Fortnightly Updates (Sep 01 - Sep 15, 2025)
2025 (5) KLT 1 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2718
Susan Thomas v. Thomas Kurian
Succession Act 1925 -- Christian Succession Act 1092 (Travancore) -- Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 -- The very fact that, the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 were included in the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 would give a clear indication that the provisions of the Succession Act were intended to apply to the entire Union Territory of India only with effect from 1.4.1951 -- Therefore, in case where intestacy opened in the year 1940, it is not possible to hold that, the parties are to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, merely because the Christian Succession Act, 1092 (TC) was repelled by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951.
2025 (5) KLT 18 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2728
Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Minimum Wages Act 1948, S. 3, Schedule Part I & Schedule Part II -- Notification G.O. (P) No.8/2020/LBR Dt. 16.1.2020 -- Insurance Act 1938, Ss. 2(10) & 42 -- Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Payment of Commission or Remuneraton or Reward to Insurance Agents and Insurance Intermediaries) Regulations 2016 -- Though the term ‘financial institutions’ may have different and distinct meaning under other enactments, that cannot by itself dis-empower the state to include institutions doing insurance business under the state to include institutions doing insurance business under the head of “private financial institutions” for the purpose of prescription of minimum wages -- Inclusion of insurance institutions under the head “private financial institutions” in Notification G.O.(P) No.8/2020/LBR dt:16.1.2020 is only for the purpose of prescribing statutory minimum wages to the employees working under the insurance sector -- There cannot be any illegality in such inclusion.
2025 (5) KLT 24 (F.B.) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2731 (F.B.)
Manager, BET Upper Primary School v. Khayis
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.XIV (A) R. 49, Chap.XIV (A) R. 51, Chap.XIV (A) R. 51A & Chap.XIV (A) R. 52 -- G.O.(Ms) No.275/99/G.Edn Dt. 9.11.1999 -- A plain reading of the Order dated 09.11.1999 would clearly show that the leave substitutes will have to be given preference to the regular vacancies in the order of seniority -- There is no stipulation that such leave substitutes have to be relieved or terminated to raise such a claim against a regular vacancy.
2025 (5) KLT 28 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2698
Bindhu Kuniparambath v. Joint Chief Controller of Explosives
Guidelines for Setting up of New Petrol Pumps 2020, Para. H -- Central Pollution Control Board Guidelines Dt. 7.01.2020 -- New Petrol Pumps -- Whether minimum distance referable to Schools is applicable to other Educational Institutions -- The guidelines dated 7.1.2020 issued by the CPCB for setting up of new petrol pumps do not require any minimum distance between educational institutions aside from schools and retail outlets that sell petroleum products.
2025 (5) KLT 33 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2726
Thafneesa v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226, Art. 22 & Art. 21 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 37 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.483 -- Sustainability of invoking Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction of the High Court after rejection of the application for bail -- While it was certainly open to the detenues to move the court through a writ of habeas corpus, alleging an illegal detention based on a contention that the reasons and grounds for the arrest were not communicated to them at the time of arrest, they ought to have done so at the earliest point in time -- They could not have done so after having already approached another judicial forum.
2025 (5) KLT 37 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2743
Mathew John v. Land Revenue Commissioner
Land Assignment Rules 1964 (Kerala), Rr. 6, 7 & 8 -- A reading of Rule 8 makes it evident that the restriction against alienation is intended to apply only to assignments made under Rule 7, and not to those under Rule 6.
2025 (5) KLT 47 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2742
Faseela v. Station House Officer
Rules of the High Court of Kerala 1971, R. 51(3) – Sending electronic communications by the petitioners or appellants or their counsels to the respondents is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 51(3) -- Such a mode of service of notice, directly by the parties or their counsel to the respondents is not envisaged under the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971.
2025 (5) KLT 52 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2729
M/s. Hill Top Aggregates v. Kannambra Grama Panchayat
Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (Kerala), S.232 -- Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and other Services) Rules 1996 (Kerala), R. 5 & 5A – It is only the Secretary who is empowered under the Act to consider an application for licence and no other person shall interfere or influence in the exercise of such power.
2025 (5) KLT 64 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2734
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Guidelines for effecting arrests of persons within the Court premises -- Court premises shall be taken as referring to not just the courtrooms, but shall also include all lands, buildings and structures (except residential quarters) used in connection with court proceedings during the notified working hours of the court, or till the court is in session, whichever is later.
