Skip to content
Home » Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court

Malayil Samad v. Bharati Airtel Ltd.

Call Details – the licence issued to service provider will not permit them to furnish call details – In such circumstances, High Court can’t issue any direction to service provider to furnish the call details. 2021 (6) KHC 344

Safir v. Sajid

Stamp Act, 1959 (Kerala) – Section 2 (a) – “bond” – For an instrument to partake the character of a bond an obligation must have been created in the instrument itself – A specific acknowledgment in the agreement of an amount that is outstanding to be paid as on the date of execution of the document, the same can only be construed as an agreement and it does not partake the character of a bond as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act.

P.M. Salim v. Vasudevan Namboothiri

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Amendment of Pleadings – Whether a categorical and wilful admission made in the pleadings can be strike down by filing an amendment application ?

Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (Pocso Act) – The consequence of not proving the age of the victim is that the accused cannot be found guilty of any offence under the Act.

Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – the grievance of the petitioners is that non bailable warrants have been issued against them straight away, without issuing summons – As a matter of fact, the petitioners have been shown as absconding, so that there is nothing wrong in issuing warrant against the accused persons. Section 87 and also Section 204(1) (b) of the Cr.P.C enable the learned Magistrate to issue warrant against the accused person straight away, without issuing summons. 2021 (5) KHC 623

Madhu v. State of Kerala

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – No prejudice caused to the accused for reason of clubbing an offence under Section 376(2) with an offence under the POCSO Act, going by the specific provision in Section 28(2) of the POCSO Act. 2021 (5) KHC 602

Sameer v. State of Kerala

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 167 (2) – Statutory Bail – What is necessary to get default bail u/s.167 (2) Cr.P.C is the failure to complete the investigation within the time prescribed for investigation. Once the investigating officer after completing the investigation and sending the requisition to the authority concerned to get the analyst report, submitted the final report, it cannot be said that there is an incomplete final report unless it is a case in which the entire prosecution case is relying solely based on the analyst report.

Pomsy Food Products v. Union of India

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Court cannot waive the payment of interest, which is statutory. Such relief, if at all it can be granted, will be a relief in equity – Equity cannot operate against statutory law.

M. Sulfiker v. State of Kerala

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Framing of Charge – In order to frame charge against the accused, a strong suspicion is sufficient. A microscopic examination of the materials produced by the prosecution is not warranted at that stage. The evaluation of the materials produced by the prosecution shall be conducted by the court only for the limited purpose of finding out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused.