Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025 [Citations 305
TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
Asha Verma v. Director General of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
Abjijith M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
Asianet Star Communications Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India and others, and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
Chenthamara @ Kannan and Others v. Meena and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
Sudhin Krishna C. S. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
K.R. Antony v. Kunjumol & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
Zahhad and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
State of Kerala and Others v. T. Rajeev, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
Sharooq Mohammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors & Other Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
State of Kerala v. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt.Ltd. and Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
C. P. Muhammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
Santhosh Warrier v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas and others, and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
Xx v XX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
Xxx v. Xxx & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Binsi and another v. Sandeep Chandran, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
Dipin Vidhyadharan and Another v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
Shafeena P. H. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Korea Chemi & Anr. v. Siluvaipichai Francies & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
Santhosh Kumar N P v. State – Station House Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
XX and Others v State of Kerala and Another & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
Sheela Francis Parakkal and Others v The Authorised Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
Dr Bibilash B. S v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
Devidas C. & Others v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
Sheela George and another v. V.M. Alexander, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
Revathy C. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, ED, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Secretary Cum Manager, Majilis Arts and Science College v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Principal v. Union of India & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
R. Ramesh v. Vijaya Bank & Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
Hussain & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Suresh v. Sree Narayana Smaraka Samathi Trust, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Zeenath and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
Dr. C. M. Aboobacker v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
Moideen Koya & Ors. v. M/S.Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Manju Saud & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
Harisankar S. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
K. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
Kerala Private Hospital Association and Another v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
Noormida v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Jasmin Shaji v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Trust , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Another v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Dr. K.R. Leela Devi v. K.R. Rajaram and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The State Of Kerala Versus S. Ajayakumar And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Kerala High Court Closes Plea For Verification Of Migrant Workers, Says It Is For Govt To Decide
Case Title: TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
The Kerala High Court disposed of a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the government to verify the identity, criminal antecedents and other details of migrant workers arriving in the State.
In the petition, it was alleged that most of the migrant workers coming into Kerala have criminal antecedents and have fabricated identity cards.
While considering the matter on Friday (May 30), the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji questioned the petitioner about the source of the information and the data that he is relying on. The counsel for the petitioner stated that reliance is placed on the newspaper reports and a letter written by the petitioner, which are annexed in the writ petition.
Case Title: Asha Verma v. Director General of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
The Kerala High Court today (June 2) disposed of a writ petition filed by an inter-faith couple from Jharkhand seeking police protection against their family members.
Noting that there is no threat from relatives of the petitioners at present, Justice N. Nagaresh granted them liberty to approach the 3rd respondent Station House Officer (SHO), Kayamkulam in case of any further threat from relatives. The SHO was directed to give protection as needed if the couple approached the officer.
Case Title: Abjijith M. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
The Kerala High Court recently refused to stop trial court proceedings against a person who allegedly sent a message to the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister (CM) Pinarayi Vijayan, that he would kill the new CM on the eve of the declaration of the election results, noting that it will send a wrong message to the society.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan noted that the petitioner who is a bank employee and not an illiterate person, should have been aware of the consequences of such a message. The Court said that the valuable time of police is lost in investigating such acts. The court further noted that “social media comments are a menace to society now”.
Case Title: Asianet Star Communications Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India and others, and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment clarifying the scope and jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Justice D.K. Singh in his 142 page judgment laid down the position of law while hearing Writ Petitions stating an alleged ‘conflict’ of jurisdiction between the two regulatory bodies.
Case Title: Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
The Kerala High Court has held that the compendium of Instructions/Guidelines relating to the issue of Passports in India/Abroad cannot go against the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 or the Rules thereon or any other instrument having the force of law.
The judgment was passed by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. while considering a writ petition before the Court. The petition was preferred for a direction to the 2nd respondent (Regional Passport Office, Cochin) for re-issue of passport with date of birth corrected as per the Birth Certificate of the petitioner.
Wife Has Right To Live In Shared Household Even After Husband’s Death: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chenthamara @ Kannan and Others v Meena and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
In a significant ruling reaffirming a woman’s right to residence, the Kerala High Court has held that a wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home even after the death of her husband.
The decision delivered by Justice M.B. Snehalatha underscores the right of a woman to live in a shared household, ensuring her safety and dignity despite familial opposition.
Kerala High Court Upholds Right To Change Religion & Name In Educational Records Upon Conversion
Case Title: Sudhin Krishna C. S. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld an individual’s right to change their religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and to have such changes reflected in educational records.
The order was delivered by Justice D. K. Singh.
Case Title: K.R. Antony v. Kunjumol & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, reaffirmed the principle of strict liability for owners and handlers of dangerous animals.
The court held that they are fully responsible for any harm caused by such animals regardless of negligence or any provocation by third parties. This judgment followed a tragic incident during a temple procession in which an elephant owned by the first defendant attacked and ultimately caused the death of a devotee.
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee’s obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.
“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell – a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification……” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
The Kerala High Court stated that vessel engaged under SEAIOCM agreement qualified as ‘foreign going vessel’ for exemption under section 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the issue of whether in the backdrop of the terms of engagement of the vessel under the SEAIOCM Agreement, the vessel can be categorized as a foreign going vessel for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: Zahhad and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
The Kerala High Court while allowing the petition filed by the Zahhad and Ziya, the first transgender parents of the country, to change the description of them in their child’ s birth certificate from father and mother to parents observed that the law has to evolve with the changes in the society.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. held that there is no need to take a hyper-technical stand in the case.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v. T. Rajeev
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
The Kerala High Court recently observed that it was the duty of the government as per the Rights of Persons with Disability Act to ensure public places are accessible to differently abled persons and any failure to do so should not be detrimental to a government employee with disabilities.
The Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John made this observation in a case filed by T. Rajeev who has 60% locomotor disability due to post-polio residual paralysis. He was working as a Senior Grade typist in the Motor Vehicle Department. Due to his inability to climb to the upper floor of the building where the office was situated, he sought an inter-departmental transfer as an LD Typist in the Thalappilly Subdivision office of the Irrigation Department which was on the ground floor of the same building. In the request, he had also sought for protection of pay. After multiple rounds of litigation, the government made the transfer as per his request but he was given only the salary of an LD typist which was lesser than the salary he drew as a Senior Grade typist.
Case Title: Sharooq Mohammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors & Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
The Kerala High Court has quashed the State Government’s order imposing internship fees on Foreign Medical Graduates (FMGs) for completing their compulsory rotatory medical internship (CRMI) in government hospitals. The judgment, delivered by Justice N. Nagaresh, emphasized that only the National Medical Commission (NMC) has the power to regulate internships and that the State Government’s action was contrary to NMC’s guidelines.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt.Ltd. and Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
In a notable judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed two writ appeals filed by the State and revenue authorities, imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- on them for what the Court described as unreasonable and unfair litigation tactics. The case, heard by Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj, arose from a dispute over the classification of land owned by Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute began when Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Project Manager Joseph Mariadas, approached the High Court seeking correction of revenue records to reflect its land as purayidom (dry land). Although the land was originally classified as paddy land, it had been converted before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, after securing necessary permissions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.
Case Title: C.P. Muhammed and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (4th June) stayed the trial of the murder case of Youth Congress Activist, Shuhaib before the Additional Sessions Court III, Thalassery. The order was made by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in a petition filed by Shuhaib’s parents and the witnesses in the case to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct the trial.
Shuhaib was hacked to death allegedly by CPI(M) workers in Mattanur in Kannur district on February 12, 2018. As per the case, there was 29 grievous injuries on him. He died while being taken to the hospital.
Case Title: Santhosh Warrier v. State Of Kerala and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment wherein it held that even the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under S.31A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act cannot collect donations from devotees in connection to ‘Para Nirakkal’. It was also held that any collection of money from devotees in connection with annual festival shall be with the prior approval of the Devaswom Board, against sealed coupons issued by the Assistant Commissioner.
The decision was rendered by the Division Bench comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. while considering a writ petition filed by a devotee of Peruvaram Sree Mahadeva Temple.
Case Title: Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no provision of rejecting the appeal merely on non-appearance of assessee and the appellate authority must decide an appeal by strictly following the mandate contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that “evidently, going by Subsection 6 of Section 250, no other meaning can be assigned to the words “points for determination” as it obviously leads to the question that arises for consideration based on the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to refer to the points raised in the appeal, and to determine the same by supplying reasons for such determination.”
Case No: State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas and others, and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
The Kerala High Court has, in a recent judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 28(2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which barred the members of Managing Committees of Credit Societies from contesting in elections after three terms.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar reversed the judgment of the Single Bench, which had struck down the provision in question.
