Article 227 Petition Not Maintainable When Similar Relief Sought Before Supreme Court: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 30 July held that parties cannot invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to seek interim relief in execution proceedings when connected appeals involving the same dispute are already pending before the Supreme Court. Justice T.R. Ravi refused to stay the execution proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi in a family dispute over management of companies, holding that the petitioners must seek such relief...

Refund Of Service Tax Cannot Be Decided Before Determining Nature Of Contract: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 27 July held that the question of refund or adjustment of Service Tax cannot be decided before the Assessing Authority determines whether the underlying contract is a works contract or a service contract, as the nature of the contract determines the applicable tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji partly allowed the appeals filed by Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited (formerly Pest Control India Private Limited) and set aside...

NI Act Notice Not Invalid Merely Because Postal Acknowledgment Signature Differs From Cheque: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that once a complainant shows that a legal demand notice in a cheque bounce case was sent to the accused's correct address, a trial court cannot treat the notice as invalid merely because the signature on the postal acknowledgment card differs from the signature on the dishonoured cheque.Justice A. Badharudeen said allowing such an approach would make it easy for accused persons to avoid liability. "If such a procedure is recognized in law, clever accused...

Supreme Court Pleadings Cannot Decide Legal Status Of Nair Service Society: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 17 July dismissed a writ appeal filed by a member of the Nair Service Society (NSS) seeking action against the Society and its directors for alleged violations of the Companies Act, 2013. A Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar held that pleadings filed before the Supreme Court could not determine the Society's regulatory framework. The judges observed:“It can thus be held that the “court of record” attribute under Article 129 does not mean...

Return Of Title Deeds Dispute Remains Arbitrable Despite Mandatory Injunction Relief: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 14 July 2025 held that a claim for return of title deeds remains arbitrable even when framed as a suit for mandatory injunction, ruling that the nature of the relief claimed does not determine arbitrability when the dispute arises from an agreement containing a broad arbitration clause. Justice T.R. Ravi allowed the reference of the dispute between The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and KTC Group entities to arbitration, holding that the expression “any matter in any way...

Can A Mere Signature On A Cheque Trigger Presumption Of A Legally Enforceable Debt? Kerala High Court Explains

The Kerala High Court has recently held that signing, issuance and execution of a cheque are distinct legal concepts. It observed that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise only when execution of the cheque is admitted or proved.Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. made the observation while setting aside a trial court judgment dismissing a money recovery suit. The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.“When courts say that...

Acquittal In Cheque Bounce Case Doesn't Bar Civil Recovery Suit On Same Cheque: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 29 July held that an acquittal in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) does not prevent a civil court from deciding a recovery suit based on the same cheque, as findings recorded in criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts. A Bench comprising Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. allowed Prameela Varghese's appeal, set aside the Trial Court's decree directing her to pay the cheque amount with...

Kerala High Court Dismisses SEBI Appeal Over Escrow Funds Linked To Atlas Ramachandran

The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) challenging a single judge's judgment in Axis Bank's writ petition against an Income Tax Department recovery order concerning funds lying in an escrow account maintained by late Atlas Ramachandran (M.M. Ramachandran).A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji held that SEBI, which was not the writ petitioner, could not maintain a collateral challenge...

RBI Banking Ombudsman Cannot Review Or Recall Order After Disposing Complaint: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the RBI Banking Ombudsman has no authority to review or recall an order after disposing of a complaint, observing that the Ombudsman becomes functus officio once the proceedings conclude. "As a matter of fact, Banking Ombudsman has no right or authority to review or recall the original Ext.P4 Order. After disposal of the complaint, the Banking Ombudsman becomes functus officio. Accordingly, I find that Ext.R3(c) Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman...

KSEB Cannot Demand Previous Owner's Power Dues From Auction Purchaser: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) cannot insist that an auction purchaser of the assets of a company in liquidation clear the previous consumer's electricity arrears as a condition for obtaining a fresh electricity connection.A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. ruled that the Electricity Act, 2003, the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005; and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 do not...

Trade Marks Registry Cannot Remove Trademark Without Mandatory Notice: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the Trade Marks Registry cannot remove a registered trademark from the register without first complying with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the Registry was required to issue mandatory notice before removing the mark and held, "In the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirement of issuance of such notice under Section 25(3) of the Act, 1999, the respondents...

Director Must Prove He Was Not Responsible For Company's Unpaid VAT: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that when tax authorities seek to recover a company's tax dues from one of its directors under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, the burden is on the director to prove that the non-recovery was not caused by his negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty.",,as per Section 39 of the KVAT Act, the onus to prove that the non-recovery was not on account of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty attributable to the Director, is on the said person and not...