Pension Can Be Attached to Ensure Payment of Maintenance
Retirement benefits, such as pension and gratuity, are attachable in maintenance proceedings, observed the High Court of Kerala in Rifa Fathima v Salim [2025:KER:84776].
Employees Who Resigned or Retired After 5 Years of Service Entitled to Gratuity
An employee who resigns or opts for voluntary retirement is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, provided he has completed at least five years of continuous service, the Supreme Court observed in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2025 INSC 1404].
If a Complaint Discloses an Offence Magistrate Can Direct Registration of FIR
In Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State Of Karnataka [2025 INSC 1282], the Supreme Court observed that once the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence,…
Court Can Declare Civil Death of a Person Missing for Seven Years
A civil court can declare a person legally dead if they have not been heard from for seven years, based on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
This is typically done when a legal heir files a civil suit for a declaration of presumed death to settle matters like inheritance, remarriage, or insurance.
Local Bodies Cannot Collect Property Tax Arrears Beyond Three Years
In The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation [2025:KER:31602], the High Court of Kerala has ruled that the three-year period of limitation prescribed in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, will prevail over the general 12-year period provided under the Limitation Act, 1908.
Recognition of Foreign-Notarized Documents in India
The High Court of Kerala, in Margret @Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha [2025: KER:56880], has clarified the conditions under which Indian courts can recognize documents notarized in a foreign country.
State Universities Cannot Insist on Equivalence Certificate from IGNOU or Other National Institutes
The High Court of Kerala clarified in a judgment, in Harisankar S. v State of Kerala & Others [2025:KER:43507], that state universities cannot insist on equivalence on certificate from National Institutions, National Universities such as Indira Gandhi Open University (IGNOU) and other institutions recognized by the University Gants Commission (UGC).
Lok Adalat Has no Adjudicatory Powers but Permanent Lok Adalat Has
The Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 (LSA Act) refers to two types of Lok Adalats:
the first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act which has no adjudicatory functions or powers and which discharges purely conciliatory functions and
the second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under section 22B(1) of LSA Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions.
Complaints under DV Act Can Be Quashed u/s 482 CrPC
The Supreme Court (SC), in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v Vidhi Rawal [2025 INSC 734], states that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
A Woman Subjected to Domestic Violence alone Can Seek Remedies under PWDV Act
The Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), particularly its Section 12, makes it very clear that an application for the reliefs provided under Sections 18 to 22 can be made only by an aggrieved person or on her behalf, says the High Court of Kerala in Shynil & Others v State of Kerala & Others [2024:KER:89997].
Disciplinary Action against an Officer Need not be Initiated by the Appointing Authority
The Appointing Authority need not initiate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant.
The appointing authority need not always required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee, says the Supreme Court (SC) in The State of Jharkhand & Others v Rukma Kesh Mishra [2025 INSC 412].
Unlawful Constructions should not be Regularized
The construction made in contravention of the Acts / Rules would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished and it cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Another v U P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors [2024 INSC 990].