Fortnightly Updates (Sep 16 - Sep 30, 2025)
2025 (5) KLT 245 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1912
Dr. Sangetha v. State of Kerala
Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985, S. 68A – Section 68A of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 provides that inter university transfer of Teachers shall be made only on the written request of the Teacher who has completed three years of service.
2025 (5) KLT 249 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1680
State of Kerala v. Sreekantan
Service Rules (Kerala), Part I R. 88(iii) – Where the Government has the discretion either to penalize an employee or, alternatively, to show leniency, the Government is certainly entitled to impose appropriate conditions while exercising such discretion in favour of the employee, but those conditions must be fair, reasonable, and necessary to protect the public interest.
2025 (5) KLT 253 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2789
Government College, Chavara v. Ambikadevi Amma
Civil P.C. 1908, S. 80 -- If the State participates in the proceedings without raising an objection regarding the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the State cannot agitate the said issue later.
2025 (5) KLT 266 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2797
Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.173(2) & 204 – Investigation – Role of the Accused – As per the scheme of the Code, save under certain exceptional circumstances, the accused has no right of participation during the course of the investigation of a proceeding instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in the filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code, or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report, till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code.
2025 (5) KLT 275 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2798
M/s. Classic Agencies v. Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Ss. 13 & 14 -- Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Writ of Mandamus -- Invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellants cannot seek a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents, to keep in abeyance all coercive steps against the secured assets, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, till a decision is taken by the Bank on the proposal made in Ext.P6 request for extending the timeline of the OTS facility sanctioned.
2025 (5) KLT 279 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2834
Shareefa v. Sub Collector, Tirur
Evidence Act 1872, S.120 – Section 120 of the Act does not clothe a non-party spouse with the right to institute proceedings in substitution of the party spouse.
2025 (5) KLT 283 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2800
In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 and In the matter of M/s.Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Companies Act 1956, S.446 -- Companies Act 2013, S.279 -- Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 -- Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules 2016 -- Since the company has been wound up as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the matter is pending before the High Court and not before the Tribunal, the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 will apply in the present case and Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 which is the corresponding Section to Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 for obtaining leave will have no application in the present case.
2025 (5) KLT 287 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2773
Shaji John v. Joseph
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), S. 11(3) – What is to be looked into is the bona fides of the landlord in seeking eviction in relation to the need -- There can be no subjective scrutiny of the need by the Rent Control Court, but rather an objective assessment of the need projected by the landlord.
2025 (5) KLT 289 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2222
Nixon v. City Police Commissioner, Kochi
Constitution of India, Art.226 – Request for removal of name from surveillance list/Rowdy History list – It cannot be said that a criminal will always be a criminal and a rowdy will always be a rowdy -- If the person is coming with a genuine claim that he is on the reformative pathway, the court cannot ignore the same.
2025 (5) KLT 295 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2848
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.
2025 (5) KLT 300 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2788
Kerala Taxi Drivers Organization v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala), Rr.123, 128 & 140 -- While introducing a policy, regulatory measures, or in the exercise of subordinate legislation, it is not necessary to afford a hearing to the affected parties.
2025 (5) KLT 311 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2840
Nizarudheen v. State of Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (Kerala), Ss.191, 191(4), 166 & 167 -- Whether Section 191 is arbitrary to the extent it denies opportunity of hearing to the Panchayats while suspending the resolution or decision temporarily under sub-section (4) of Section 191 -- There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the powers to pass interim orders granted to the Government under Section 191(4).
2025 (5) KLT 321 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2843
Jaice John v. Director of Mining and Geology
Explosives Rules 2008, R. 97 -- Mines Act 1952, S. 57(i) -- Explosives Act 1884, S.5 -- If the Explosives Rules require an enquiry into the site of a quarry, this cannot be overridden by the provisions of the Mines Act -- The argument that the use of explosives for blasting in quarries is governed not by the Explosives Rules but by the KMMC Rules is unsustainable.
2025 (5) KLT 330 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2732
Sulaiman v. State of Kerala
Land Acquisition Act 1894, S. 3(f)(vi) -- The scope of land acquisition for educational institutions is limited.
2025 (5) KLT 334 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2706
Union of India v. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq
Public Provident Fund Act 1968, Ss. 3 & 4 -- Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968, R. 3(1) -- Mother opened accounts in the name of minor children – As per Rule 3, the excess deposits made into the minor accounts, during the period till the minors attained the age of majority, will be taken as the deposits made by the mother, which violates the limit prescribed under Rule 3 of the Scheme 1968.