2025 (5) KLT 82 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2160
Sujith Kumar v. State of Kerala
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, Ss. 20, 21, 21(1) & 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.
2025 (5) KLT 93 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2590
M/s. PDMC Industries v. Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 13(2) -- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 -- Classification of MSME Accounts as NPA -- Banks are mandatorily required to identify incipient stress and classify MSME accounts under the Special Mention Account (SMA) categories before declaring them as NPAs, provided the MSME furnishes authenticated and verifiable documents establishing its status under the MSMED Act.
2025 (5) KLT 111 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2374
M/s. House Master Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.I Corporation
Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Ss. 39, 40, 44 & 45 -- If an Authority acts on the basis of an Inspection Report to fix any liability on any person, it is elementary that the Authority shall give opportunity to such person to represent against the proposed action after providing copy of the inspection report and thereafter pass a speaking order considering the representation, if any, made by such person.
2025 (5) KLT 120 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2280
Biji v. State of Kerala
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.XIV (A) R. 7A(3) -- General Clauses Act 1897, S. 6 – The approval of the first appointment prior to the amendment to Rule 7A(3) will not be affected by the amendment.
2025 (5) KLT 125 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2700
Sindhu S. Warrier v. Sreedhania
Education Rules 1959 (Kerala), Chap.XXI R. 7(2), Chap.XIV (A) R. 43 Note 1, Chap.XIV (A) R. 51A & Chap.XIV (A) R. 51B -- G.O. Dt. 30.10.2017 -- If a claimant under Rule 43 is given promotion, then the arising vacancy need not be filled up from the protected teachers.
2025 (5) KLT 130 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2727
Vignesh v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.200 -- A notification under Section 200 is necessary for any police officer to exercise the power of compounding of the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act.
2025 (5) KLT 134 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2507
Angels Nair v. Principal Secretary, Forest and Wildlife Department
Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, S. 28 – No legislative intent emerges from Section 28 of the Act of 1972 to interpret the phrase “film-making” widely.
2025 (5) KLT 143 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2753
Vishnu v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.232 Second Proviso -- If the 2nd proviso is taken as a prohibition on the Magistrate’s power to consider applications, including bail applications at the committal stage, that will deprive the accused of his right to seek bail till the case is committed to the Sessions Court.
2025 (5) KLT 147 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2775
Renjith Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 – Public Interest Litigation – No person can claim, as of right, that he has to be treated as a public interest litigant.
2025 (5) KLT 154 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2766
State Bank of India v. Alex Zacharia
State Bank of India Officers Service Rules 1992, Rr. 2(4), 43 & 47 -- Rule 2(4) would not apply to the employee posted outside India.
2025 (5) KLT 157 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2781
Joseph K. Thomas v. Balaraman
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S. 11(3) – Once the tenant has admitted the present relationship with the landlord, the Rent Control Court cannot go beyond that admission to enquire into whether there was any dissolution or alteration of the earlier partnership -- The tenant is estopped from raising any further contention in regard to such a relationship when bound by the written lease deed recognising the landlord’s status.
2025 (5) KLT 164 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2779
Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.376 & 376(2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.482 -- If a person had absolutely no intention of any marriage and engaged in a physical relationship with a girl after procuring her consent solely on the basis of a promise of marriage, the principle of consent obtained by a false promise of marriage will get attracted -- Consent for sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage and consent on the expectation or assumption of marriage are both different.
2025 (5) KLT 175 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2764
Harikumar v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.292(1) – The word ‘any other object’ would include the video cassette as well.
2025 (5) KLT 180 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2266
Sivanandan v. Ani
Limitation Act 1963, Schedule Art. 61 -- Transfer of Property Act 1882, S.60 Proviso -- The right of redemption is a statutory right and can be extinguished only by the stipulations contained under the proviso to Section 60.
2025 (5) KLT 193 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2762
Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano
Citizenship Act 1955, S. 5(1)(d) -- Citizenship Rules 2009, Form VI R. 8(1)(a) -- Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, S. 14A – For an individual to become a citizen of India, if he is already a citizen of another country, he must formally renounce that citizenship -- This applies to both adults and minors.
2025 (5) KLT 197 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2795
Subin Joy v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, S. 3(xiv) – Penal Code 1860, Ss.427 & 448 – Retention of juvenile documents even after acquittal – Interfered and directed immediate erasure of such records.
