claim exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC.
Family Courts Act 1984, S. 7 -- Civil P.C. S. 60 1)(g) -- Maintenance – The protection u/s.60(1)(g) cannot be used as a shield against fulfilling a statutory and moral obligation towards dependents.
Jatin v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Ss. 8 (b) & 20 (a) -- The statute does not distinguish between planting in the earth or growing in pots -- The essence of the offence lies in the conscious act of planting and nurturing a cannabis plant in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
Antony v. Hussain
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.118, 138 & 139 -- The standard of proof which is required from the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act is preponderance of probabilities and that the accused is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
Sigmatic Nidhi Limited v. Suresh Kumar
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 7 -- An arbitration agreement to be valid and binding, it is not always essential that the same shall be signed by all parties.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 -- A commercial document having arbitration clause has to be interpreted in such a manner as to give effect to the agreement rather than invalidate it.
Farookh v. Kayyakkutty@ Kadeeja
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 144, 144 1)(a) & 144 1)(d) -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125, 125 1)(a) & 125 1)(d) -- The right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her -- A mother can claim maintenance from her children even if her husband is maintaining her, and the son can be legally required to contribute if the mother is unable to maintain herself and the husband is not providing sufficient support.
Shareena v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.358 -- If evidence regarding all the persons who, participated in the commission of the offence is brought on record, and the trial court is satisfied that any person, other than those already arrayed as accused, has also taken part in the commission of the offence, the court is well empowered under law to proceed against such persons.
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 75J.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.
Mathew K. Cherian v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer Protection Act 2019, S. 2 7) -- Livelihood -- When refering to earning for livelihood, a narrow meaning to the same, by confining to the basic amenities of life, such as bread and butter, home, clothes or maintenance of the same etc, cannot be adopted, but, it could include the additional income for better living standards also -- So long as such investments are not for the purpose of making a profit in a commercial nature, when it comes to the case of individuals, it has to be treated as for livelihood, where, the “livelihood” would take in, the investment made for proper returns to ensure a better standard of life or to secure financial stability in future.
Paul v. Union of India
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019 -- Finance Act 2019 -- Under no circumstances, the proceedings or the acts that are being carried out by the designated authority could be treated as a mere administrative action, but on the other hand, it amounts to a quasi judicial act -- The proceedings are coming within scope of period of limitation that are referred to in the relevant orders passed by the Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings initiated in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Vinumon. v. District Collector
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R. 4(4d) -- Disposal of Form 5 Application – Necessity of passing speaking orders – Highlighted -- A speaking order by a quasi-judicial authority should be a reasoned decision that clearly communicates findings, the logic behind conclusions, and legal bases for the action taken -- If an order passed in a Form-5 application is not a speaking order, the Court will be forced to direct the Officer concerned to pay costs to the litigant for unnecessarily approaching the Court again and again.
Mini v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.XIV (A) R. 51B – Application of Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of government servants dying in harness with respect to Aided school Teacher -- Government Orders cannot be applied in a manner to defeat the very conferment of right under Rule 51B Chapter XIVA KER.
Kerala Civil Judicial Staff Organisation v. State of Kerala
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (Kerala), R. 31(a)(i) – Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules 1975, R. 8 -- Government Circular No.19305/Rules-1/1996/P&ARD dated 09.09.1997 -- Government Circular No.4503/R1/2008/P&ARD dated 15.09.2008 -- The powers given to the appointing authorities under Rule 31(a)(i) of the KS&SSR and Rule 8 of the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 cannot be watered down by issuing Circulars.
Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Petroleum Rules 2002 – Establishment of Petroleum Retail Outlet – Distance norms -- When the CPCB has laid down the Distance Norms for petroleum outlets in its Guidelines, the District Authority is perfectly justified in considering compliance with the same while issuing NOC.
Janvin Cleetus v. Union of India
National Cadet Corps Act 1948, S. 6 1) & 6 2) -- Constitution of India, Art. 14 – Enrollment of Transgenders as NCC Cadets – A Transgender student cannot be enrolled in NCC Divisions.