2025 (5) KLT 343 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2548
Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- In a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the mother for maintenance against her son, it is not a defence to the son that there are other children to maintain the mother and therefore he need not pay maintenance.
2025 (5) KLT 346 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1443
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) v. Last Hour Ministry
Income Tax Act 1961, Ss. 12A, 12AA, 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) -- The statutory provisions do not require the Principal Commissioner to await the decision of the Assessing Authority concerned before passing an order cancelling the registration granted to an assessee under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
Dr. M. Navas v. State of Kerala
Service – Once the selection is made by a competent authority, unless and until there are overwhelming reasons for not granting the appointment, the appointment should be granted – The candidates who got selected in the selection process to hold a public post will have legitimate expectations of getting an appointment unless the selection is vitiated or for reasons such as fraud, bias, etc.
2025 (5) KLT 357 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2885
Shaji @ Shaiju v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Chap.XXIX & S.378 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Chap.XXXI & S.419 – There are no provisions in the Cr.P.C. or the BNSS which indicate that there shall be an appeal against conviction and sentence automatically and without the power of the appellate court being specifically invoked by the accused.
2025 (5) KLT 365 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2901
Farhana Latheef v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S. 27A(1), 27A(2) & 27B -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), Rr. 12, 12(13), Form 6, Form 7 & Form 9 -- Whether the application is submitted in Form 6, Form 7 or Form 9, an order to be passed on the said applications by the Revenue Divisional Officer is under Section 27A(2) of the Act 2008 -- An order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 27A of the Act 2008, is appealable under Section 27B of the Act.
2025 (5) KLT 369 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2877
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.
2025 (5) KLT 381 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2875
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 -- To give full effect to the guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination embodied therein, persons with disabilities must be afforded appropriate and reasonable accommodations and be accorded priority in access to facilities and services -- Such measures are not a matter of charity but a statutory and constitutional mandate designed to secure substantive equality.
2025 (5) KLT 389 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2903
Manoj v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.163 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.183 – Evidence Act 1872, S.137 – A reading of the provision indicates that a statement recorded from a person who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled shall be considered as a statement in place of examination-in-chief as specified in Section 137 of the Evidence Act.
2025 (5) KLT 406 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2863
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.
2025 (5) KLT 414 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2913
Rakhi v. Krishnakumar
Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Ss. 13B & 15 -- Is the second marriage, contracted by the divorcee, on mutual consent, within the time frame of S.15, illegal ?
2025 (5) KLT 418 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2914
Athul Dini v. District Registrar
Special Marriage Act 1954, Ss. 15, 16 & Fifth Schedule -- Incorporating original date of marriage in the certificate -- PEARL software -- The authorities cannot deny the request of the applicants to include the date of celebration of marriage in the marriage certificate -- If it is an error occurring in the PEARL software while generating a marriage certificate, it is for the authority to correct the same in order to issue a proper and valid certificate showing the original date of celebration of the marriage.
2025 (5) KLT 423 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2862
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.
2025 (5) KLT 431 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2871
Saravanabhava v. District Collector, Ernakulam
National Highways Act 1956, S. 3H(4) -- Disputes qualified for reference would arise only in circumstances where the competent authority cannot, by itself and without the aid of the adjudication process, decide on the title or interest of the party or the claimant
2025 (5) KLT 435 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2918
Alavi v. Principal Secretary to Government
Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (Kerala), R. 14(1), 14(4) & 14(2) – The expression ‘permitted area’, as employed in Rule 14(4), is not confined to a case, where a quarrying permit has been issued in terms of Rule 14(1).
2025 (5) KLT 439 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2912
Appukuttan v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.394 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.435 – If the appellant dies when an appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine is pending, the appellate court shall proceed to allow the near relatives to contest the matter, and if they do not come forward, the appellate court shall decide the appeal on the merits.
Gurikkalevalappil Mohanan v. Sharmina Beevi
Penal Code 1860, Ss. 34, 354, 427, 506(ii) -- When the complainant alleges that the accused persons obstructed the peaceful residence of the de facto complainant in the property owned by her after parting possession of the same to the plaintiff in the suit, the allegation is prima facie baseless and therefore, the entire prosecution is unwarranted and the same is an abuse of process of court.
