{"id":123260,"date":"1998-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998"},"modified":"2015-05-15T15:12:05","modified_gmt":"2015-05-15T09:42:05","slug":"k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998","title":{"rendered":"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998<\/div>\n
Bench: S.P. Bharucha, V.N. Khare<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK.V.ABDUL KADER, PROPERIETOR, KEVEE SUPARI TRADERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/01\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Bharucha
\n\t       Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N.Khare
\nMs. C.N.Sreekumar, Adv. for the Respondents
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nV.N.KHARE. J
\n     This Civil\t Appeal is  directed  against  the  judgment
\ndated 26th June, 1992 passed by the High Court of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  t he\t appellant, it\tpurchases  arecanuts
\nlocally and  after processing  them dispatches\tthe same  to
\nagents in  the North  Indian States  for sale on consignment
\nwho effect  sales according  to the market trends and render
\naccounts, sales\t statements  to\t the  appellant.  Drafts  or
\ncheques for  sale proceeds  less expenses and commission are
\nalso sent  simultaneously and  the appellant has been paying
\nsales tax  for each  month by working out the purchase value
\ninvolved in  the sales effected by the agents monthly. It is
\nalso stated  that at  t he  close  of  each  financial\tyear
\nsometimes certain stocks of goods remain with the agents and
\nthe appellant  pays sales  tax on the purchase value of such
\nstock in  subsequent year  as and when the stock is sold and
\nthe accounts  of sales\tin respect thereof are received from
\nthe agents  as\tthe  stock  acquires  the  quality  of\tlast
\npurchases only when the goods are sold.\n<\/p>\n
     The final sales tax assessment of the appellant for the
\nyear 1987-88  was completed  by an  order dated November 30,
\n1989. While  passing the  assessment  order  the  sales\t Tax
\nOfficer disallowed  the contention  of\tthe  appellant\tthat
\nclosing stock  valued at  Rs. 30,91,289, 52 pending with the
\nagents\toutside\t  the  State   is  liable  to  be  excluded.
\nConsequently, the  appellant  was  sent\t a  demand  for\t Rs.
\n1,79,400.00 and\t surcharge at  Rs. 11,963.00. Aggrieved, the
\nappellant challenged  the said\torder of assessment by means
\nof a  Writ Petition  before the High Court of Kerala, bu the
\nsame was  dismissed and\t a  Writ  Appeal  against  the\tsaid
\ndecision at  the Learned  Single Judge\tpreferred before the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court also came to be dismissed
\nby the judgment under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t this\tappeal\tthe   question\t that\tarises\t for
\nconsideration is,  whether the\tpurchases  the closing stock
\nof goods as on 31st March, held by agents outside the State,
\ncould be  brought to  tax as  having attained the quality of
\nlast purchases before that date under explanation to Section
\n2 (XXVI) and Section B(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Before we deal with the argument of learned counsel for
\nthe appellant,\tit is necessary to notice the legal position
\nprior to  introduction of  Explanation to Section 2(XXVI) of
\nthe Act\t in respect  of tax  liability of an assessee on the
\npurchases of  closing stock  of goods on 31st March, held by
\nthe agents  outside the\t State. In  The State of Madras\t vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. Narayanaswami  Naidu and  another (21  STC,1), this Court
\nwas of\tthe view that, under Section 4 of the Madras General
\nSales Tax  Act, a dealer was not liable to pay sales tax. Al
\nPurchases of  goods until the purchases acquired the quality
\nof being  the last  purchases inside  the  State.  In  other
\nwords, when  the assessee  field a  return and\tdeclared the
\nstock in  hand, the  stock in hand could not be said to have
\nbeen acquired  by last\tpurchase, because the assessee might
\nstill during  the next\tassessment year\t sell it or he might
\nhimself consume\t it or\tthe goods  might be  destroyed. This
\nCourt was  Further at  the view\t that the  assessee would be
\nentitled to  claim before the assessing authorities that the
\ncharacter  of\tacquisition  of\t  the  stock   in  hand\t was
