{"id":121561,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-18T16:45:09","modified_gmt":"2014-10-18T11:15:09","slug":"george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 25445 of 2003(D)\n\n\n\n1. GEORGE THOMAS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :28\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.\n                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n                       W.P (C) No.     25445 OF 2003\n                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n                 Dated, this the 28th day of October, 2010\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
              The issue involved in this Writ Petition is, whether the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to get exemption from the purview of sales tax, based<\/p>\n
on the relevant notifications issued by the Government in this regard and<\/p>\n
whether the rejection of the benefit, in respect of the value invested by the<\/p>\n
petitioner for purchasing the ‘brand new vehicle’, which was subsequently<\/p>\n
sold of in the year 1992, as ordered by the State Level Committee vide Ext.<\/p>\n
P7 is correct or not.\n<\/p>\n
       2. The petitioner is an SSI unit engaged in manufacturing and sale of<\/p>\n
fruit products. By virtue of the relevant notification (SRO No. 968 of 1980)<\/p>\n
issued by the Government, the petitioner is entitled to get exemption up to<\/p>\n
90 % of value investment made on the fixed asset\/machinery, delivery van<\/p>\n
etc.   The petitioner preferred Ext. P1 application showing the exemption<\/p>\n
eligible to him as Rs. 9,00,941.48. After considering the facts and figures,<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent granted exemption of Rs. 4,99,618.60\/- as borne by<\/p>\n
Ext. P2. The rejection of the amounts under the other heads was mainly in<\/p>\n
respect of the value of land, machinery etc. besides the value of newly<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 25445 of 2003
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
purchased vehicle to an extent of Rs.1,15,143.28\/-. The dispute involved<\/p>\n
in the present Writ Petition stands confined to the rejection in respect of the<\/p>\n
said vehicle alone.\n<\/p>\n
       3. Being aggrieved of the rejection of exemption in respect of the<\/p>\n
value of the vehicle vide Ext. P2, the petitioner preferred Ext. P4 appeal<\/p>\n
before the 3rd respondent, the State Level Committee. While the said<\/p>\n
proceedings were pending before the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent<\/p>\n
passed an order invoking the power of rectification and passed the revised<\/p>\n
assessment order, followed by initiation of penalty proceedings in respect<\/p>\n
of assessment years 1991-’92 and 1992-’93. According to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
the said periods were eligible for exemption. The orders imposing penalty<\/p>\n
were subjected to challenge by filing appropriate proceedings before the<\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner.        During the pendency of the said proceedings,<\/p>\n
coercive steps were initiated against the petitioners, which were subjected<\/p>\n
to challenge by filing O.P. 24475 of 2000, wherein interference was<\/p>\n
declined, which made the petitioner to file W.A. 2123 of 2000. This appeal<\/p>\n
was disposed of, as borne by Ext. P5, observing that the issue could be<\/p>\n
resolved, once Ext. P4 pending consideration before the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
was finalized and accordingly, the 3rd respondent was directed to finalise<\/p>\n
Ext.P4; simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings till such time.<\/p>\n
       4.  Pursuant to Ext. P5, Ext. P4 was considered by             the 3rd<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 25445 of 2003
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent and dismissed on the main grounds; however granting some<\/p>\n
paltry relief, providing exemption to an extent of Rs. 54,139\/-. Pointing out<\/p>\n
that the said order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, O.P. 1584 of 2002 was filed before this Court, which was<\/p>\n
disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter, as borne<\/p>\n
by Ext. P6. Accordingly, the petitioner was heard and Ext. P7 order was<\/p>\n
passed, whereby the very stand already taken in respect of the claim for<\/p>\n
exemption with regard to the value of the vehicle was reiterated, dismissing<\/p>\n
Ext. P4 appeal, which forms subject matter of challenge in this Writ<\/p>\n
Petition.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasoning<\/p>\n
given in Ext.P7 order passed by the 3rd respondent is quite wrong and<\/p>\n
unfounded.      The only reason pointed out therein is that the ‘brand new<\/p>\n
vehicle’ purchased by the petitioner in the year 1989 was subsequently<\/p>\n
sold off in the year 1992 and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the<\/p>\n
benefit of exemption.      The learned counsel, with reference to Ext. P3<\/p>\n
norms issued by the Government in this regard submits that, clause 10 is<\/p>\n
very much categoric, which does not contemplate any such situation as<\/p>\n
now stated by the third respondent. The said clause reads as follows :<\/p>\n
          10. All brand new identifiable items of plant and machinery<\/p>\n
          including tools, jigs, dies and moulds shall be eligible for tax<\/p>\n
          exemption. All claims in this regard shall be supported by a<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 25445 of 2003
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
         certificate by the Chartered Accountant.       In case if items<\/p>\n
         where materials are bought and fabricated in house, the cost<\/p>\n
         should be certified by the Chartered Accountant with regard<\/p>\n
         to cost of materials and fabrication charges and by a<\/p>\n
         Chartered Engineer with regard to the value of the fabricated<\/p>\n
         plant and minimum of these shall be taken (Plant and<\/p>\n
         machinery on hire purchase from NSIC shall be eligible for<\/p>\n
         tax exemption on the basis of original value). No vehicles,<\/p>\n
         other than delivery vehicles, items of office equipment and<\/p>\n
         furniture, crates, pallets and consumable stores will be<\/p>\n
         eligible for tax exemption. Second hand machinery items will<\/p>\n
         not quality for tax exemption.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The learned counsel submits that, the matter has been considered and<\/p>\n