Stanley Pigarez v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- The Court reiterated the ratio in Neeraj Dutta’s case (2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1047 (SC) = 2023 (1) KLT SN 28 (C.No.28) SC )that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact and the fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence, when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act is to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.397 & 401 – Penal Code 1860, S.354 – Where the evidence on record had been misconstrued or the conviction was based on inadmissible evidence or the entire approach of the Court in dealing with the evidence is patently illegal, the High Court can very well interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in the exercise of jurisdiction vested with it under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C -- The concurrent finding of fact based on illegal appreciation of evidence cannot be called a question of fact, but it is a question of law for the purpose of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
Thyagarajan v. Deputy Commissioner
Revenue Recovery Rules 1968 (Kerala), R. 4 Item (viii) -- As the recovery of tax is concerned, collection charges are recoverable at the rates specified in clause (viii) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules 1968, once the recovery proceedings are initiated, irrespective of the stage at which or the mode through which, the recovery was affected.
Farhana Latheef v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), S. 27A(1), 27A(2) & 27B -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), Rr. 12, 12(13), Form 6, Form 7 & Form 9 -- Whether the application is submitted in Form 6, Form 7 or Form 9, an order to be passed on the said applications by the Revenue Divisional Officer is under Section 27A(2) of the Act 2008 -- An order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 27A of the Act 2008, is appealable under Section 27B of the Act.
Manoj v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.164 -- Whether the appointing of first informant who is also a witness for the prosecution as aid to record the statement of victim is proper.
Gopikrishnan v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 20 -- Either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is necessary to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C Act in the matter of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
Appukuttan v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss. 374 & 394 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.435 & 415 -- An appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine does not abate on the death of the appellant/ accused.
Rakhi v. Krishnakumar
Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Ss. 13B & 15 -- Civil P.C. 1908, O.XX R. 1, O.XX R. 3 & O.XX R. 7 -- No judgment or decree statutorily requires to carry an endorsement of the time it was delivered, since no law provides for it -- Once the judgment is pronounced/delivered, it takes effect immediately and operates from the commencement of the day it was so pronounced or delivered.
Athul Dini v. District Registrar
Special Marriage Act 1954, Ss. 15 & 16 -- Fifth Schedule -- Incorporating original date of marriage in the certificate -- PEARL software -- The authorities cannot deny the request of the applicants to include the date of celebration of marriage in the marriage certificate -- If it is an error occurring in the PEARL software while generating a marriage certificate, it is for the authority to correct the same in order to issue a proper and valid certificate showing the original date of celebration of the marriage.
Rajappan v. State of Kerala
Abkari Act 1077, Ss. 55(g), 8(1) & 8(2) -- None of the prosecution witnesses has a case that they saw the accused handling the contraband items at the time of occurrence and admittedly no contraband item is recovered from house -- The prosecution has not adduced any evidence as to who is in ownership and possession of the house and who all are residing in the said house --The prosecution has also not produced any document to prove the ownership and possession of the property from where the contraband items are alleged to have recovered -- Convict acquitted.
Alavi v. Principal Secretary to Government
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (Kerala), Rr. 14(1), 14(4) & 14(2) -- Whether Rule 14(4) is applicable in cases of excavation conducted in violation of Rule 14(2) -- In cases governed by Rule 14(2), the excavation is permitted and confined only to that area as specifically shown in the approved building plan -- Any excavation outside those permitted area will invite the wrath of Rule 14(4) of the K.M.M.C Rules, and the offender shall be liable to pay the penalty as stipulated therein.
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (Kerala), Rr. 14(1), 14(4) & 14(2) – The expression 'permitted area', as employed in Rule 14(4), is not confined to a case, where a quarrying permit has been issued in terms of Rule 14(1).
Dilip Shankar Gang Jain v. Rehmath
Civil P.C. 1908, S. 65 -- A prior sale prevails over a subsequent sale even if the confirmation of the prior sale was after the subsequent sale.
Transfer of Property Act 1882, S. 52 -- To approach the higher forum, statute has prescribed a period of limitation -- When a litigant invokes such remedy within the stipulated period and the appellate court finds the judgment/order impugned therein as erroneous, the litigant is not to suffer for the mistake committed by the original forum.