\nundetermined: in  the light of subsequent events it might or
\nmight not  become the  last purchase  inside the State, and,
\ntherefore, the\tassessee was  entitled to claim deduction in
\nrespect of  the value  of the stock as being purchases other
\nthan last purchases of goods.\n<\/p>\n
It is  clear that,  in order to give effect to the aforesaid
\njudgment, and  further to ensure that the revenue due to the
\nState does  not escape\tassessment,  the  State\t Legislature
\ninserted an  Explanation  to  Section  2(xxvi)\tof  the\t Act
\ndefining “total\t turnover”. The\t Explanation to\t Section  to
\nSection stated\tt hat, in the case of every dealer liable to
\ntax under Section 5 regarding the goods which are taxable at
\nthe point  of last  purchase in the State and which are held
\nas a  closing stock on the last day of a financial year, the
\namount for such goods were purchased by the dealer shall b e
\ndeemed also  to be  part of  his turnover for the subsequent
\nyear or\t each of  the subsequent  years until such goods are
\neither sold  by him  in the State or such purchases acquires
\nthe character  of last purchase in the State in the hands of
\nsuch  dealers\tand  in\t case  such  purchase  acquires\t the
\ncharacter of last purchase in the State in the hands of such
\ndealer, the  turnover in  respect of such purchases shall be
\nliable to tax in the year in which the purchase acquires the
\ncharacter of  last purchase.  This indicates  that the goods
\nwhich are  liable to  tax as a last purchases point and form
\nthe closing  stock of  a  year,\t shall\tb  e  shown  in\t the
\nsubsequent year\t as a  part of total turnover until they are
\nsold and  the goods  acquire the  quality of  last purchase,
\nexigible to  tax. This explanation came to be interpreted by
\na Division  Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Deputy
\nCommissioner of\t Sales Tax  (Law). Board or Revenue (Taxes),
\nTrivandrum vs. Keveyam & Co. AND OTHERS (1986(63) STC, 387).
\nThe High  Court of Kerala interpreting the Explanation held,
\n“that there  should  not  be  any  distinction\tbetween\t the
\nclosing stock  of the  goods held  by an assessee inaide the
\nState and outside the State as the goods sent to this agents
\noutside the State on consignment basis still continued to be
\nthe goods  of the  assessee and\t as the assessee had got the
\npower of  disposal, even  over such  goods sent\t outside the
\nState, it  was open  to the  assessee to recall the goods at
\nany time  and deal  with it  in any  manner. Therefore,\t the
\ngoods which moved outside the State to be held by the agents
\nof  the\t assessee  for\tconsignment  sales  did\t not  become
\nexigible to tax”.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\taforesaid decision,  it was  felt  that\t the
\nexisting legislation was not sufficient to keep track of the
\ngoods sent outside the State resulting in loss of revenue to
\nthe State.  Consequently the  Governor or Kerala promulgated
\nan ordinance which was subsequently replaced by Act No. 6 of
\n1980 and  came into  effect from February 19, 1980. This Act
\namended the  Explanation to  Section  2(xxvi)  by  inserting
\ntherein the  words “but\t subject to the provision of Section
\nB”. Since  we are  here concerned with the interpretation of
\namended Explanation  to Section 2(xxvi) and Section B of the
\nAct, it is necessary to set out these provisions here.\n<\/p>\n
     “2(xxvi) “total turnover” means the
\n     aggregate turnover\t in all goods of
\n     a dealer  at all places of business
\n     in the State, whether or is not the
\n     whole  or\t any  portion\tof  such
\n     turnover\tis    liable   to   tax,
\n     including the  turnover of purchase
\n     or sale  in  the  course  of  inter
\n     state trade  or commerce  or in the
\n     course of\texport of  the goods out
\n     of the territory of India or in the
\n     course of\timport of the goods into
\n     the territory of India:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation    :\t Notwithstanding
\n     anything  contained  in  any  other
\n     provision of  this Act, but subject
\n     to the  provisions of section  B in
\n     t\the   case  of  goods  which  are
\n     taxable  at   the\tpoint\tof  last
\n     purchase in  the State  by a dealer
\n     liable to\ttax under  section 5 and
\n     which are\theld as closing stock on
\n     the  last\tday.  At  any  financial