Case Title: Xx v XX
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom noticed that it was commonplace for a spouse to shut prison circumstances filed by her towards her husband to avoid wasting him. The Courtroom mentioned {that a} spouse does so within the expectation that her husband would change.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha noticed {that a} lady will forgive to guard her household.
Case Title: Xxx v. Xxx & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Quashing an FIR towards a person on allegations of rape made by his sister-in-law, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom mentioned that non-disclosure of great allegations in an earlier grievance towards the identical accused by similar de-facto complainant indicated falsity of allegations.
Justice A. Badharudeen was listening to a plea moved by the petitioner, the elder brother of the de facto complainant’s husband, who was booked for rape and prison trespass in an FIR lodged by the police.
Not Necessary To Assess Applicant’s Mental Status In Maintenance Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case No: Binsi and one other v. Sandeep Chandran
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom not too long ago handed a judgment holding that there isn’t a have to assess the psychological standing of candidates in a proceedings for upkeep.
Justice A. Badharudheen allowed the Unique Petition (Felony) most popular by spouse and minor daughter, and put aside the interim orders handed by the Household Courtroom, Thalassery.
Case Title: Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has dismissed an utility searching for depart to sue underneath Part 92 of the Code of Civil Process (CPC) regarding the administration of the Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple in Thirupuram Village, Neyyattinkara. In his judgment, Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim underscored that depart underneath Part 92 CPC is to not be granted mechanically and highlighted the significance of satisfying statutory necessities earlier than initiating such a swimsuit.
The court docket emphasised that The principle function of S.92 (1) is to protect public trusts of a charitable or non secular nature from being subjected to harassment by fits being filed towards them. Justice Abdul Hakhim clarified that earlier than granting depart underneath Part 92 CPC, a court docket should be happy on a number of counts.
Case Title: Dipin Vidhyadharan and One other v State of Kerala and One other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom closed a case of posting defamatory messages towards the Chief Minister and different Ministers within the WhatsApp group of the staff of an training society after observing that not one of the allegations constituted the offences talked about.
Justice Kauser Edappagath agreed to the submission of the petitioners. He held that Part 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act wouldn’t be attracted when there isn’t a allegation that the messages have brought about nuisance to the complainants or every other individual. The Courtroom mentioned that the mere allegation that the messages are derogatory or defamatory isn’t ample to draw Part 120(o).
Case Title: Shafeena P. H. v State of Kerala and One other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday (10th June) issued an order granting 7 days depart to a convict prisoner for taking admission to his youngster to 11th normal.
On Courtroom’s route, the mark checklist of the kid was produced earlier than the Courtroom. He had secured 6 A+ and a pair of A in SSLC Examination. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan mentioned that it can’t shut its eyes to the request of such a brilliant child who’s searching for the assistance of his father to get right of entry to larger research after arranging charges and different issues.
Case Title: Homeowners and Events within the Vessel M.V. Korea Chemi & Anr. v. Siluvaipichai Francies & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
In a ruling clarifying the territorial attain of admiralty jurisdiction underneath the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom has dismissed an admiralty swimsuit towards the homeowners of the vessel M.V. Korea Chemi, holding that the vessel was not inside the court docket’s jurisdiction on the related time.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M., whereas permitting an utility filed by the homeowners (defendants 1 and a pair of) underneath Order VII Rule 11 CPC, dominated that the Kerala Excessive Courtroom lacked jurisdiction underneath Part 3 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, for the reason that vessel was anchored at Nhava Sheva Port in Mumbai and never inside Kerala’s territorial waters.
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar N P v. State – Station Home Officer
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has mentioned that the procedural bar underneath Part 198(1) of the Felony Process Code (CrPC) on taking cognizance of an offence associated to marriage doesn’t apply when a grievance contains severe prison allegations like dishonest and rape.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 6 Juveniles Over Alleged Involvement In Shahabas Murder Case
Case Title: XX and Others v State of Kerala and One other & Related Case
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Wednesday (11th June) granted bail to six juveniles who had been allegedly concerned within the homicide of 15-year-old Shahabas, a category 10 scholar. The order was pronounced by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
The Courtroom noticed that the Juvenile Justice Act doesn’t enable the continued keep of the juveniles within the commentary dwelling.
