Fortnightly Updates (Mar 16 - Mar 31, 2025)
2025 (2) KLT 325 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1406
Noushad v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.482 – Practice and Procedure – Investigation – Investigation of a criminal case means investigation of the case of the complainant and the accused.
2025 (2) KLT 331 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1213
Addl. Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence v. Ali
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, S.83 – The Parliament intended to confer the validity on the order of attachment only for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the order – Hence, on expiry of a period of one year, the provisional attachment loses its efficacy and automatically pales into insignificance.
2025 (2) KLT 335 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1304
Rahmath v. George
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi (2018 (1) KLT OnLine 3094 (SC)) will not support the contention of the respondent insurance company that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running age and not on the basis of the completed age.
2025 (2) KLT 339 : 2024 KLT Online 2954
Khadeeja v. State of Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules 1995 (Kerala), R. 3A – G.O. Dt. 25.11.2002 – G.O. Dt. 16.1.1998 – There is no prohibition for an elected representative of a local body in working elsewhere and earning a livelihood.
2025 (2) KLT 342 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1129
Ramshad v. Afsal
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – Enhancement of compensation – Bystander/attendant expenses – In the case of a 20-year-old victim with 100% permanent disability a just and reasonable compensation is to be awarded towards bystander/attendant expenses by adopting a multiplier method of 18 for assessing compensation.
2025 (2) KLT 347 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1496
xxxxxxxxxx v. Union of India
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971, S.3(2B) – The length of pregnancy is not a matter for termination if the Medical Board opines that a substantial fetal abnormality exists.
2025 (2) KLT 348 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1510
Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), Ss. 5( 4)(i), 2(xii) & 2(xviii) – Nowhere in the Paddy Land Act, there is any provision to include any property which is not a “paddy land” as defined under Section 2(xii) or a wetland under Section 2(xviii) of the Paddy Land Act.
2025 (2) KLT 351 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1504
Dhanesh v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.185 – It is mandatory to subject a person arrested in connection with the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act to medical test by a registered medical practitioner within two hours of his arrest.
2025 (2) KLT 353 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1505
Radha Viswanathan v. Union of India
Constitution of India, Art.226 – Judicial review – Denial of compassionate appointment – The deceased passed away five months and 11 days before his retirement – Deceased was at the verge of retirement – Rejection of compassionate appointment not interfered.
2025 (2) KLT 356 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1502
Ramaswami v. Sivakumar
Civil Rules of Practice 1971 (Kerala), R.234(4) – The rule only enables the Court to order the realisation of the costs of the adjourned sale from the defaulted purchaser
2025 (2) KLT 359 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1503
Sakeena v. Kerala Public Service Commission
Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Service (Amendment) 2012 – Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Service 2010 – Application for appointment to the post of Supervisor ICDS rejected by insisting 10 years experience – Experience acquired either prior to or after the degree is irrelevant and not decisive in as much as the Special Rules never envisaged or contemplated such an experience – As on the date of the notification, if any Anganwadi Worker possesses a degree, he is eligible to apply.
2025 (2) KLT 362 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1498
Riyas v. BRD Securities Limited
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXXIII R.1, O.XXXIII R.8, O.XXXIII R.10, O.XXXIII R.11 & O.XXXIII R.11A – Notification No.D1(A)-4350/86 dated 13.01.1999 – The direction for realisation of the amount payable as court fee could be made only in those cases where the court permitted the plaintiff, after due inquiry, to proceed with the suit, as an indigent, and that if the suit happened to be abandoned or withdrawn at a stage before the permission is granted by the court to institute the suit as an indigent person, there is no scope for issuing direction for the realisation of the court fee payable for such suit.
2025 (2) KLT 367 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1511
Tip Top Furniture Land v. Reserve Bank of India
Constitution of India, Art.226 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – RBI Master Directions Dated 15.07.2024 for fraud declaration – In view of the specific directions in Rajesh Agarwal’s case (2023 KLT OnLine 1243 (SC)), it is obligatory on the part of Bank and the Fraud Examination Committee to furnish the report of the competent authority to the defaulters and comply the directions in paragraph 98 of Rajesh Agarwal’s case and also the procedure laid down in Chapter II of RBI Master Directions Dated 15.07.2024 for fraud declaration – The mere fact that show cause was issued before Master Directions does not negate the obligation to comply with the directions in the judgment and the RBI Master Directions Dated 15.07.2024 for fraud declaration.