Bharathan v. Top Crystal Owners Association
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, Ss. 3 & 13 -- Notwithstanding the fact that Section 13 of the Act of 2016 has provided for a separate form under which an agreement of sale has to be executed, will not enable the promoter to contend that he is taken out of the purview of the Act.
Tess Thomas v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.118 & 139 -- Mere lodging of complaint against the complainant who is in possession of the cheque by itself would not absolve the liability of the accused or disentitles the twin presumptions under Section 118 and 139 in terms of the holder of the cheque.
AIG Asia Pacific Insurance PTE Ltd. v. Elsa 3 Maritime Inc
Merchant Shipping Act 1958, S.352C – Only the persons who are entitled to claim compensation from the limitation fund alone could be said to be affected by the constitution of the said fund and they alone are entitled to contest the proceedings.
Roopesh v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Arts. 21 & 19 -- Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act 2010 (Kerala), S. 36(a), 36(k) & 36(f) -- The Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act or the corresponding Rules also do not contain any provision empowering the prison authorities or the Government to interdict a prisoner from publishing his literary work.
Maya v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 – Amendment of complaint -- If the amendment of the complaint causes serious prejudice to the accused and changes the nature and character of the complaint, the amendment has to be rejected.
Gopalakrishna Pillai v. Chief General Manager,State Bank of India
Banking Law -- Reverse Mortgage LoanScheme -- The source from which the property is derived is not relevant or material as far as the Bank is concerned to accept the said property as security for the loan -- The Bank has to see whether the property exclusively belonged to the applicant or not.
Alexander v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Mere contradictions by itself are not sufficient to disbelieve a witness in toto, unless the same are so material that would go to the root of the prosecution allegations when evaluated in its entirety.
Abdul Salam v. Manjeri Municipal Council
Service – Ad hoc sanitation workers with long service -- Took part in the selection process pursuant to interim orders passed by High Court – Directed to appoint who are selected in the process.
Shyamohan v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Art.226 -- Sabarimala -- Access to Traditional route/Kanana Patha -- Travancore Devaswom Board -- Directions issued -- The authorities are advised to determine and notify the maximum number of pilgrims who may be permitted to traverse the Traditional Path on any given day.
Kannadan Anwar Salih v. Safeekhath
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, S. 3(i) -- Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.125 & 127 3)(b) -- There is nothing in the Muslim Women Protection Act, 1986 that indicates that the right of the Muslim divorced wife, which they had under S.125 of Cr.P.C. before the enactment of the Muslim Women Protection Act, 1986 will stand superseded or extinguished by the enactment of the Muslim Women Protection Act, 1986 -- S.127(3)(b) of Cr.P.C. clearly shows that an order passed under S.125 will continue to remain in force even after divorce until the amount payable under the customary or personal law applicable to the parties is paid either before or after the order -- An order under S.125 can be passed even in respect of a divorced Muslim wife.
Sasi v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.477A -- To convict a person under section 477A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that there was a willful act, which had been made with an intent to defraud and while proving “Intention to defraud”, the prosecution has to further prove the two elements that the act was an act of deceit and it had caused an injury.
Juby Thomas v. Union of India
Constitution of India, Art. 19(2) & Art.14 -- Cinematograph Act 1952, Ss. 4, 5, 5A & 5B -- S.O. No.836-(E) Dt. 6.12.1991 --The act of balancing the freedom of the movie maker with the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), cannot be carried out by overlooking the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity which are the bedrock of Indian democracy.
Bindhu v. Salomi
Civil P.C. 1908, O. XXI Rr. 54 & 58 -- Nowhere in Order XXI Rule 54 CPC there is any requirement that the order must be communicated to the Sub Registrar Office -- Courts sending a copy of the attachment order to the Sub Registrar concerned to make necessary endorsement in the concerned registers, is not a statutory mandate but a precautionary administrative measure to prevent the defendant/judgment debtor from fraudulently alienating or encumbering the attachment property.