{"id":114418,"date":"2010-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-14T03:42:57","modified_gmt":"2016-11-13T22:12:57","slug":"harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 8556 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., P.B.NO.502,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARRISONS MALAYALAM\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BIPIN JACOB, AGED 41 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. FEBI J.JACOB, AGED 46 YEARS,\n\n3. SIJU THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS,\n\n4. THOMAS VARGHESE, AGED 46 YEARS,\n\n5. THOMAS G.MARUTHETHU, AGED 35 YEARS,\n\n6. SIBI THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.D.KISHORE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :09\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n            ====================================\n                     W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010\n            ====================================\n         Dated this the 09th   day of September,    2010\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      This Writ Petition is in challenge of Exts.P7 and P8, orders<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Munsiff refusing to raise additional issue<\/p>\n
concerning tenancy and fixity of tenure pleaded by petitioner<\/p>\n
No.1-defendant No.1 and refusing to refer that      question   to the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act<\/p>\n
(for short, “the Act”) as requested by petitioners. The suit property<\/p>\n
is 831.52 acres in extent. It is not disputed that the said property<\/p>\n
originally belonged to Kiriyaru Kiriyaru Pandarathil         as per<\/p>\n
Chembola Thittooram and while so he granted a lease of that<\/p>\n
property in favour of M\/s. Rubber Plantation Industries Ltd., as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P3,   lease deed for a period of 99 years commencing from<\/p>\n
08.04.1911     (which   I   am   told,  expired    by   30.06.2010).<\/p>\n
Respondents-plaintiffs claimed that the said property is now in the<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of petitioners on behalf of the original<\/p>\n
lessee. While so, respondents purchased 109 acres out of the said<\/p>\n
831.52 acres from the successor of           original lessor as per<\/p>\n
documents of title referred to in paragraph 4 of the plaint.<\/p>\n
Respondents sued petitioners for a decree for prohibitory<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010
\n                                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
injunction    against   the    latter  alienating,   hypothecating,<\/p>\n
encumbering or mortgaging the suit property (obviously on the<\/p>\n
premise that period of lease has expired on 30.6.2010).<\/p>\n
Petitioners filed written statement contending that petitioner No.1<\/p>\n
is a cultivating tenant of the suit property entitled to fixity of<\/p>\n
tenure under the Act and that respondents are not entitled to the<\/p>\n
injunction prayed for. Since learned Munsiff did not frame an issue<\/p>\n
concerning tenancy and fixity of tenure pleaded by petitioners,<\/p>\n
they filed Ext.P5, application (I.A. No.432 of 2010) to         raise<\/p>\n
additional issue regarding      tenancy and fixity of tenure and<\/p>\n
Ext.P6, application (I.A. No.431 of 2010) to refer that question to<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal for a decision. Applications were opposed by the<\/p>\n
respondents who contended that alleged tenancy being in respect<\/p>\n
of plantation and extent of property being in excess of 30 acres it<\/p>\n
is exempted from tenancy under Section         3(1)(viii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Respondents also claimed that since the suit is           merely for<\/p>\n
injunction no question of tenancy arose for decision and hence it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that issue regarding tenancy genuinely arose for a<\/p>\n
decision to be referred to the Land Tribunal. Learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
accepted the objection preferred by respondents and dismissed<\/p>\n
Exts.P5 and P6, applications as per Exts.P7 and P8, orders which<\/p>\n
are under challenge in this Writ Petition.     Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010
\n                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners contends that there is no dispute for the respondents<\/p>\n
also that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit<\/p>\n
property in the manner claimed by them in the written statement<\/p>\n
and that in the nature of the injunction prayed for,     question<\/p>\n
whether petitioner No.1 is a cultivating tenant of the property<\/p>\n
entitled to fixity of tenure very much arose for a decision. It is<\/p>\n
also contended that exemption under Sec.3(1)(viii) of the Act is<\/p>\n
not available to the respondents on the facts of the case since<\/p>\n
the lease was not of      plantation (at the time of transaction).<\/p>\n
Learned counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in Rt.Rev.Dr.Jerome Fernandez v. Be-Be<\/p>\n
Rubber Estate Ltd.<\/a> (1972 KLT 613 (F.B.). In response it is<\/p>\n
contended by learned counsel for respondents          that bar of<\/p>\n
tenancy under Sec.3(1)(viii) of the Act concerned plantation as on<\/p>\n
the date     issue regarding tenancy arose for a decision and<\/p>\n
admittedly as on the date the issue regarding tenancy was raised<\/p>\n
by    petitioners     suit property was a plantation and since<\/p>\n
petitioners are in possession of more than 30 acres it is exempt<\/p>\n
from the Chapter relating to tenancy under Sec.3(1)(viii) of the<\/p>\n
Act. It is also contended that this being a suit for injunction<\/p>\n
simpliciter no question of tenancy arose for a decision. Reliance<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010
\n                                 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
is placed on the decision of the Full Bench in Kesava Bhat v.<\/p>\n
Subraya Bhat<\/a> (1979 KLT 766 (F.B.).\n<\/p>\n
      2.     To understand the rival contentions it is necessary to<\/p>\n
refer to Ext.P3, the original lease deed in favour of the<\/p>\n
predecessor-in-interest of petitioners. In page 7 of Ext.P3 it is<\/p>\n
recited,<\/p>\n
      ” …..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                          …..”\n<\/p>\n
                             (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Going by the said recital in Ext.P3, it is clear that it was not a<\/p>\n
lease of plantation but a lease of land for planting rubber, etc.<\/p>\n
Hence contention of petitioners that what is covered by Ext.P3 is<\/p>\n
a lease of land and not a lease of plantation has prima facie to be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     The next question is whether lease in question is<\/p>\n
exempted by Sec.3(1)(viii) of the Act. That provision exempts<\/p>\n
from the Chapter dealing with tenancy of plantations exceeding<\/p>\n
30 acres in extent. Referring to that provision the Full Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court held in Ret.Rev. Dr.Jerome Fernandez v. Be-Be<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010
\n                                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rubber Estate Ltd. (supra) that “going by the clues furnished<\/p>\n
by the statutory history preceding this legislation and also by the<\/p>\n
express language used in Sec.3(1)(viii) of the KLR Act it is clear<\/p>\n
that intention of legislature was to restrict the limited scope of<\/p>\n
exemption to lease of land which were already plantations as on<\/p>\n
the date of transaction.” I found from Ext.P3, lease deed that it<\/p>\n
was not lease of plantation but lease of land for planting rubber,<\/p>\n
etc.  If that be so prima facie the exemption under Sec.3(1)(viii)<\/p>\n
of the Act    cannot apply.    It follows that the issue regarding<\/p>\n
tenancy and fixity of tenure genuinely arose for a decision by the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Then the question is whether in a suit for injunction<\/p>\n
of the present nature issue regarding tenancy could “arise”.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance           on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Full Bench in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat<\/a><\/p>\n
(supra). There it was held that where the suit is for injunction<\/p>\n
simpliciter issue for decision is whether plaintiff is in possession<\/p>\n
of the   property as on     date of the suit and that nature and<\/p>\n
character of possession is irrelevant for a decision.      In such a<\/p>\n
situation a claim of tenancy or a finding on that is not relevant.<\/p>\n
That is because in a suit for injunction simpliciter the court is only<\/p>\n
concerned with the question whether plaintiff is in possession of<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010
\n                                   -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the property as on the date of suit. But that principle or decision<\/p>\n
is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, injunction<\/p>\n
prayed    for   is     to  restrain   petitioners  from   alienating,<\/p>\n
hypothecating, encumbering or mortgaging the suit property. It<\/p>\n
is not a suit for injunction against trespass as if respondents are<\/p>\n
in possession of the property where the nature and character of<\/p>\n
such possession is not relevant. Petitioners are admittedly in<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property claiming under the successor of<\/p>\n
the original lessee. Respondents wanted           petitioners to be<\/p>\n
prevented from alienating, hypothecating, encumbering or<\/p>\n
mortgaging      the property.    Lease creates an interest in the<\/p>\n
property. It is heritable and in the absence of any contractual<\/p>\n
restriction is assignable as well. Leasehold right can be subjected<\/p>\n
to a mortgage.        The scheme of the Act is to confer fixity of<\/p>\n
tenure on the cultivating tenant and a certificate of purchase<\/p>\n
issued under Sec.72K of the Act is final and conclusive as to the<\/p>\n
right of cultivating tenant. If therefore petitioner No.1 were found<\/p>\n
to be a     cultivating tenant he is entitled to fixity of tenure in<\/p>\n
which case that right is assignable and heritable and if that be so,<\/p>\n
it may not be possible to grant a decree against petitioner No.1<\/p>\n
against alienating, hypothecating or mortgaging the property.<\/p>\n
Hence on the facts of the case and in the nature of the injunction<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.8556 of 2010
\n                                  -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
prayed, it leaves me in doubt that the issue of tenancy and fixity<\/p>\n
of tenure     raised by petitioners did genuinely “arise” for a<\/p>\n
decision. Learned Munsiff was not correct in dismissing Exts.P5<\/p>\n
and P6, applications. Exhibits P7 and P8 orders are liable to be<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following<\/p>\n
terms:\n<\/p>\n
            (i)    Exhibits P7 and P8, orders are set aside<\/p>\n
      and Exts.P5 and P6, applications are allowed.<\/p>\n
            (ii)   Learned Munsiff is directed to frame<\/p>\n
      additional issue as prayed for in Exts.P5 (I.A. No.432<\/p>\n
      of 2010) and refer the question to the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
      for a finding on that issue.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 8556 of 2010(O) 1. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., P.B.NO.502, … Petitioner 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARRISONS MALAYALAM Vs 1. BIPIN JACOB, AGED 41 YEARS, … Respondent 2. FEBI J.JACOB, AGED 46 YEARS, 3. SIJU THOMAS, […]<\/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-114418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 - 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\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-13T22:12:57+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T22:12:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1429,\"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\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T22:12:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 - 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\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-13T22:12:57+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T22:12:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010"},"wordCount":1429,"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\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010","name":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T22:12:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-bipin-jacob-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Bipin Jacob on 9 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/114418","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=114418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}