2025 (2) KLT 373 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1516
Manikfan v. Deputy Collector
Laccadive Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Protection of Scheduled Tribes) Regulation 1964, Reg.4 – Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.200 & 482 – The petitioner’s status as a Lakshadweep native does not grant him or the others immunity from prosecution.
2025 (2) KLT 375 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1515
Ratheesh v. Sreelekshmi
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 – Non compliance of Directions of Apex Court in Rajnesh’s case (2020 (6) KLT OnLine 1012 (SC)) – Pointed out.
2025 (2) KLT 380 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1497
Sibin v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, S.118(1) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, S.75 – When the teachers are doing their duties in schools and colleges, there ought not to be any threat of registration of criminal case like a Damocles sword.
2025 (2) KLT 387 : 2024 KLT OnLine 3145
Ameen Gas Agencies v. Union of India
Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2018, Cl.4.2(viii) – The time limit prescribed under Clause 4.2(viii) is only directory in nature.
2025 (2) KLT 393 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1500
Joy v. Varghese
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.163A & 163A(1) – A claim under Section 163A(1) of the MV Act will not lie against a person other than the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle, especially because, in a claim under Section 163A(1) there is no necessity to plead or establish negligence.
2025 (2) KLT 396 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1389
Sidhique Chundakadan v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, S.75 – Willful Neglect – To constitute willful neglect, the acts should be done deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertence.
2025 (2) KLT 400 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1488
Ismail v. Abbas
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S.11(2)(b) & 11(3) – The landlords being the best judges of their cause, neither the tenant nor the court is expected to command them that they should alter the structure of the vacant rooms in their possession to suit them for starting the proposed business.
2025 (2) KLT 405 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1531
Appu Joseph v. Mayinkutty
Civil Law – Survey and Boundaries Act 1961 (Kerala), S.14 – If there is evidence for age-old man-made separation between two properties, there is nothing wrong in accepting the same as a boundary line in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
2025 (2) KLT 413 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1542
State of Kerala v. M/S. Chowdhary Rubber and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Value Added Tax Act 2003 (Kerala), S.25A – The order passed must necessarily be taken as a reference to the expression of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, as to whether or not the objection raised by the CAG is lawful.
2025 (2) KLT 421 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1541
Jomon v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S.20(b)(ii)(C) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.483 – Violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act need not be looked into by the bail court, while considering a bail application of an accused involved in the NDPS Act.
2025 (2) KLT 428 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1540
Navya Kiran v. Rajendran
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Ss.19 & 17(2) -- Even though the terminology used in Section 19 of the DV Act is ‘possession’ of the aggrieved person, the purpose behind the provision is to ensure the residence of the aggrieved person and not to confer legal possession of the residential building to the aggrieved person.
2025 (2) KLT 433 : 2025 KLT OnLIne 1147
Riffin v. Gopinath
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – Failure to prove negligence – Dismissal of claim petition – Production of the final report in respect of the crime registered by the police in respect of the accident is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
M/S Karthik Exports, Thuvayoor North v. Krishna Kumar Agarwal
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Ss.10(3) & 12 -- Civil P.C. 1908, S.51 & O.XXI R.10 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S.36 - A conjoint reading of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 38, 47, 51 and Order 21 Rule 10 CPC, and Sections 6, 10 and 13 of the Act, 2015 would make it clear that the court which passed the decree, that it is the commercial court, alone has the power to execute the decree and not the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
Badi Govindan v. Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini
General Clauses Act 1897, S.3(35) — Period of expiry of one month or months, as the case may be, shall be decided on fixing the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts, that is to say, if period of one month starts from 15.01.2025, one month would be completed on 15.02.2025 (but actually 32 days).
Rajesh v. Director of Civil Supplies
Essential Commodities Act 1955, Ss.3(2)(c) & 7(1)(a)(ii) -- Rationing Order, 1996 (Kerala) – Constitution of India Art.226 – Service – Disciplinary proceedings -- In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the concerned department against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition.
Essar Shipping Ports and Logistics Ltd. v. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Merchant Shipping Act 1958 – There has to be a positive act of abandonment so as to constitute a wreck and to empower the Receiver to meddle with the same, without which, the service rendered by the Receiver to a vessel in distress at the most could only be treated as a salvage act, which may or may not entitle him to claim salvage contribution.
Jemini Anil v. Food Safety Officer
Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Ss.42(2) & 46(3)-- The mere reason that the Food Analyst did not indicate in the report sent to the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety, about the reason why the analysis could not be completed within 14 days, cannot be taken as a ground to annul the prosecution proceedings initiated in this case.