finalized by the 3rd respondent quite in a casual and mechanical manner<\/p>\n
and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Scheme, which hence is<\/p>\n
sought to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
       6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents<\/p>\n
submits with reference to the ‘manual’ that, the Scheme was proclaimed by<\/p>\n
the Government for providing exemption as a measure to boost up the<\/p>\n
industries. It is brought to the notice of this Court that SRO 968 issued in<\/p>\n
the year 1980 has undergone substantial changes in the passage of time.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to various orders issued at different points of time, SRO No. 1729<\/p>\n
was issued in 1993, specifying the relevant norms in this regard; wherein<\/p>\n
the term fixed capital investment has been defined with clarity, as provided<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 25445 of 2003
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
under Clause 11 (vii) stipulating that the investments (for the purpose as<\/p>\n
shown therein) for the industrial purpose are eligible for exemption.<\/p>\n
Placing reliance and emphasis on the words ‘like, required for the<\/p>\n
industrial purpose’, the learned Government Pleader submits that value<\/p>\n
of the vehicle which was admittedly sold off cannot be reckoned for the<\/p>\n
purpose of granting exemption, as the vehicle is no more available at the<\/p>\n
hands of the the petitioner, to be put to use for industrial purpose. It is<\/p>\n
also stated that, the above said notification (SRO 1729 of 2003) has<\/p>\n
undergone further changes, by virtue of SRO 588 of 1996 and also by<\/p>\n
virtue of Ext. P3 norms prescribed by the Government, incorporating<\/p>\n
Clause 10 as extracted herein before.\n<\/p>\n
         7.  The questions to be considered are: whether the vehicle<\/p>\n
purchased by the petitioner in the year 1989 was a ‘brand new vehicle’ and<\/p>\n
the same comes within the purview of the notification for claiming the<\/p>\n
exemption; and if so, whether the sale of the said vehicle after few years<\/p>\n
would dis-entitle the person concerned for claiming the benefit of<\/p>\n
exemption (claimed by the petitioner for a period of 5 years from<\/p>\n
November, 1988 to November 1993) by virtue of the sale of the said<\/p>\n
vehicle in the year 1992 i.e., whether the petitioner could be denied the<\/p>\n
benefit in toto, in spite of the fact that the vehicle was put to industrial use,<\/p>\n
till it was sold.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 25445 of 2003
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
       8. Going by the contents of the relevant notifications and Ext. P3,<\/p>\n
the vehicle ought to have been kept at the hands of the assessee, putting<\/p>\n
the same to industrial use, so as to have entertained the claim for<\/p>\n
exemption, which is admittedly investment-oriented.             The extent of<\/p>\n
investment and extent of exemption offered in the concerned assessment<\/p>\n
years are given separately, taking only such reckonable extent as given in<\/p>\n
Ext. P2. The factual position that the vehicle (delivery van) was purchased<\/p>\n
by the petitioner for industrial purpose and the delivery van was made use<\/p>\n
of for the industrial purpose till it was sold are not the subject matter of any<\/p>\n
dispute.    In Ext. P7, the only reason stated to reject the benefit is, the<\/p>\n
disposal of the vehicle in the financial year 1991-’92. Since the notification<\/p>\n
does not say that the entire investment should be ‘intact’ for the entire<\/p>\n
period of exemption and since the aspect whether the petitioner could have<\/p>\n
been given the benefit in respect of the period during which the vehicle was<\/p>\n
put to industrial use after the purchase in the year 1989, till the disposal in<\/p>\n
1992, has not been considered by the appellate authority in Ext. P7. This<\/p>\n
Court finds that the matter requires to be dealt with more elaborately, with<\/p>\n
specific reference to the purport of the notification, its scope, object and<\/p>\n
extent of applicability.\n<\/p>\n
       9.   In the said circumstances, Ext. P7 is set aside and the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the above<\/p>\n
observations and the relevant provisions of the Scheme and pass<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 25445 of 2003
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course after giving an<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be finalized, as<\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months, from the date of<\/p>\n
receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Court does not express anything<\/p>\n
on merits as to the eligibility of the petitioner or otherwise which is to be<\/p>\n
established before the 3rd respondent with reference to the actual facts and<\/p>\n
figures.\n<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE<\/p>\n
kmd<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25445 of 2003(D) 1. GEORGE THOMAS … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :28\/10\/2010 O R […]<\/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-121561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGeorge Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 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\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-18T11:15:09+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\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-18T11:15:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1530,\"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\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-18T11:15:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 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":"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 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\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-18T11:15:09+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\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-18T11:15:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":1530,"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\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010","name":"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-18T11:15:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 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\/121561","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=121561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}