2025 (5) KLT 200 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2761
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sabeetha
Service -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, S.119(1) Illstrn. (e) -- Communications by way of SMS and profile messages were sent to all the candidates, who are entitled to appear for the interview -- As there’s no rebuttal, Court may presume that all judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
2025 (5) KLT 206 (F.B.) : 2025 KLT OnLine 2796
State of Kerala v. Anas
Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985 -- Kerala University Act 1974 -- University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2010 -- University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2018 -- In the context of appointments to posts in Universities, ‘sanction’ connotes the creation of a new post.
2025 (5) KLT 221 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2778
Dr. Vinodkumar Jacob v. Vice Chancellor, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University
Official Languages Act 1969 (Kerala), S. 2 -- Constitution of India, Art.348(3) -- As far as the High Court is concerned, going by the requirement of Article 348(3), the authoritative text is the one in English Language, either as the original text of the legal document or as a translation published with the authority of the Governor and published in the Official Gazette.
Regional Director, ESI Corporation Panchadeep Bhavan v. M/s. L & T Tech Park Ltd.
Employees' State Insurance Act 1948, S. 2(9) -- ESI (General) Regulations 1950, Reg. 40 -- The Act or the Rules or the Regulation does not expect or intend that the ESI Corporation should be benefited out of a mistaken payment made by the employer or the employee; that if the Corporation wants to gain or make money out of such mistakes committed by the employer or the employee it will amount to unjust enrichment and that therefore Regulation 40 need not be liberally construed if it results in undue advantage or benefit tothe Corporation.
Government College Chavara v. Ambikadevi Amma
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S. 16 -- Once acquisition takes place, any existing right of easement if any, gets extinguished, and therefore no claim for easement will lie against the State.
Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.438 -- When it is found that the arrest was illegal, the accused is free from custody of the police as well as the Court, and the question of execution of bail bond doesn’t arise and, there is no necessity for the Special Judge to make the interim bail absolute.
Sarath Chandran v. State of Kerala
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, S. 7 -- Only Section 7 of the Act is intended to punish the sex worker, that too only when prostitution is carried on in a prohibited area.
Kavumkal Granites v. State of Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (Kerala), R.108 -- If there were no quarrying operations for a particular year, the same cannot impinge upon the petitioner's right to extract the mineral up to the total quantity covered -- The only violation in this regard will be in the context of the maximum permissible limit for the particular year.
Babu v. Elsamma Mathew
Transfer of Property Act 1882, S. 3 -- Contract Act 1872, S.215 -- Section 215 is attracted only if an agent deals on his own account without first obtaining theconsent of his principal and if it is shown that material facts havebeen concealed from the principal or the dealings of the agenthave been disadvantageous to the principal.
Askaf v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss. 273 & 278 -- If the trial court permits the prosecution to file chief affidavit of a material witness as evidence in a criminal case against the accused, the same will cause serious prejudice to the accused, in as much as the entire contents of the chief affidavit can only be treated as an outcome of the leading questions put to the witness.
Shareefa v. Sub Collector, Tirur
Rules of the High Court of Kerala 1971, Rr. 19 & 145 – Constitution of India Arts.226, 227 & 228 -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 -- There is no provision under the Rules enabling a non- party spouse to file a writ petition on behalf of a party spouse, without a duly executed power of attorney, in the status of an agent.
Salim v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art. 14 -- The doctrine of parity is the principle, which provides that, individuals in similar circumstances should be treated equally by the law and the Courts, particularly regarding the fairness of punishments or while granting reliefs and was intented to serve prevention of arbitrary and discriminatory outcomes and to ensure that similar parties would receive similar treatment.
Nizarudheen v. State of Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (Kerala), S. 233 & 233(3) -- It is clear from Section 233(3) that the Panchayat has no power to deny permission for construction of factory or for installation of machinery -- Based on the reports, the Panchayat, however, can grant permission subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose -- Pollution Control Boards being experts in the field of air, sound and water pollution, their decision should be given due weightage.
Principal Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Art. 226 – Judicial Review -- Kerala University of Health Sciences Act 2010 – The wisdom of the University to prescribe minimum standards in education cannot be called in question in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Jaice John v. Director of Mining and Geology
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (Kerala), Rr. 8 & 33 -- Explosives Rules 2008, R.103 – A project proponent seeking a quarrying permit or lease under Rule 8 or Rule 33 of the KMMC Rules must obtain an explosives licence in their own name to secure the quarrying permit or lease -- A project proponent cannot use an explosives licence obtained by someone else.
