{"id":126884,"date":"2009-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-10T00:54:29","modified_gmt":"2016-11-09T19:24:29","slug":"r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAR.No. 25 of 2007()\n\n\n1. R.GEORGE PEREIRA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ST.JOSEPH'S INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.L.VARGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :FR.JOHNY THOTTAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :08\/05\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.\n          -----------------------------------------------\n                      A.R. No. 25 OF 2007\n          -----------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 8th day of May, 2009\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     This is an application under section 11(6) of the<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Scheme for<\/p>\n
Appointment of an Arbitrator by the Chief Justice of the<\/p>\n
Kerala High Court. The application seeks appointment of an<\/p>\n
independent and impartial arbitrator for adjudicating upon<\/p>\n
the various claims of the applicant against the respondent<\/p>\n
The applicant was contractor of the respondent for the<\/p>\n
construction of an school building at Kumbalam in Kollam<\/p>\n
under the name and style “St. Joseph International<\/p>\n
Academy”. It is alleged that disputes and differences arose<\/p>\n
between the parties on account of what is described as the<\/p>\n
recalcitrant attitude of the respondent to allow the applicant<\/p>\n
to complete the work which had neared completion. It is<\/p>\n
claimed that the applicant has carried out works worth<\/p>\n
Rs.68,57,616\/- in seven part bills whereas the respondent<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
has paid only Rs.45,68,712\/-.      The balance amount due<\/p>\n
under the part bill is Rs.22,88,904\/-.      Since the balance<\/p>\n
amount remained unpaid, the windows which had been<\/p>\n
supplied by the applicant to the respondent had to be taken<\/p>\n
back and deducting the value of those windows, the balance<\/p>\n
amount due to the applicant is Rs.22,12,087\/-. According<\/p>\n
to the applicant, in order to avoid payment of the above<\/p>\n
amount the respondent sought to terminate the contract.<\/p>\n
The disputes and differences which was thus arisen are to<\/p>\n
be settled by resorting to           arbitration proceedings.<\/p>\n
Annexure A8 is copy of the agreement between the<\/p>\n
applicant and the respondent for construction of St. Joseph<\/p>\n
International Academy and clause 17 thereof is quoted as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “(17) If there is any dispute relating to any matter
\n      regarding the construction of the building or any matter
\n      related to this contract, the Manager, St.Joseph’s
\n      International Academy, Kollam will be the sole
\n      Arbitrator for this purpose and his decision shall be
\n      final, and the second party will have no right to<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      challenge this decision in the court of law”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is submitted that as per clause 17, the Manager of the<\/p>\n
respondent is to be the sole arbitrator. But since disputes<\/p>\n
have arisen on account of the actions and inactions of the<\/p>\n
Manager, he is not entitled to function as arbitrator since<\/p>\n
the same will be against the fundamental principle of<\/p>\n
natural justice, nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no<\/p>\n
one shall be a judge in his own cause). It was under such<\/p>\n
circumstances that the applicant sent Annexure A4 letter<\/p>\n
indicating a panel of three names for selection of one among<\/p>\n
them as arbitrator by the respondent. To Annexure A4, the<\/p>\n
respondent’s Advocate sent Annexure A5 reply without<\/p>\n
selecting any of the nominee arbitrators but suggesting for<\/p>\n
appointment of two Civil Engineers, one to be appointed by<\/p>\n
each party who could jointly verify the records and files and<\/p>\n
assess the quantity and quality of the work done in order to<\/p>\n
avoid a litigation and to come to a fair settlement. The<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
applicant obliged and appointed his nominee under<\/p>\n
Annexure A6. The respondent also appointed its Engineer.<\/p>\n
By Annexure A7, the applicant requested both the Engineers<\/p>\n
to take up the assignment and pave way for a settlement.<\/p>\n
Though the applicant called for nominee Engineer of the<\/p>\n