Aparna Kunjamma v. Anil Sasidharan
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.199 & 224(a) – Criminal P.C. 1973, S.179 – Penal Code 1860, S.498A – Cases relating to the commission of offences under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act also, the courts at the place where the victim woman takes shelter and temporarily resides, are empowered to conduct enquiry and trial in respect of those offences.
M.T. Vision (Imo.9236016) v. Aquarro Logistics and Trading L.L.C-FZ
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXXIX R. 4 Proviso – Admiralty suit – Conditional order of arrest – The principle in the Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC is applicable to the proceedings for a conditional order of arrest in an Admiralty suit.
Amity Projects India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sherin M.P. Parkjash
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XLVII Rr. 4(1), 4(2) & 8 -- Roster – Once the Review is allowed the case is to be heard afresh by the judge of the Court as per the roster.
State of Kerala v. Joseph John
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 13(1)(c) & 13(2) -- When no charge has been framed so far against the co-accused, against whom IPC offences alone were alleged to be committed and in such a case, following the ratio in State through CBI, New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh’s case (2014 (1) KLT 666 (SC)), that a competent Magistrate can try and dispose of the case is only to be justified.
Joys v. Thomas Sebastian
Penal Code 1860, S. 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, S.138 – The difference between a mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of the alleged incident.
Shiny v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art. 227 -- Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, S. 19 -- The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal -- The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction.
Jubairiya v. Saidalavi
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Mohammedan Law -- A court of law cannot simply recognise the first, second or third marriage of a Muslim man when he has no capacity to maintain his wives, and one of the wives approached the court with a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance.
Dr.A.M.Muraleedharan v. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Insurance Act 1938, S. 45 – Medical Insurance -- A condition which rigidly limits surgical benefit to an enumerated list of procedures must be construed liberally -- If the medical intervention undergone by the insured is of a nature that's comparable in seriousness, necessity, and medical consequence to those listed, the claim shouldn't be denied on the ground of technical non-inclusion.
District Collector v. Thangal Kunju
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala), S. 27A -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R. 2(e) -- Land Tax Rules 1976 (Kerala), R. 4 -- For treating land as paddy land or wetland, the entries in the BTR or settlement register are not decisive; it must be established that the land comes within the meaning of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Paddy Land and Wetland Act as on the date of enactment of Act 28 of 2008.
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala),S. 27A -- Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008 (Kerala), R. 2(e) -- Land Tax Rules 1976 (Kerala), R. 4 – If the Revenue Officials have a case that, notwithstanding the description of the property in the Basic Tax Register as purayidam, the natural lie of the land shows it to be nilam or wetland, it is open for them to proceed in accordance with law to include such land in the Data Bank.
Jayson Joy v. CBI
Criminal P.C.1973, S.482 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.120B, 420, 468 & 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 13(2) & 13(1)(d) -- Where there is no allegation of manipulation, forgery or cleverly conceived contrivance to avail financial benefits otherwise, on closure of the loan transaction, its diversion for certain other purposes in negation to the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned alone would not be a ground to hold that the nature of the case to be regarded as overwhelmingly and predominantly out of civil character to disallow the plea of quashment.
Rahul v. State of Kerala
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Ss. 3 (2)(v) & 18 -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.376(2)(n) & 506 – In cases where the allegation is that an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been committed and when the Court prima facie concludes that the substantive offence punishable with a term of imprisonment for a period of 10 years or more has not been committed, the said prima facie conclusion is sufficient to hold that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against the grant of anticipatory bail will not apply.
National Highways Authority of India v. Lawerence
National Highways Act 1956, S. 3H(1) -- National Highways (Manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisite funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules 2019, R. 3(i)(b) -- The direction to deposit the amount before exhausting the statutory remedies under the law is legally unsustainable.
Suresh v. Ravi
Travancore Ezhava Act 1100 M.E., S. 32 – The preamble of the Act read with the definition clause of ‘Makkathayam property’ leaves no room for doubt that a property derived by a sale deed will not come under its purview.
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v. M/s. Pooja Milk Foods (P) Ltd.
Electricity Act 2003, S. 42(5) -- Though the CGRF functions as a quasi-judicial body, its decisions, awards, and orders must be treated as decisions of the licensee itself in the realm of governance relating to electricity distribution -- They are integral to the institutional decision-making of the licensee and not separable from it -- Consequently, the licensee can be said to be aggrieved only when a decision is rendered independently of it, and not otherwise.