Case Title: Sheela Francis Parakkal and Others v The Authorised Officer and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom, in a choice by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, has imposed prices on the South Indian Financial institution, Aluva Department, for the unlawful retention of paperwork after the closure of the mortgage.
Cosmetic Surgery Mishap: Kerala High Court Permits Hospital To Reopen Under Strict Conditions
Case Title: Dr Bibilash B. S v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has permitted the reopening of Cosmetiq Hospital in Kazhakkuttam, which had been shut down following a tragic case the place a girl allegedly misplaced her fingers and toes after present process a beauty process on the facility.
Justice V.G. Arun issued the order whereas contemplating a plea filed by the petitioner, Dr. Bibilash B.S., the proprietor and plastic surgeon at Cosmetiq Hospital, claiming that on account of closure it’s not potential to even proceed the post-surgical therapy to the sufferers.
Case Title: Devidas C. & Others v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
In a major order aimed toward defending devotees from on-line fraud, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom’s has directed the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board to take care of fixed vigilance over pretend digital platforms that impersonate temple companies and exploit the general public. The order was handed by the division bench of Justice Anil Ok. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan.
Case No: Sheela George and one other v. V.M. Alexander
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom not too long ago held {that a} spouse who had voluntarily surrendered her proper to upkeep isn’t barred from searching for it at a later stage, when there’s a change in circumstances.
The judgment was handed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar. The Courtroom was contemplating a Matrimonial Attraction difficult a Household Courtroom order that rejected an utility for upkeep made by the appellants (divorced spouse and son) towards the respondent (husband/father).
Case Title: M/s Varsha Recent Meat Merchandise Non-public Restricted v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has directed the customs division to eliminate seized buffalo meat consignments inside one month on account of perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the problem pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which had been proposed to be exported to a international nation.
Case Title: Revathy C. v. State of Kerala
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has held {that a} Justice of the Peace Courtroom isn’t empowered to rule on interim custody of automobiles seized underneath the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2019, if the automobiles had been handed over to District Collector.
Justice V.G. Arun conceded that by way of prior selections it has been settled that the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace has the ability to order interim custody.
Police Cannot Attach Bank Account Under S.107 BNSS Without Magistrate’s Approval : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Headstar International Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom held {that a} checking account might be connected underneath Part 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, solely on the orders of the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace and that police can’t uniterally achieve this.
Part 107 BNSS is a brand new provision which offers for the attachment of “proceeds of crime.”
Justice V.G. Arun was contemplating a petition filed by Headstar International Pvt. Ltd., whose account was frozen by Kalamassery Police after funds linked to a dishonest case involving Spezia Natural Condiments Pvt. Ltd. had been allegedly transferred into its account.
Case Title: Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, ED
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday (June 17) closed the bail utility of Aneesh Babu who leveled bribery allegations towards the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Ernakulam Workplace.
The petitioner had been summoned to seem earlier than the Assistant Director, ED Particular Investigating Staff at New Delhi in reference to Crime No. KCZO/14/2025. As per the discover, he was requested to convey all of the paperwork referring to the Vigilance Case. It’s additional talked about within the discover that failure to seem and provides proof will result in proceedings underneath Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 and different provisions of BNS, 2023.
NCTE Cannot Penalise Colleges For Its Own Delay In Granting Recognition: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Cum Supervisor, Majilis Arts and Science School v. Nationwide Council for Instructor Schooling & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has dominated that schools can’t be penalised for procedural delays attributable to the Nationwide Council for Instructor Schooling (NCTE) in processing functions for recognition underneath the Built-in Instructor Schooling Programme (ITEP).
Justice D.Ok. Singh noticed that as per the binding timeline laid down by the Supreme Courtroom in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617, NCTE was required to speak deficiencies inside 45 days and challenge recognition by 03 March of the educational yr involved. Nonetheless, the present trigger discover was issued after 5 months, with no correct clarification provided for the delay.
Writ Petitioner Cannot File Writ Appeal Against Interim Order Granted To Him: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal v. Union of India & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has noticed {that a} writ enchantment isn’t maintainable underneath Part 5(i) of the Kerala Excessive Courtroom Act, 1958, when the Courtroom has already granted the interim reduction sought by the petitioner. In such a state of affairs, the petitioner can’t declare to be an aggrieved celebration to file an enchantment.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Ok. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan was contemplating a writ enchantment filed by the Principal of Century Worldwide Institute of Dental Science and Analysis Centre, Kasaragod, difficult the interim order handed by a Single Choose staying additional proceedings associated to the reallocation of BDS college students from the faculty.