Interpretation of statutes -- Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Ss.42(2) & 46(3) -- The mere use of the term ‘shall’ in a statute by itself does not mean that it is of such mandatory nature that the non-compliance of the provision in letter and spirit would vitiate the whole procedures initiated thereunder.
Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v. State of Kerala
Waqf Act 1995, Ss.40(2), 85 & 97 – A Commission of Inquiry appointed under the CoI Act, cannot consider the nature of the document or even whether it is a waqf property or not.
Constitution of India Art.226 -- Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, S.3 – Despite the discretion available with the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, it is open for the court to judicially review the proceedings to identify whether there was proper application of mind or whether due care and caution were exercised by the Government while appointing the Commission.
Pavithran v. Kerala Lok Ayukta
Lok Ayukta Act 1999 (Kerala), S.21 – Absence of parameters under Section 21 regarding the grant of sanction by the Lok Ayukta does not mean that every complaint that is dismissed must invite the prosecution under Section 21.
Benny Mon v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.185 – What matters for Section 185(a) is the volume of alchohol in the blood and not the manner of driving of the offender.
Paul George v. Emarin Paul
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125(4) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144(4) – Where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 – Withdrawal from society of the other would mean withdrawal from marital obligation by either spouse.
Jamsheer Ali v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 – Cancellation of bail – Relevancy of prior crimes – While considering a plea for cancellation of bail on the ground that the accused violated bail condition by involving in another crime, his involvement in other crimes on prior occasions may not be a criterion.
Ahammed Naseef v. State of Kerala
Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, S.66, 66(1), 66(2) & 66(2) Expln.(a) -- In the light of Explanation-(a), a partnership firm also comes within the purview of the company referred to in Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Sunitha v. State of Kerala
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, S.19(1) -- In order to fasten criminal culpability on a person, that too, in the context of failure to do the statutory obligation, mere statement by a person, who is similarly placed liable to be arrayed as an accused is insufficient.
Kuriakose v. State of Kerala
Civil P.C. 1908, S.34 -- The Court has discretion to order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, when the decree is for payment of money.
Thomas Antony v. State of Kerala
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, Ss.11 & 13(3)(i) -- Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1960 (Kerala) -- The procedure to be followed for conducting the POSH Act must be the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or such other departmental rules applicable to the employee.
State of Kerala v. Dr. Chitra
State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (Kerala), Rr.2 &38 -- Health Service (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010 (Kerala), R.6 – In view of the provisions contained in Rule 2 of Part II KS&SSR, the provisions in the Special Rules will prevail over the repugnant part of the general rules.
Interpretation of Statutes -- State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (Kerala), Rr.2 & 38 -- Health Service (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010 (Kerala), R.6 -- When there is an inconsistency between two statutory provisions which occupy the same field of operation and both cannot co-exist together, it is said that they are repugnant to each other.
Subha v. Kannur Heights Apartments Owners Association
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, S.2(zf) – The Occupancy Certificate, as defined under Section 2(zf) of the Act, contemplates the completion of sanitation also.
Abhil v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 -- Electronic Video Linkage Rules For Courts (Kerala), 2021 – For the purpose of reading over the charge and recording the plea, accused can be permitted to appear through virtual mode -- Needless to say, if the accused wants to appear through virtual mode he should submit
Mary Joseph v. Thomas Joseph
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 -- Baptism certificate alone showing the name of adopted parents would not suffice the necessity of a valid adoption and long association of a member of the adopted family would not also confer status of adopted child on a person.
Hindustan Latex Ltd. v. Asst. Controller, Legal Metrology Department
Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985, Ss.22 & 24 -- Going by the objectives of the Act itself, it shows that it is intended purely for commercial transactions and not for domestic usage of the materials stored in the tanks in the premises of a particular person.
Vinod Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Municipality Act 1994 (Kerala), Ss.6 & 69 -- G.O.(P) No.36/2024 LSGD Dated 14.6.2015 -- Even if the Government mentions G.O.(P) No.36/2024 LSGD Dated 14.6.2015, to carry out the delimitation to all the Local Self Government Institutions, so long as, the circumstances which warrant a delimitation as contemplated under Section 6 r/w section 69 of the Municipality Act are not in existence, neither the Government nor the Commission can carry out the exercise of delimitation.