Marthoma Syrian Church v. State of Kerala
Building Tax Act 1975 (Kerala), S. 3(1)(b) -- Retirement home for aged clergymen -- Owned by a church which is engaged in charitable activities – If the accommodation is provided without collecting charges, for the persons who rendered their services to the charitable/religious institutions managed by the owner of the building, it has to be treated as a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 3(1) (b) of the Act.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayishakutty
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 , S.166 -- The deceased had a large family of 8 members, including his wife -- Deduction of 1/3 by the tribunal is just and reasonable.
Sreekumar v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Merely because a reverse burden is cast upon the accused, that by itself takes away the duty of the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubts and the reverse burden would be operative only when primary burden cast upon the prosecution is discharged.
Balakrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.438 & 442 -- Where the prosecution materials would show a prima facie case or a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused in the case, discharge plea must fail, which in turn necessitates trial, but a mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement of strong suspicion.
Union of India v. P.P. Jose
Border Security Force Act 1968 -- Border Security Force Rules 1969 -- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 -- The BSF Act and Rules are for service matters, while the CCS Rules are the exclusive legal framework for determining pensionary benefits for BSF personnel -- This is particularly relevant in cases of dismissal or resignation, where the service rules may dictate the terms of separation, but the pension rules will determine the financial consequences of that separation.
Kani v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited
Electricity Act 2003, Ss.135 & 127 -- Electricity Supply Code 2014, Reg.158 -- By no stretch an appeal filed under S.127 of the Act maintainable in a case alleging theft under S.135 of the Act.
Under Graduate Medical Education Board v. V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust
Constitution of India Art.226 – Interim order – Admission to medical or dental courses – In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interim order for provisional admission to Medical or Dental courses should not be given as a matter of course on the writ petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible.
Manoly Haneefa v. Puthiyapurayil Shuhaib
Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, S. 11(3) -- An attempt to sell the tenanted premises will not, by itself, stand as a testimony of the mala fides possessed by the landlord.
Edappara Thilakam v. Kottarathil Komalavalli Amma
Civil P.C. 1908, O.XXI Rr. 97 & 101 -- When the executability of the decree is being questioned in an application under Order-XXI Rule-97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the court is called upon to decide the rights of the parties inter se under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the acceptability of the Will is not an issue to be considered.
Civil Law -- Will -- A restrictive covenant in a Will which prevents the legatee from enjoying the legacy must always be viewed as detrimental to the interest of the legatee.
Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd v. District Superintendent of Police
Constitution of India Art.226 -- Police protection -- If lawful possession is disturbed by persons having no personal right to possession, police protection has to be granted.
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes v. Hakeem
General Sales Tax Act 1963 (Kerala), Ss. 17D & 17(6) -- Even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time -- The assessment has to be initiated at least with reference to 5 years as prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act.
State of Kerala v. Renjitha Sathyan
General Sales Tax Act 1963 (Kerala), S. 17(6) -- In a case where no return is filed by a dealer, merely because the dealer had a duty to file the return, it cannot be said that the proceedings were initiated on account of the default -- It is only when a notice is issued in accordance with the law, it can be said that the proceedings are initiated.
Rejimon v. State of Kerala
Value Added Tax Act 2003, S. 56 – Whether the revisional authority is justified in exercising suo motu power u/S. 56 of the Act.
Sivan v. State
Penal Code 1860, S. 34 -- Whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case and that the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted.
Rappai and Sons v. Union of India
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, S.140 -- Transitional arrangements for the claim of Input Tax Credit -- The application could not be successfully uploaded, as certain errors were shown in the portal – Denial of benefits -- Those technical difficulties by itself cannot be a reason to reject.
Shoranur Metal Industries LLP v. Metal Industries Ltd.
Trade Marks Act 1999, Ss. 27 & 29 -- In order to maintain an action for passing off, in addition to establishing deceptive similarity between the trade name used by the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiffs also have to prove that they enjoys goodwill and reputation and also that they have suffered damage or that they are likely to suffer damage by the use of the same trademark by the defendants -- The impugned decree of injunction granted by the trial court merely on the ground that the plaintiffs have been using the registered trade name 'Metal Industries' for decades and the defendants started using the similar trademark of the plaintiffs only recently, cannot be sustained.