Case Title: R. Ramesh v. Vijaya Financial institution & Ors. and linked circumstances
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has emphasised that banks can’t escape legal responsibility after negligently encashing cheques with solid signatures.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals filed by the plaintiffs, all non-public corporations or people working out of Kozhikode, towards the dismissal of their fits by the Further Sub Courtroom, Kozhikode.
Case Title: Hussain & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has held {that a} Registrar of Marriages can’t cancel a wedding certificates except it’s proved that the registration was both fraudulent or improperly made.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by petitioners who had collectively utilized for the cancellation of their marriage registration, arguing that the wedding was not validly solemnised underneath any private or particular legislation.
Case Title: Suresh v. Sree Narayana Smaraka Samathi Belief
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has directed the Lease Management Appellate Authority to rethink the applying for restoration of an enchantment most popular by an evicted tenant, that was dismissed for default, i.e. non-appearance of his counsel.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John was knowledgeable that the counsel couldn’t seem as the subsequent posting date of the case was not up to date on the Case Data System Software program.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo Normal Insurance coverage Firm Ltd. v. Zeenath and Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom not too long ago held that there isn’t a want for an insurance coverage firm to ship a separate discover of cancellation of coverage if the identical was cancelled instantly after preparation and if the insured was conscious of the factum of cancellation of the coverage.
The judgment was handed by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar whereas contemplating a Motor Accidents Claims Attraction (MACA) most popular by the Insurance coverage Firm.
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has held that the place an arbitral award is put aside on the bottom that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio and the arbitral proceedings are declared non est, the brand new arbitrator should provoke proceedings afresh. The query of admissibility of beforehand recorded proof is to be determined by the brand new arbitrator.
Case Title: Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has held that for the presumption underneath Part 146 of the Negotiable Devices Act, 1881 to use, a financial institution’s slip should point out the cheque quantity, date, and quantity referring to the dishonoured cheque. If these important particulars are lacking, the memo can’t function prima facie proof of dishonour.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the commentary whereas setting apart an acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The complainant had filed a case underneath Part 138 NI Act after a cheque for ₹1,46,000 was dishonoured. The trial court docket acquitted the accused, declaring that both within the intimation memo or within the dishonor memo, the variety of the cheque dishonored was not disclosed.
Case Title: Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has clarified that mere registration of against the law or pendency of investigation, with out submitting of a remaining report or taking of cognizance by a court docket, doesn’t quantity to “prison proceedings pending” underneath Part 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.
Justice A. Badharudeen made this commentary whereas contemplating a petition that sought to resume the petitioner’s passport amidst an ongoing vigilance investigation underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Dr. C. M. Aboobacker v State of Kerala and One other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom put aside a POCSO case towards an octogenarian paediatrician who was alleged to have dedicated aggravated sexual assault on a tenth normal scholar throughout a medical examination. The physician had approached the Excessive Courtroom to quash additional proceedings within the case, saying that no matter he had finished was inside the parameters of scientific examination. He had said that the examination was finished within the presence of an in depth relative of the kid.
Justice G. Girish noticed that for offences of sexual assault underneath IPC and POCSO, it was necessary to point out that the act was dedicated with sexual intention. The Courtroom mentioned that it was laborious to consider that the petitioner made sexual advances to the sufferer within the presence of her mom or sister. The Courtroom additionally famous that the sufferer had approached the hospital with complaints of chest ache and stomach ache, and solely after checking with the stethoscope, the physician proceeded to press her breasts.
Case Title: Moideen Koya & Ors. v. M/S.Pegasus Property Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has not too long ago held that there isn’t a bar underneath the SARFAESI Act towards preferring a consolidated Securitisation Software by tenants underneath completely different lease deeds if they’re difficult the identical secured creditor’s motion.
The judgment was handed by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. whereas contemplating an Unique Petition most popular towards the order (Exhibit P8) handed by the Registrar of the Money owed Restoration Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam.
Foreigners Must Be Heard Before Passing Order Restricting Their Movement: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Manju Saud & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
In a major ruling that reinforces procedural equity underneath Article 21 of the Structure, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom has held that international nationals should be given a chance to be heard earlier than orders proscribing their motion are handed underneath the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Justice C. Jayachandran, delivering judgment in a writ petition, declared the motion restriction orders issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) towards three Nepali nationals to be unlawful, as a result of they had been issued with out listening to the petitioners.