\n     year, the\tamount\tfor  which  such
\n     goods were\t purchased by the dealer
\n     shall b  e deemed\talso to b e part
\n     of\t his   total  turnover\tfor  the
\n     subsequent\t year  or  each\t of  the
\n     subsequent years  until such  goods
\n     are wither sold by him in the State
\n     or\t such\tpurchase  acquires   the
\n     character of  last purchases in the
\n     State in  the hands  of such dealer
\n     and in case such purchases acquires
\n     the character  of last purchases in
\n     the State\tin  the\t hands\tof  such
\n     dealer, the  turnover in respect of
\n     such purchases  shall be  liable to
\n     tax  in   the  year  in  which  the
\n     purchase acquires\tthe character of
\n     last purchase;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.\t  Stage\t of  levy  of  taxes  in
\n     respect of\t imported  and\texported
\n     goods :   Where  in the case of any
\n     goods tax\tis leviable at one point
\n     in a  series of sales or purchases,
\n     such series shall,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   In the case of goods imported
\n     into the  State either from outside
\n     the territory  of India or from any
\n     other State  of India, be deemed to
\n     commence at  the State  of the sale
\n     or\t purchase  effected  immediately
\n     after the import of such goods;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   In the case of goods exported
\n     out  of  the  state  to  any  place
\n     outside the  territory of\tIndia or
\n     to any  other State  in  India,  be
\n     deemed to\tconclude at the stage of
\n     the  sale\t or  purchase\teffected
\n     immediately before\t the  export  of
\n     such goods”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned  counsel  for  the\t appellant  urged  that\t the
\npurchases could\t not be brought to tax despite the amendment
\nin Explanation.\t In other  words, the  argument is  that the
\namendment by  Act no. 6 of 1988 has not achieved the desired
\nresult of  bringing to\ttax the\t closing stock of goods held
\noutside t  he state  as an last March. It is also urged that
\nthough the amendment made to Explanation to Section 2 (xxvi)
\nis subject  to t he provisions of Section B, that Section on
\nits language  is  not  sufficient  to  impute  the  time  of
\nattaining of  quality of  last purchases  on the purchase of
\ngoods held  as a  closing stock\t outside the  State  by\t the
\nassessee or  hiss agents,  and, therefore,  the amendment to
\nExplanation to\tSection 2(xxvi)\t making\t itself\t subject  to
\nSection B, has not achieved the intended object.\n<\/p>\n
     It does  not appear  to us that there is any difference
\nbetween\t the  two  arguments  or  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant.  We,\t  therefore,  proceed\tto  deal  both\tthis
\narguments  together.   We  have\t already  noticed  that\t the
\nunamended Explanation to Section B(xxvi) was introduced with
\na view\tto give\t affect to  the decision  of this  Court  in
\nNarayanaswamy  Naidu  (supra)  and  further  to\t secure\t the
\ninterest of revenue by making closing stock within the reach
\nand knowledge  of  the\tdepartment  by\ttreating  the  goods
\nexported outside the State as part of the total turn over in
\nsubsequent year,  till the  goods attain the quality of last
\npurchases of  goods. The  non-obstante clause  used  in\t the
\nunamended Explanation  to Section  2(xxvi) whittled down the
\nprovisions of  Section B  of the  Act, and,  therefore,\t the
\nprovisions of Section B could not be applied for the purpose
\nof levy\t of tax on the goods exported outside the State till
\nthey  attained\tthe  quality  of  last\tpurchase  of  goods.
\nSubsequently, it  was felt  that the  existing provisions of
\nExplanation to\tSection 2(xxvi)\t by introducing\t therein the
\nwords” but  subject to\tthe provisions\tof Section B” by Act
\nBio. 6\tof 1988. The Statement of objects and Reasons of Act
\nNo. 6 of 1988 are these :\n<\/p>\n
     “In the  case of  goods taxable  at
\n     the point\tof last\t purchase in the
\n     State there  are chances  that  the
\n     dealers may open branches at direct
\n     purchases from  producers to  avoid
\n     turnover tax. Moreover the existing
\n     intermediary  dealers   may  change
\n     themselves as  agents of  the  last
\n     purchasers to  avoid turnover  tax.