respondent and furnished all measurement books and<\/p>\n
connected records and made necessary follow up, nothing<\/p>\n
materialized.   In the meanwhile, the applicant’s nominee<\/p>\n
Engineer met with an accident and passed away. Hence no<\/p>\n
useful purpose will be served by waiting further and that is<\/p>\n
the circumstances under which the applicant has filed this<\/p>\n
application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and<\/p>\n
Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking the statutory appointment<\/p>\n
procedure of arbitrators.\n<\/p>\n
      2. On the basis that no counter affidavit was filed the<\/p>\n
A.R. was allowed by order dated 11-10-2007. Later R.P. No.<\/p>\n
233 of 2008 was filed and the above order was recalled.<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
      3. The contentions of the respondent as discernible<\/p>\n
from the RP. 233\/08 filed by him and also the reply affidavit<\/p>\n
filed by him in the said RP are as follows:     The arbitrator<\/p>\n
who has been appointed by this court under the order dated<\/p>\n
11-10-07      (Sri.E.K.Muraleedharan,  Retired   District and<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge) is incapable of acting as arbitrator between<\/p>\n
the parties in the light of the legal bar under the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that contrary to what has been projected in the A.R. the<\/p>\n
Manager envisaged under clause 17 of the arbitration clause<\/p>\n
who is to act as the sole arbitrator in the event of disputes<\/p>\n
and the signatory to the agreement are one and the same<\/p>\n
person. In order to convince this court that the Manager of<\/p>\n
St.Joseph ‘s International Academy and the executant to the<\/p>\n
agreement are one and the same, the applicant has<\/p>\n
produced Annexure A8, but Annexure A8 does not contain<\/p>\n
the last page of the agreement.        The last page of the<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                               -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement will disclose that the Manager was not the<\/p>\n
executant of the agreement. On the contrary the executant<\/p>\n
of the agreement was the General Manager. Annexure B1<\/p>\n
full text of the agreement is produced. It is pointed out that<\/p>\n
it will be seen from Annexure B1 last page that there was a<\/p>\n
typing mistake where the 1st party was indicated and<\/p>\n
instead of General Manager the word Manager was<\/p>\n
mistakenly used.      Since the party noticed the mistake at<\/p>\n
the time of execution of the agreement, the first party to<\/p>\n
the     agreement,    the   General   Manager,    St.Joseph’s<\/p>\n
International Academy did not sign and instead he signed as<\/p>\n
the General Manager only where the first party was<\/p>\n
indicated.     This was deliberately and intentionally done in<\/p>\n
order to avoid confusion as the Manager, St.Joseph’s<\/p>\n
International Academy was appointed as the arbitrator<\/p>\n
under clause 17 of the agreement.        It is submitted that<\/p>\n
there is absolute consensus with regard to the arbitrator by<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
both parties to the agreement. It is then contended that<\/p>\n
the General Manager       and the Manager of St.Joseph’s<\/p>\n
International Academy are two different persons. Annexure<\/p>\n
B2 certificate issued by Mr.Joseph J. who was the Manager<\/p>\n
of St.Joseph Academy during the period from 1st June 2002<\/p>\n
to May 31, 2007 is produced.       The present Manager of<\/p>\n
St.Joseph Academy is one S.Sundaresan and Annexure B3<\/p>\n
certificate issued by him is produced.\n<\/p>\n
       4. Annexure – B4 dated 22-11-2004 was caused to the<\/p>\n
applicant by the respondent claiming Rs.39,43,330\/- from<\/p>\n
the applicant on various counts and requested that if the<\/p>\n
claim was disputed the matter be referred to the Manager,<\/p>\n
St, Joseph’s International Academy who alone is the<\/p>\n
arbitrator. Again Annexure B5 dated 30-8-2005 was issued<\/p>\n
on behalf of the respondent by way of reply to a lawyer<\/p>\n
notice dated 16-10-2005 sent at the instance of the<\/p>\n
applicant. Once again by Annexure B6 lawyer notice dated<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
1st December 2005 the respondent’s lawyer informed the<\/p>\n
applicant’s lawyer in reply to applicant’s notice dated 19-11-<\/p>\n
2005 that the Manager of the St. Joseph’s International<\/p>\n
Academy is to be appointed as arbitrator and that it was not<\/p>\n
