{"id":106180,"date":"2009-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-15T23:18:52","modified_gmt":"2018-07-15T17:48:52","slug":"m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 738 of 1995(C)\n\n\n\n1. M.ABDUL JALEEL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. INDUSTRIAL CREDIT & DEVT.SYNDICATE LTD.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDATHALA),\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI N.NANDAKUMARA MENON FOR R1\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :25\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.\n                      -------------------------------------------\n                            A.S.No.738 of 1995\n                      -------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
         The judgment and decree of the Principal Sub Judge,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.995 of 1989 is under challenge in<\/p>\n
the above appeal. The appellants are the first and third defendants<\/p>\n
in the suit. As per the decree, the plaintiff has been allowed to<\/p>\n
recover an amount of Rs.32,202\/- with interest thereon at the rate of<\/p>\n
6% per annum and costs. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
suit, while the second respondent is the second defendant. The suit<\/p>\n
was filed by the first respondent\/plaintiff against the appellants and<\/p>\n
the second respondent for the realisation of an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/- with future interest at 18% per annum. According to the<\/p>\n
plaint, the plaintiff was incorporated under the Companies Act and is<\/p>\n
represented by its Regional Manager. It has a Regional Office at<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram. The company is engaged in the business of<\/p>\n
financing and hire purchase of various consumer and domestic<\/p>\n
products including motor vehicles, under hire purchase agreements.<\/p>\n
The first defendant had approached the plaintiff for purchasing a<\/p>\n
1986 model car under the guarantee of defendants 2 and 3. They<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
   submitted a proposal form on 11.7.1986.          The car was to be<\/p>\n
   supplied by M\/s T.V.Sundram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Thereafter on<\/p>\n
   17.7.1986, a hire purchase agreement was executed between the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff, first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 as guarantors. The<\/p>\n
   hire charges of the vehicle had to be paid in 47 monthly instalments<\/p>\n
   commencing from 17.8.1986. The right of option for purchase of the<\/p>\n
   vehicle       under that agreement is exercisable only after the<\/p>\n
   remittance of the entire hire charges. Till payment of the entire hire<\/p>\n
   charges, the first defendant is only a hirer and defendants 2 and 3<\/p>\n
   are the guarantors and the plaintiff is the owner.<\/p>\n
         2. The first defendant was not regular in remitting the hire<\/p>\n
   charges and therefore, payment of hire charges was defaulted. The<\/p>\n
   last remittance was on 18.3.1988. Though notices were issued by<\/p>\n
   the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to clear the defaulted<\/p>\n
   instalments, they did not do so. The agreement provides for the levy<\/p>\n
   of over due interest and other charges on the defaulting hirer. The<\/p>\n
   agreement also makes provision for repossessing the vehicle in the<\/p>\n
   event of default in payment of the hire charges. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff re-possessed the vehicle on 23.9.1988, invoking the said<\/p>\n
   provision.       Thereafter, as per letter dated 27.9.1988, the first<\/p>\n
   defendant was called upon to clear the amounts that were due. He<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
   was also informed that the car would be sold, if the arrears were not<\/p>\n
   paid. Since there was no response, the car was sold for an amount<\/p>\n
   of Rs.55,000\/- and that fact was intimated to the first defendant by<\/p>\n
   letter dated 14.6.1989. The deterioration in condition and the value<\/p>\n
   of the car was due to default on the part of the first defendant in<\/p>\n
   maintaining the car in good condition.      Consequently, a loss of<\/p>\n
   Rs.30,000\/= was caused to the plaintiff, which now they sought to<\/p>\n
   recover from the defendants, by filing the suit.<\/p>\n
         3. The defendants filed a common written statement and<\/p>\n
   contested the suit.     It was contended that the suit was not<\/p>\n
   maintainable either in law or on facts, but, was barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
   They admitted the hire purchase transaction with the plaintiff, but<\/p>\n
   denied that they were defaulters. They contended that an amount of<\/p>\n
   Rs.2,050\/- was being paid per month without fail. But, their vehicle<\/p>\n
   was illegally and arbitrarily seized by the plaintiff on 29.3.1988 and<\/p>\n
   was sold on 29.6.1989 without any notice or intimation to the<\/p>\n