IGNOU Degree Not Required To Have Equivalence Certificate From State University : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Harisankar S. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has not too long ago held that insisting on equivalency certificates from Central Universities which are recognised by the College Grants Fee (UGC) within the prospectus of the State Eligibility Check (SET) is extremely vires the UGC Act.
Justice D.Ok. Singh handed the judgment whereas contemplating a Writ Petition that challenged the choice taken by the LBS Centre for Science and Expertise (2nd respondent) with respect to the petitioner’s eligibility within the SET.
Case Title: All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has directed the State authorities to think about the illustration made by All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation who’ve claimed imposition of “unilateral phrases and circumstances” within the settlement entered with State as a way to present varied companies to residents.
The Courtroom famous that the primary concern of the petitioner is with respect to an e-mail communication (Exhibit P9) despatched by the authorities. In Exhibit P9, it was communicated to the Akshyaya Entrepreneurs that they should execute a revised settlement, the phrases of that are but not recognized to them.
Justice N. Nagaresh gave a route to the twond respondent (State’s Secretary, Data and Expertise Division) to think about the Ext. P8 illustration of the petitioner and take applicable resolution earlier than finalising the revised settlement.
Case Title: Prasath C. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that Police authorities can’t barge into the home of a historical past sheeter or any suspect in a prison case— at evening, merely underneath the garb of surveillance.
Justice V.G. Arun emphasised that each man’s home is his fort or temple, the sanctity of which can’t be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours.
Case Title: Ok. Ramachandran v. Gopi & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has clarified the place of legislation underneath the Negotiable Devices Act, 1882 (NI Act) {that a} supervisor of a agency can’t desire a grievance or prosecute in his private capability underneath Part 138 if the payee of the cheque was the agency.
The judgment was handed by Justice A. Badharudeen whereas contemplating a Felony Attraction most popular by the complainant-manager difficult the acquittal of the accused individual by the trial court docket.
Case Title: Kerala Non-public Hospital Affiliation and One other v State of Kerala and Others & Related Instances
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Monday (June 23) dismissed a plea difficult varied provisions of the Kerala Medical Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and the Guidelines therein, together with an objection to the availability which mandates show of charges charged by each scientific institution for its companies.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon in his order noticed that the Excessive Courtroom had already in an earlier case–Sabu P. Joseph (Adv). V State of Kerala and Others (2021) issued instructions to personal hospital within the State to show charges and costs of the service given to the general public as per Part 39 of the Act.
Case Title: P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala & Anr. and Related circumstances
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has denied anticipatory bail to a few of the accused individuals (petitioners) within the cash rip-off case of Angamaly City Co-operative Society.
Justice A. Badharudeen additionally expressed displeasure concerning the perspective of the Investigating Officer, who had not but arrested the petitioners though their earlier bail functions had been dismissed in October 2024.
Case Title: Noormida v. State of Kerala
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom not too long ago quashed the prison proceedings initiated towards a contractor (1st accused/petitioner) underneath Part 304A IPC for negligently inflicting the unintentional demise of her sub-contractor’s employee.
Justice V.G. Arun held that the components underneath the part wouldn’t be attracted if the demise was attributable to unforeseeable hurt and never on account of any rash or negligent act of the accused individual.
Case Title: Jasmin Shaji v State of Kerala and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Observing that “Justice, with out the delicate hand contact of humanity, compassion, and empathy isn’t justice”, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom granted escort parole to a homicide convict–awarded demise penalty by classes court docket–to fulfill his bedridden and ailing 93-year-old mom.
Notably, Part 42 of the Kerala Prisons and the Correction Companies (Administration) Act and Rule 339(2) of Kerala Prisons and Correction Companies (Administration) Guidelines categorically deny depart or escort go to to convicts who’re sentenced to demise.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan opined that whereas it’s true that the convict doesn’t deserve any “humanitarian consideration” as a result of the prosecution case towards him and the opposite accused is that they brutally murdered the sufferer in entrance of his mom, spouse and youngster, it nevertheless mentioned {that a} court docket can’t take such an inhuman stand just like the prisoner.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has granted anticipatory bail to producers of Malayalam film ‘Manjummel Boys’ in an alleged dishonest case concerning the manufacturing of the movie.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noticed {that a} coordinate bench of the excessive court docket had already refused a plea for quashing the prison proceedings. The Courtroom got here to the conclusion that this a case the place custodial interrogation isn’t needed.