Abdul Hameed Moulavi v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Arts.243C & 226 -- Panchayat Raj Act, 1994(Kerala), S.4 &6 – Bifurcation is something which comes within the powers of the legislature, being policy decisions and it is not for the court to decide, so long as there is no statutory stipulation or prohibition against the increase in the number of seats/wards in Panchayats without the creation of new Panchayats or bifurcation of the existing Panchayats.
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Jahfer
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S.14 -- Though the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not involve any adjudication, the act of the Magistrate in passing orders in printed form by filling in necessary details in blank spaces cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Union of India v. Usha
Service -- Central Industrial Security Force Act 1968, S.15A -- Central Industrial Security Force Rules 2001, R.36(10)(b) – A delinquent employee should be given a chance to submit a list of witnesses to defend his/her case - the delinquent employee should be given a chance for summoning the documents which are in possession of the Department.
Francis v. Jose
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, Ss.5 & 24 – Discharge of lumpsum liability -- A fair and pragmatic approach must be adopted to prevent tenants from being unfairly burdened due to circumstances beyond their control – Mitigatory options -- Suggested.
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, S.5 -- If the determination of fair rent is on the basis of the material, which would show the prevailing rent at the time of institution of the rent control petition, the fair rent is liable to be fixed from the date of institution of the rent control petition.
Umer Ali v. State of Kerala
Evidence Act 1872, S.65B -- There is no exemption granted in law to any authority including the Forensic Science Laboratories from not complying with the requirement of certification under Section 65B, while making copies from the original electronic record.
Evidence Act 1872, S.65B -- The DVDs, in which the electronic record (video clipping) was extracted from the DVR which have been played in the court and relied on, being secondary evidence of the electronic record, requires certification under Section 65B in order to admit the document in evidence.
Chaithanaya v. New India General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 – Merely because the father of the deceased was aged only 50 years, it could not be said that the father is not a dependent.
Mansoor Ali v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S.27A – Merely because one of the accused has made frequent phone calls with the co-accused, it would not be sufficient to presume his complicity in the commission of the offence in the absence of any other incriminating material.
State of Kerala v. Jose
Service Rules (Kerala), Part III Rr.3, 3A & 59(b) – In judicial proceedings unrelated to Government affairs, if the case remains inconclusive beyond the tenure of a Government servant, the Government cannot withhold pensionary benefits on the grounds of pending judicial proceedings.
Dr. Mithun v. Kerala Public Service Commission
Homoeopathy Medical Colleges Teaching Service Special Rule 2019 (Kerala) -- Homoeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homoeopathic Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations 2013 --The PSC cannot conduct recruitment to the State service while disregarding the Special Rules, which it is bound to follow. Since the Special Rules do not contravene Central Regulation 2013, no recruitment to State service can be carried out in violation of these rules.
Constitution of India, Art.254 & Art.246 – Homoeopathy Medical Colleges Teaching Service Special Rule 2019 (Kerala) -- Homoeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homoeopathic Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations 2013 -- In cases where the operation of State law does not create a conflict with Union law, the two can coexist, with the State law supplementing the provisions of the Union law -- Such a scenario, the qualifications prescribed under State law must be adhered to, as the State has exclusive authority to legislate on service conditions.
Fakrudeen v. State of Kerala
Criminal Law – Need for legislation to address cyber bullying, online harassment etc. – Stressed.
Kochi Selam Petroleum Gas Pipeline Surakshithawa Nashtaprihara Janakeeya Samithi v. Union of India
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962, S.6 -- Once the “right of user” is vested in the Government/Corporation and compensation is received it is not the lookout of the owners of the properties as to the person who is actually using the property.
Dr. Viswanath C. Narayanan v. University of Calicut
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 – Detailed Notification No. GA-II/C1/104750/2019/Admin Dt. 31.12.2019 – Appointment to the post of Professor in the University – The post being of a Professor in the University, experience in research guidance cannot alone be taken as a desirable qualification -- Apart from teaching experience, experience in guiding research scholars is important in the matter of discharge the duties of a Professor.
Ajeesh v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Art.14 – Service – Ratio – The fixation of the ratio purely falls within the domain of the executive -- It cannot be questioned on the ground of arbitrariness for the reason that the ratio does not represent arithmetical equality.
Constitution of India Art.14 – Service – Ratio – The ratio is often fixed, not to ensure equal representation of different categories of Government servants, it is rather to suit the larger interest of public service.
Nitta Gelatin India Limited v. Union of India
Income Tax Act 1961, S.35(2AB)(1) – The provisions of Section 35(2AB) (1), only speaks about “expenditure” being incurred by the Company -- There is no differentiation as regards ineligibility with respect to “work-in-progress”.