\n     The commodities in respect of which
\n     this could\t happen are rubber, tea,
\n     pepper, arecaunut and dried ginger.
\n     Government decided to amend the Act
\n     suitable  so   as\tto   extend  the
\n     liability to  pay turnover tax to t
\n     he taxable point also in respect or
\n     these items.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     According to  clause (b) of section
\n     B of  the Kerala  General Sales Tax
\n     Act, 1969\tthe  point  of\tlevy  of
\n     purchase tax  will conclude  State.
\n     The  Kerala   High\t Court\t in  its
\n     decision reported\tin (1986) 63 STC
\n     387 has held that the closing stock
\n     of goods  held  outside  the  State
\n     will not  acquire the  Character of
\n     last this\tdecision,  many\t dealers
\n     claim that\t their\tstock  of  goods
\n     held outside  the\tState  will  not
\n     acquire  the   character  of   last
\n     purchases until  the goods are sold
\n     and as  such they are not liable to
\n     pay  tax\ton  such   goods.  As  a
\n     result, Government\t is losing  huge
\n     amount to\ttax.  to  overcome  this
\n     situation\tGovernment   decided  to
\n     amend the Act suitable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Having regard to the phraseology and the objects of the
\namending Act  extracted above,,\t it is fairly clear that the
\namendment in  Explanation to Section B(xxvi) was made with a
\nview to\t alter the  legal position  that closing  stock held
\noutside the  State will\t not acquire  the character  of last
\npurchase till  it is sold. Prior to passing of the amendment
\nAct, non-obstante  clause accurring  in the  Explanation  to
\nsection 2(xvvi)\t did not permit the application of Section B\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\tthe Act,  where the  goods were exported outside the
\nState, but  after the  amendment the  width of\tnon-obstante
\nclause\tin   the  Explanation\twas  narrowed  down  as\t the
\nExplanation to Section 2(xvvi) has become subject to Section
\nB. What Section 8(b) lays down is that, in the case of goods
\non which  tax is  leviable only\t at one point in a series of
\nsales or  purchases, and  such goods are exported out of the
\nState to  any place outside the territory of India or to any
\nother State in India, the series of purchase shall be deemed
\nto conclude  at the  stage of the sale or purchases effected
\nimmediately before  the export\tof such\t goods. The  faction
\ncreated in  Section 8(b) is that, purchase of goods exported
\nout of\tthe State  id deemed  to have been effected when the
\nsale or\t purchase immediately preceding the export was made.
\nThe question  whether a\t particular  purchase  is  the\tlast
\npurchase or  not has  to be decided in terms of Section 8(b)
\nof the Act. On this interpretation, as soon as the goods are
\nexported it attains the stage of last purchase and is liable
\nto tax\tirrespective of\t the fact  that such goods are still
\nheld by\t agents outside\t the State. Thus, the legal position
\nthat emerged  after the amendment is that, all the purchases
\nof the closing stock of goods experted outside the State and
\nheld by\t agents are  deemed to\tattain the  quality of\tlast
\npurchase and  exigibile to tax. We have, therefore, no doubt
\nin our\tmind that,  by the amendment in the Explanation, the
\nLegislature  has   altered  the\t  legal\t position  prior  to
\namendment that\tpurchases of  closing stock or goods on 31st
\nMarch, held  by agents\toutside\t the  State,  would  not  be
\nbrought to  tax having\tnot attained  the  quality  of\tlast
\npurchase before\t that date.  We, therefore,  do not find any
\nmerit  in   the\t contentions  of  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  foregoing reasons,  the appeal  fails  and  is
\nhereby dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 Bench: S.P. Bharucha, V.N. Khare PETITIONER: K.V.ABDUL KADER, PROPERIETOR, KEVEE SUPARI TRADERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/01\/1998 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 - 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\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-15T09:42:05+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T09:42:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2539,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\",\"name\":\"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T09:42:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 - 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\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-15T09:42:05+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998","datePublished":"1998-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T09:42:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998"},"wordCount":2539,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998","name":"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T09:42:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-abdul-kader-properietor-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-29-january-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.V.Abdul Kader, Properietor, … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 29 January, 1998"}]},{"@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\/123260","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=123260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123260\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}