Dileep Kumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Service – Preparation of Graduation list for seniority – In the absence of any specific rules regarding the reckoning of seniority after integration, length of service is the appropriate criterion for determining seniority.
XXXXXXXX v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.450 – The accused, being the lessee, is in exclusive possession of the house -- Since the accused is in possession of the house, there can be no criminal trespass or house trespass -- The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under section 450 of the IPC cannot be sustained.
Sivan v. Raju
Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, S. 22C -– Employee’s Compensation Act 1923, S. 8(1) -- The bar under Section 8(1) of the EC Act will not be applicable to the proceedings under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
Dr. Divya Sadasivan v. State of Kerala
Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules 2010 (Kerala), Rr. 5 & 10 -- The situation contemplated in Rule 10 is a special situation, and hence it cannot be said that the option to be exercised in Rule 5 includes the option that is mentioned in Rule 10 -- The right given under Rule 10 is an one- time special right that was granted to the persons who acquired additional qualification, in addition to the option to be exercised generally by all Doctors.
Padmakumar v. Secretary to Government, Forest and Wild Life Department
Forest Act 1961 (Kerala), S. 6(2) – If a person is in continuous occupation of the land, albeit without title, such person will surely qualify the requirements of a known or reputed occupier -- Section 6(2) envisages a right of notice to both 'known or reputed owner', as also, 'known or reputed occupier'.
Authorised Officer v. Narayanan Potty
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, S. 13(4) -- Constitution of India, Art.226 -- When the proceedings stand terminated by the final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the High Court to reopen the same by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action.
Corporate ManagerTravancore Devaswom Board v. Dr. Sangetha
Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985, S. 2(17), 68, 68A -- Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997, Chap.XLV Statute 35 & Chap.XLV Statute 37 -- Kerala University Act 1974, S. 64 -- Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non teaching Staff) First Statutes 1979, S. 34 -- The transfer of a teacher from a college under a particular University to another college under another University can be only by way of inter-University transfer as provided under the University Act and Statutes -- The word redeployment used is a cunning attempt to effect inter- University transfer of a teacher from one college under a University to another college under a different University without the consent of the teacher concerned.
Deion Paul Naveen Represented by his Father v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India Art.226 – Writ of mandamus -- Manual of Kerala State School Athletics and Games Meet – As the Manual of Kerala State Schools Athletics and Games Meet is not of a statutory character, the Court can indeed give directions to the State to amend the Manual taking into consideration justice, equity and public interest.
Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, S. 13(1)(c) & 13(2) -- Penal Code 1860, Ss. 34, 403, 409 & 420 -- When the repayment of the amount without any interest for the same was done at a much belated stage and the accused persons enjoyed the benefits of misappropriation in between the period of misappropriation and the remittance of the value for the same, the claim that, it is very common in BEVCO outlets to find discrepancies in the stock/amount due to the voluminous work and the delay in stock verification, cannot be accepted as an explanation for this huge shortage.
Benny Sebastian v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 50 -- In the absence of any such writing from the side of the accused, it cannot be held that the prosecution has complied the requirements envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
State of Kerala v. M V MSC Akiteta II (IMO No.9220847)
Merchant Shipping (Regulation of Entry of Ships into Ports,Anchorages and Offshore Facilities) Rules 2012 – The insistence of valid P & I Insurance under the Merchant Shipping (Regulation of Entry of Ships into Ports, Anchorages and Offshore Facilities) Rules, 2012 for entry into the Indian Coastal Waters could not be taken as a reason to accept a Letter of Undertaking from a P & I Insurance Club in lieu of arrest in an Admiralty Suit.
M/s. Grids Engineers and Contractors v. Union Bank of India
High Court Act 1958 (Kerala), S. 5 – Division Bench has travelled far beyond the legitimate bounds of intra court appellate scrutiny, totally contrary to Larger Bench and Division Bench judgments – Scope of intra court appeal under Section 5 needs consideration by Larger Bench – Matter referred by Single Bench.
Adarsh v. National Highways Authority of India
National Highways Act, 1956, Ss.3G(5) & 26 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, S. 28 – Whether the Arbitral Tribunal was correct in dismissing the application for appointing an expert to assess the injurious affection on a premise that structures have been valued by National Highways Authority of India -- Merely because a party to arbitration proceedings has made an assessment, the right of the adversary party to get things ascertained by a process known to law cannot be negated.