State of Kerala v. Vaidyanathan
Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act 2003 (Kerala) Ss.2(c) & 2(b) -- A finding under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act cannot automatically lead to a conclusion against the property being a ‘forest’ under the ‘Act’, 2003 if the relevant criteria under the latter are found attracted.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Salila
Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (Kerala) S.2 -- Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- The right to sue for compensation for pain and suffering would survive upon the legal heirs, if the injured died at a later point of time.
Mobitha v. State of Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala) -- Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2014 -- In the light of the words used in the provision, there is absolutely no scope to raise an argument that the expression “the first detention order” used in Section 12, refers only to the first detention order after Act 41 of 2014 -- If one reads the provision independent of the earlier provision, the expression “the first detention order” can only be understood as the first detention against the person under this Act, irrespective of the fact whether it is prior to or after Act 41 of 2014.
Firos v. State of Kerala
Service -- The failure tomention an ‘equivalent qualification’ for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Kerala Water Authority clearly manifests the deliberate design and intent of the Special Rules to limit the equivalence in that context only to the institution from which the Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation is obtained and not to enlarge the eligibility by encompassing equivalent qualifications also.
Jamaludheen Farooque v. Muneer Ahmed
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.441 & 389 -- Criminal Rules of Practice 1982 (Kerala), Form No.37 -- Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 & 148 – Bail/surety bonds are executed to ensure the presence of the accused/appellant whenever required by the court, and not as a guarantee for the fine amount or the amount sought to be realised.
Rasheed v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R.4(4e) – The Rule only provides for the report of the Agricultural Officer -- Agricultural Officer is expected to submit the report based on the enquiry independently conducted by him and he cannot resort to the decision of the LLMC.
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S.2(xii) -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R.4(4e) – As the definition of expression “paddy land” as per in Sec.2(xii) of the Act is concerned, one of the requirements is that, the land has to be fit for paddy cultivation.
Dharmaraj Rasalam v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, S. 3 – A person, whose name was included in the FIR registered for the scheduled offence but omitted in the final report, can also be prosecuted under the PMLA, if he is allegedly involved in the concealment or use of the proceeds of crime.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, Ss.2(u) & 2(v) – Any person indulging, involving or attempting, or even assisting in doing any of the processes or activities enumerated in the explanation to Section 3 is guilty of the offence of money laundering.
Xxxxxxx v. Xxxxxx
Hindu Marriage Act 1955, S.13(1)(ia) – Cruelty – Divorce -- Compelling the wife to adopt his spiritual life causing emotional distress to her, amounts to mental cruelty.
Abi Abraham v. Kanhangad Rubber Ltd.
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 & 139 – Standard of proof to discharge evidential burden – Explained.
Korah v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S.13(1) Expln.2 – In a case where the investigation was already concluded and final report filed before the introduction of the new Explanation, the accused cannot ask to conduct a further investigation.
Lakshmi v. Bindhu
Civil P.C. 1908, O.III R.1 & O.IIII R.2 -- Contract Act 1872, Ss.201, 202,206, 207 & 208 – Even after the execution of a power-of-attorney, the principal can act independently and does not have to take the consent of the attorney.
Martin Paul v. State of Kerala*
Constitution of India Art.226 – Circular Dt. 19.1.2025 – Projects to provide scholarships and allowances to physically and mentally challenged children – Implementation of -- Role and liability of officials -- Directions issued.
Rajasree Ajith v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss.19 & 13(2) – In a case where an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act is committed in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, every conspirator who was party in actual commission of that offence is liable for trial not only for the conspiracy but also for the main offence. In such a case it is incorrect to try such a conspirator for criminal conspiracy alone leaving aside the offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
Samsuddin v. Union of India
Constitution of India, Art.20(1) -- The expression 'law in force' refers to a law that is factually in operation at the time when the offence is committed, in contrast to a law 'deemed to be in force' due to the retrospective operation of a subsequently enacted law.
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950 (T.C.) -- Parens Partrie -- The Travancore Devaswom Board and also Kerala Police shall issue advisory to Sabarimala pilgrims that ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ Project, which was a community policing programme of Kerala Police in Sabarimala, is not part of Police Bandobast Scheme from Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199ME (2023-24) onwards and that the name of the said project cannot be used for any activity connected with Sabarimala.
Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v. Pinarayi Vijayan
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.2(d) – A mere complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) without the qualification “facts which constitute an offence” is not sufficient for the competent court to take cognizance of the offences alleged.