the Manager of the St. Joseph’s International Academy who<\/p>\n
had signed the agreement. In the reply affidavit filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent to the counter filed by the applicant to<\/p>\n
RP.233\/08, it is submitted that the respondent has never<\/p>\n
acted in a capacity as the Manager of St. Joseph’s<\/p>\n
International Academy at any stage. The respondent has<\/p>\n
been styled as General Manager or as Managing Director or<\/p>\n
Director. This is on account of the fact that at the time of<\/p>\n
construction of the school, the organization was at a very<\/p>\n
nascent stage and therefore the respondent was styled as<\/p>\n
General Manager and later as Managing Director\/Director.<\/p>\n
Similarly the then Manager Joseph John was styled as<\/p>\n
Manager and subsequently he continued as Manager who<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
was also styled as Administrator. He continued to be the<\/p>\n
Manager as well as Administrator. It is submitted that the<\/p>\n
respondent in the RP (applicant) is trying to take advantage<\/p>\n
of a typing mistake made in the agreement wherein the<\/p>\n
word Manager was used in the last page instead of General<\/p>\n
Manager. However, it is submitted that there is no scope<\/p>\n
for such confusion as in the last page, it is the General<\/p>\n
Manager who had signed at the portion where the first party<\/p>\n
is indicated. In the agreement the first party is described as<\/p>\n
General Manager. Hence there is no scope for confusion.<\/p>\n
Referring     to the  correspondence     produced    by   the<\/p>\n
respondent it is submitted that the Manager Mr.Joseph John<\/p>\n
had signed on behalf of the General Manager and not in his<\/p>\n
capacity as the Manager of the school. It is pointed out that<\/p>\n
Ext.A9 is not addressed to the General Manager or to the<\/p>\n
institution. A10 is not addressed to the General Manager<\/p>\n
but to Joseph John, the Manager. It is reported that Joseph<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
John has functioned only as Manager and that the<\/p>\n
respondent has never styled or functioned as Manager. It<\/p>\n
is further pointed out that the present Manager is not<\/p>\n
Joseph John but     is Mr. S. Sundareswaran and therefore<\/p>\n
there is no question of any prejudice being caused to the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      6. I have heard the submissions of Sri. K.L. Varghese,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the applicant and those Sri. Madhu<\/p>\n
Radhakrishnan,    learned   counsel  for  the   respondent.<\/p>\n
Mr.K.L.Varghese submitted that the non-production of the<\/p>\n
last page of Annexure A8 is not fatal.       The Arbitration<\/p>\n
Scheme and the Kerala Arbitration Rules require production<\/p>\n
of the arbitration agreement only along with the arbitration<\/p>\n
request and not the whole contract agreement. Reference<\/p>\n
was made to Section 7(2) of the Arbitration             and<\/p>\n
Conciliation Act in this context. According to the counsel,<\/p>\n
this was why the applicant produced only clause 17 of<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                                -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
Annexure-A, which is the arbitration clause.           Counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that a reading of Annexures A4 and A5 will show<\/p>\n
that this is not the first time that issue has cropped up. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that on behalf of the applicant it has been made<\/p>\n
clear that it was Sri.George Fernandez who signed the<\/p>\n
agreement in the capacity of the Manager, first party and<\/p>\n
disputes have arisen on account of actions and inactions on<\/p>\n
the part of Sri.George Fernandez, the signatory which were<\/p>\n
denied.      Respondent maintained that the agreement was<\/p>\n
signed by the Managing Director and that the arbitrator was<\/p>\n
Manager.        In Annexure A5 signatory is referred to as<\/p>\n
Managing Director and not as General Manager which is<\/p>\n
very significant.   According to Mr.Varghese, last page of<\/p>\n
Annexure A8 would only strengthen the applicant’s case.<\/p>\n
He pointed out that the last page shows that the first party<\/p>\n
is styled as Manager. The expression first party is repeated<\/p>\n
twice.     It shows that the statement that the respondent<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
deliberately and intentionally did not sign the first line but<\/p>\n