   defendants.    Consequently, the defendants sustained huge loss.<\/p>\n
   The plaintiff sold the vehicle after keeping the same in bad and<\/p>\n
   unsafe condition for more than one year. No opportunity was given<\/p>\n
   to the defendants to pay the over due instalments. Therefore, they<\/p>\n
   prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
         4. The court below framed seven issues on the above<\/p>\n
   pleadings and tried the suit. The evidence in the case consists of<\/p>\n
   the oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A15<\/p>\n
   documents. The court below, after an elaborate consideration of the<\/p>\n
   evidence on record and the contentions of the rival parties, came to<\/p>\n
   the conclusion that the plaint claim was established. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
   suit was decreed and the plaintiff is allowed to recover an amount of<\/p>\n
   Rs.32,202\/- from the defendants with future interest at the rate of 6%<\/p>\n
   per annum and costs of the suit. Defendants 1 and 3 have filed this<\/p>\n
   appeal challenging the said judgment and decree.<\/p>\n
         5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well<\/p>\n
   as the learned counsel for the first respondent. The second<\/p>\n
   respondent remained ex-parte.\n<\/p>\n
         6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the total<\/p>\n
   amount that was borrowed was Rs.60,000\/- which was to be repaid<\/p>\n
   in 47 instalments. 46 instalments were to be of Rs.2,050\/- each<\/p>\n
   while the 47th instalment was to be of Rs.1,700\/-. Ext.A1 is the hire<\/p>\n
   purchase agreement. According to the appellants, upto the 20th<\/p>\n
   instalment, payment was made by the defaulter. Thereupon the car<\/p>\n
   was re-possessed and was sold for an amount of Rs.55,000\/- in<\/p>\n
   1989. According to the counsel for the appellant, the hire purchase<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
   agreement came to an end with the re-possession of the car and on<\/p>\n
   sale of the car, the transaction became concluded. According to<\/p>\n
   him, no interest could be charged after the date of re-possession<\/p>\n
   and no hire charges are liable to be paid after the car was sold. The<\/p>\n
   road tax and insurance which are debited to the account of the<\/p>\n
   appellants after repossession was unsustainable, since the vehicle<\/p>\n
   was owned by the plaintiff. It is further pointed out that the monthly<\/p>\n
   instalments stipulated as hire charges already carries interest.<\/p>\n
   Therefore, no further interest is liable to be levied or recovered by<\/p>\n
   the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff continued to be the owner of the<\/p>\n
   vehicle, and since the ownership of the vehicle was not transferred<\/p>\n
   to the first defendant at any time, the amounts claimed are not liable<\/p>\n
   to be recovered from them.\n<\/p>\n
         7. The counsel for the first respondent on the other hand<\/p>\n
   points out that the total value of the vehicle that was purchased was<\/p>\n
   Rs.92,500\/- which amount was paid by the plaintiff to the dealer of<\/p>\n
   the car. As per condition No.6 of Ext.A1 agreement, the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
   entitled to recover the amount of hire charges defaulted by the first<\/p>\n
   defendant together with penal interest and all other charges, as<\/p>\n
   claimed by them. Therefore, according to him, the first defendant<\/p>\n
   was liable to pay the said amount. Further, it is pointed out that in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
   the written statement filed, the defendants had not disputed the<\/p>\n
   statement of accounts of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
         8. The point that arises for consideration is:\n<\/p>\n
              Whether the decree for Rs.32,202\/-
\n              granted by the court below is justified
\n              in the facts and circumstances of the
\n              case?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         9. The hire purchase transaction between the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
   defendants is admitted. It is also admitted that Ext.A1 is the hire<\/p>\n
   purchase agreement. Condition No.6 of the said agreement arms<\/p>\n
   the plaintiff with the power to terminate the contract, if default in<\/p>\n
   payment of hire charges is committed or if there is breach of any of<\/p>\n
   the terms of contract, it is contended by the first respondent. Upon<\/p>\n
   such termination, it is provided that the hirer shall pay arrears of hire<\/p>\n
   charges accrued up to date of termination and the cost of all repairs<\/p>\n
   required to be done. Compensation for the owner’s loss of profit and<\/p>\n
   all taxes due and payable in respect of the motor vehicle shall also<\/p>\n
   be recovered from the hirer. It has further been agreed that such<\/p>\n
   termination shall be without prejudice to any claim the owners may<\/p>\n
   have in respect of the terms and conditions of the agreement to<\/p>\n