Explosives Rules 2008, R.103 -- No Rules or statutory format within the Explosives Rules authorise the Controller of Explosives to include a quarry site belonging to one person in the explosives licence issued to another.
Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai
Practice and procedure – Manner in which order in the petition is passed and the main case posted for judgment by the Magistrate on the very next day without issuing the copy of the order on the petition to the party – Deprecated.
Practice and procedure – The court should bear in mind that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
Radhamma v. Director General of Police
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss. 154, 173, 174, 175 & 176 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss. 173, 193, 194, 195 & 196 -- In any criminal investigation, the FIR has necessarily to be drawn up in terms of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 173 of BNSS), and a copy of the same has to be filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned, and not before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baby
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Ss.166 & 175 – The bar of jurisdiction under Section 175, is confined to the cases of any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area.
Muhammed Yasir v. Alavi
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI R. 97, O.XXI R. 99 & O.XXIII R. 1(4) -- If a subsequent suit is barred under Rule 1(4), the plaintiff cannot be permitted to agitate the same cause in an application under Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 as the case may be -- This is more so because, the adjudication of the issues raised in an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 partakes the character of a suit.
Shone George v. Union of India
Companies Act 2013, S.212(13) -- Criminal Rules of Practice 1982 (Kerala), R.226 -- Even accepting that an interested person can apply and obtain a copy of the investigation report by resorting to Section 212(13), insofar as the other documents are concerned, the submission of applications, their processing and the decision of the court can only be in accordance with Rule 226.
Chandrika v. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Insurance Act 1938, S. 45 -- In considering whether there has been any suppression of material fact in the proposal for a medical insurance policy, the determinative question is not merely whether there has been any suppression, but whether such suppression, if established, is material to a risk sought to be covered -- Not every omission or non-disclosure would assume the character of material suppression leading to repudiation of a claim.
Insurance Act 1938, S. 45(3) – Constitution of India Arts. 14 & 12 -- Life Insurance Corporation of India, being an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12, is bound by the constitutional mandate of fairness and reasonableness, and even in contractual matters, its actions must be free from arbitrariness and guided by just and equitable considerations.
Raju v. Binu
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Ss.163A & 164 – Accident occurred prior to amendment -- Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation as per the amended provision since it is more beneficial – Applied amended provision.
Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court in Waterlogging of SNDP Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam, Alappuzha v. State of Kerala
Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 (Kerala) -- Irrigation and Water Conservation Rules 2005 (Kerala) – The statutory rules place the responsibility on the Padasekharam Committee to maintain the bunds and earthen embankments, and to regulate water for the irrigation of paddy fields.
Saravanabhava v. District Collector, Ernakulam
National Highways Act 1956, S. 3H(4) -- A dispute which the competent authority may refer under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act must be one that the competent authority cannot decide without adjudication, and it must be a dispute from the perspective of the competent authority and not from the perspective of the person challenging it -- Merely for the reason that a third party could challenge such a document, the competent authority is not bound to refer such a dispute to the civil court.
National Highways Act 1956, S. 3H(4) – The mere fact that a party raises a challenge to a document does not oblige the competent authority to refer to the civil court -- Unless and until the document is impeached in proceedings before a competent civil court, it continues to remain valid and binding for the competent authority to act upon.
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, Ss. 3, 5 & 6 -- Constitution of India Art.25 -- Whether wheelchairs are to be permitted inside the Nalambalam of a temple so as to facilitate proper Darshan for differently abled devotees -- The Boards shall decide, after evaluating the unique facts and circumstances of each temple, whether wheelchairs carrying persons with disabilities may be permitted inside the Nalambalam or other inner precincts, ensuring that the decision reflects the mandate of “reasonable accommodation” and “priority in access” under the Act.
Venu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S. 482 – Anticipatory Bail -- Whether the applicant should approach Sessions Court first before approaching the High Court for anticipatory Bail -- An application for anticipatory bail is maintainable in the High Court and the party is at liberty to choose the forum.
Deepu v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.307 – The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not, by itself, rule out application of Section 307 IPC and the determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.
Anirudh v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not.
Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- When the evidence is quite insufficient to prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt, the essential ingredients to establish the commission of the offences are not made out, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Shaji v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Where the appellants have served the entire sentence (of imprisonment), paid the entire fine and or served the default sentence, and are not interested in removing any stigma of conviction, it would be a proper exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C/528 of the BNSS to allow the appeal to be withdrawn.