Case Title: Shaju v. Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has held that an unregistered settlement on the market, which is a obligatory registrable doc, might be thought of as proof to show a contract in a swimsuit for particular efficiency.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Satish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar has clarified the place of legislation as regards the admissibility of unregistered paperwork as proof in fits for particular efficiency by trying into the interaction between Part 17 and Part 49 of the Registration Act.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that ‘decalcified fish scale’ import coated underneath advance authorization scheme; customs can’t deny profit.
The advance authorization scheme permits obligation free import of inputs/uncooked supplies required for manufacture of export items.
Justices A.Ok. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj noticed that through the interval subsequent to the interval coated by the present trigger discover, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the identical product this time underneath the nomenclature ‘decalcified fish scale’ and no objection has been taken by the Income to such import.
Case Title: Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Belief
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that Part 245C of Revenue Tax Act doesn’t require prior deadline; pending 153A/153C discover ample for settlement utility.
Justices A.Ok. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Part 245C doesn’t prescribe any prior deadline for an assessee to fulfill the necessities for submitting an utility earlier than the Interim Board for Settlement, and the one statutory requirement is that the assessee ought to have a pending ‘case’ on the time of submitting the applying for settlement, then as long as the assessee had a ‘reside and un-adjudicated’ discover underneath Sections 153A/153C as on the date of submitting the applying, the applying needed to be thought of on deserves by the Board.”
Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad A. and One other v State of Kerala and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom expressed concern over the truth that 12 out of 13 Universities within the State having the Governor because the Chancellor, are functioning and not using a common Vice-Chancellor.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji whereas saying that this may be as a result of disagreement between the members of the Senate and the Chancellor, opined that this was not in one of the best curiosity of the upper training.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Revenue Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Curler Flour Mills Ltd.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom held that evaluation based mostly on DVO’s (Division Valuation Officer) valuation can’t be revised underneath Part 263 of Revenue Tax Act in absence of concrete materials.
Justices A.Ok. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj noticed that “as on the date of invoking his energy underneath Part 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner couldn’t have had a ‘purpose to consider’ that the evaluation was misguided and prejudicial to the curiosity of the Income for the reason that materials to tell that ‘purpose to consider’ didn’t exist on the date of issuance of the present trigger discover. His train of energy underneath S.263 was due to this fact clearly unjustified”.
Case Title: Dr. Ok.R. Leela Devi v. Ok.R. Rajaram and Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has clarified the process to be adopted for offering proof of execution of paperwork required by legislation to be attested, together with wills. Based on the Courtroom, Part 68 of the Proof Act lays down the mode to be adopted. Part 69 offers an alternate process when Part 68 can’t be resorted to.
The judgment was handed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar whereas contemplating a Common First Attraction (RFA) that challenged the validity of a Will.
Case Title: The State Of Kerala Versus S. Ajayakumar And Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerela Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has held that when the fee as a result of petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court docket order explicitly directing it as full and remaining settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner additionally issued a letter accepting the identical, he can’t subsequently declare that the letter was issued underneath duress or out of necessity.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wooden Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has said that two contradictory GST orders on the identical allegations should not sustainable, and the second order can’t exist if the primary one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. noticed that the proceedings had been dropped within the first order after accepting the reason by the assessee, but a second order was handed on the identical allegations.
Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Friday (27th June) directed the Registry to register a suo motu case to look into whether or not Dr. V. A. Arun Kumar, who’s the present Director of Institute of Human Useful resource Growth (IHRD) acquired into the place on account of his political connection.
Justice D. Ok. Singh enquired whether or not Dr. Arun Kumar has the qualification to be a Director when it was alleged that he was appointed as a clerk of the establishment and has not taught a single day. The Courtroom mentioned that the submit of Director of IHRD is equal to the submit of Vice Chancellor of a College. The Courtroom questioned how an individual with no instructing expertise might be appointed as a Director when as per UGC Rules, a VC ought to have 7 years instructing expertise.
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has said that items confiscated underneath Part 130 GST Act might be launched throughout pendency of enchantment if not but auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case the place the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is towards confiscation order handed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, underneath Part 130 of the GST Act.