   recover all charges due under the agreement together with<\/p>\n
   damages for breach of the agreement. The owner in the present<\/p>\n
   case is the plaintiff and the hirer is the first defendant. Therefore, it<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
   can be seen that the claim of the plaintiff is sustainable under<\/p>\n
   Condition No.6 of Ext.A1 agreement. The above position appears to<\/p>\n
   have been accepted by the defendants also. The claim of the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff is contained in paragraph-7 of the plaint. The plaint also<\/p>\n
   contains a statement of accounts showing the break up of the<\/p>\n
   amounts claimed. Paragraphs-6 and 7 of the plaint are denied in<\/p>\n
   paragraph-8 of the written statement. It is significant to note that the<\/p>\n
   defendants have not disputed the correctness of the amount<\/p>\n
   claimed by the plaintiff. The only dispute contained in paragraph-8<\/p>\n
   is with regard to the manner in which the car was sold. It is alleged<\/p>\n
   that the car was sold without any notice or intimation to the<\/p>\n
   defendants causing heavy loss.        They claimed that the vehicle<\/p>\n
   would have fetched a higher price if the vehicle had been sold after<\/p>\n
   due publication and notice. It is trite that any averment in the plaint<\/p>\n
   that is not specifically denied in the written statement has to be<\/p>\n
   treated as admitted. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 and DW1<\/p>\n
   also does not show any serious challenge regarding the amount<\/p>\n
   claimed in the plaint. Therefore, it is not open to the appellants to<\/p>\n
   challenge the quantum of the amount claimed, in this appeal.<\/p>\n
         10. As noted above, Ext.A1 agreement entitles the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
   claim all amounts due under the defaulted hire purchase agreement<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
   from the defendants including all losses suffered.         Since the<\/p>\n
   defendants have no case in their written statement that the amounts<\/p>\n
   mentioned in the plaint do not form part of the amount that the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff is entitled to claim under Ext.A1 agreement, they are not<\/p>\n
   entitled to dispute the accounts in the above appeal. It is therefore,<\/p>\n
   unnecessary to deal with the other oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
   in the case, all of which have been elaborately considered by the<\/p>\n
   court below. Since no other contention has been raised before me,<\/p>\n
   by the counsel for the appellant, it has to be held that the judgment<\/p>\n
   and decree under appeal are perfectly justified in the facts and<\/p>\n
   circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
         In view of the above, the appeal fails and is accordingly<\/p>\n
   dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in A.S.No.995 of<\/p>\n
   1989 of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.<\/p>\n
                                      K.SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                            Judge<\/p>\n
css\/<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995    9<\/span><\/p>\n
                       K.SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
                       —————————————\n<\/p>\n
                             AS.NO.738 OF 1995\n<\/p>\n
                       —————————————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                   25.06.2009<\/p>\n
A.S.No.738\/1995    10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 738 of 1995(C) 1. M.ABDUL JALEEL … Petitioner Vs 1. INDUSTRIAL CREDIT & DEVT.SYNDICATE LTD. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDATHALA), For Respondent :SRI N.NANDAKUMARA MENON FOR R1 The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & ... on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & ... on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-15T17:48:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-15T17:48:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1757,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\",\"name\":\"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & ... on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-15T17:48:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & ... on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & ... on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-15T17:48:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-15T17:48:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009"},"wordCount":1757,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009","name":"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & ... on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-15T17:48:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-abdul-jaleel-vs-industrial-credit-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Abdul Jaleel vs Industrial Credit & … on 25 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}