only the second line is incorrect. If the signatory found that<\/p>\n
the first party is not Manager he should have definitely<\/p>\n
scored it off.  If the Manager had signed as witness he<\/p>\n
should have scored off the word Manager as first party when<\/p>\n
he signed as witness, instead against the expression witness<\/p>\n
he should have styled himself as Manager.        Annexures 1<\/p>\n
and 2 produced along with the counter to the RP will show<\/p>\n
that there was a manager for the school and           never a<\/p>\n
General Manager. A reading of Annexures 2 and 3 together<\/p>\n
shows that Sri. Joseph Fernandez himself was the Manager<\/p>\n
though while issuing Annexure 3 he is styled as Director.<\/p>\n
Mr. Varghese emphasized the words “I am happy to award”<\/p>\n
in Annexure 3. Mr.Varghese submitted that the witness<\/p>\n
Joseph.J. Was only the Administrator and his full name<\/p>\n
Joseph John is indicated in Annexures A5 and A6.<\/p>\n
Mr.Varghese highlighted that in the reply affidavit it is<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted that Joseph. J. alias Joseph John turned to be the<\/p>\n
administrator.   The letter pad in Annexures 3 and 5 to 11<\/p>\n
shows that he was only “administrator” and not “Manager”.<\/p>\n
If so, his successor, the signatory to Annexure B4 also can<\/p>\n
be only an administrator and not the Manager. If under<\/p>\n
section 21, the commencement of arbitration proceedings is<\/p>\n
on the date of request to refer the disputes to arbitration<\/p>\n
then it should be deemed to be commenced after 22-11-<\/p>\n
2004, the date of Ext.B4. B2 will show that Joseph J. \/<\/p>\n
Joseph John was working for the petitioner at that time as<\/p>\n
administrator which means that there was no Manager to<\/p>\n
function as arbitrator.  This according to Mr. Varghese is<\/p>\n
precisely the reason why in Annexures B4 and B5 though<\/p>\n
repeatedly the respondent said that       the matter \/ all<\/p>\n
relevant papers would be placed before the arbitrator and<\/p>\n
the matter will be decided by him.       He did not do so<\/p>\n
because there was no manager at that time.     According to<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.Varghese it is unbelievable that certificates like B2 and<\/p>\n
B3 could be issued      by men of average intelligence and<\/p>\n
common sense. He submitted that those documents are<\/p>\n
fabricated and cooked up. He pointed out that the title “to<\/p>\n
whom it may concern” (sic) is conspicuous. He submitted<\/p>\n
that the same mistake is repeated in B2 and B3, though<\/p>\n
created and signed on different dates. He pointed out that<\/p>\n
the first para of both these annexures is identical. Para 2 of<\/p>\n
Annexure B2 and Paras 2 and 3 of B3 are identical. Para 4<\/p>\n
of B2 and para 3 of B3 are identical. He asserted that B2<\/p>\n
and B3 are dictated by one and the same person. Though<\/p>\n
B2 is dated 8-2-08 and B3 is 11-2-08 they are apparently<\/p>\n
made on the same date. The reason why the signatories on<\/p>\n
B2 and B3 had to issue such certificates is obscure,<\/p>\n
according to Mr.Varghese . Obviously the reason is only to<\/p>\n
help the respondent. By issuing such certificates both the<\/p>\n
signatories to B2 and B3prove their allegiance to the<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent,     making   themselves   disqualified   to  be<\/p>\n
independent and impartial arbitrator which is required under<\/p>\n
section 11(8)(b) of the Act even assuming that any one of<\/p>\n
them can be considered as arbitrator. Mr.Varghese would<\/p>\n
fortify his submissions on the authority of a catena of<\/p>\n
judicial precedents.   He relied on paragraphs 4.030 and<\/p>\n
4.031 of Russel on Arbitration 22nd Edition for the<\/p>\n
commentaries on apparent bias and real possibility test. He<\/p>\n
argued that actual bias is not necessary to be proved and<\/p>\n
that the knowledge at the time of appointment does not<\/p>\n
debar from applying on the ground that the arbitrator to be<\/p>\n
appointed in terms of the agreement may not be impartial.<\/p>\n
For this proposition he relied on page 215 of the Law of<\/p>\n
Practice of Commercial Arbitration by Mustill and Byod. To<\/p>\n
expatiate     his argument    regarding  the    concept   of<\/p>\n
independence and impartiality of arbitrator he relied on<\/p>\n
commentaries     contained  in   Comparative   International<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
Commercial Arbitration by Julian D M Lew QC and others.<\/p>\n
He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in ACE<\/p>\n
Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.<\/a><\/p>\n
(2007) 5 SCC 304, Bihar State Mineral Development Corpn.<\/p>\n
and others. v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd. ((2003) 7 SCC<\/p>\n
418 and in Tata Cellular v. UOI (1994) 6 SCC 651 in support<\/p>\n
of various propositions canvassed by him.<\/p>\n
      7. Sri. MadhuRadhakrishnan, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent also did not lag behind in citing authorities. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High<\/p>\n
Court in Pragati Engineering (P) Ltd. v. T.N.Water Supply &<\/p>\n
Drainage Board, AIR<\/a> 1992 Calcutta 139 to argue that where<\/p>\n
the parties entered into a contract with their eyes open and<\/p>\n
knew that the nominated arbitrator is an employee of one of<\/p>\n
the parties, none of the parties to the agreement should be<\/p>\n
allowed to allege that such nominated arbitrator being an<\/p>\n
officer of one of the parties to the contract, would be biased<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
or is likely to be biased.   Mr. Madhu Radhakrishnan relied<\/p>\n
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in International<\/p>\n
Airport Authority of India v . K.D.Bali, (AIR 1988 SC 1099)<\/p>\n
to argue that the apprehension of bias must be judged from<\/p>\n
a healthy, reasonable and average point of view and the<\/p>\n
request for removal of the appointed arbitrator is not to be<\/p>\n
granted lightly. Mr.Madhu Radhakrishnan placed reliance on<\/p>\n
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.,<\/a> (2006) 5 SCC 501 also.<\/p>\n
      8. The provisions contained in sections 12 and 13 of<\/p>\n
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act incorporate grounds for<\/p>\n
challenge and the challenge procedure against and in<\/p>\n
respect of arbitrators will reveal that partiality and bias or<\/p>\n
circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts regarding the<\/p>\n
impartiality and independence can be       valid grounds for<\/p>\n
challenging the appointment given to a certain persons as<\/p>\n
arbitrator. At the same time, a party should not be allowed<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                              -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
to wriggle easily out of agreements entered into by them<\/p>\n
with open eyes.     In the instant case it is seen that the<\/p>\n
applicant had agreed to the appointment of a person in the<\/p>\n
service of the opposite party as an arbitrator in the event of<\/p>\n
disputes.     That being the position I would have been<\/p>\n
ordinarily reluctant to accept the opposition of the applicant<\/p>\n
to the appointment of the nominated arbitrator on ground<\/p>\n
of bias and partiality. After all, it is a quasi judicial function<\/p>\n
which is being discharged by the arbitrator whose<\/p>\n
proceedings will be regulated by the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. His award will be subjected<\/p>\n
to judicial scrutiny though on limited grounds and to a<\/p>\n
limited extent. But in the instant case I am not inclined to<\/p>\n
dismiss the arbitration request and to appoint the<\/p>\n
nominated arbitrator as the arbitrator for resolving the<\/p>\n
disputes which have admittedly arisen between the parties<\/p>\n
because it is seen from Annexures A4 and A5 that the<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -19-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent also     became agreeable to the idea of the<\/p>\n
disputes between the parties being resolved by persons<\/p>\n
other than the arbitrator nominated under the agreement.<\/p>\n
Annexures A6 and A7 will show that the parties had<\/p>\n
nominated an Engineer each and were willing to have the<\/p>\n
disputes between them resolved by a joint perusal of the<\/p>\n
relevant records by these two Engineers. To this extent, in<\/p>\n
my opinion the respondent has waived his right to insist<\/p>\n
that the arbitrator to be appointed has to be the arbitrator<\/p>\n
nominated under the agreement.      Moreover, in my opinion<\/p>\n
no prejudice whatsoever will be occasioned to the<\/p>\n
respondent by appointing a Retired Judicial Officer known<\/p>\n
for his learning and integrity as the arbitrator for resolving<\/p>\n
the disputes which admittedly subsist. Therefore without<\/p>\n
deciding the issue whether appointment of the nominated<\/p>\n
arbitrator will be vitiated due to reasons of bias and<\/p>\n
partiality I allow the arbitration request and appoint<\/p>\n
A.R. N0. 25\/07
\n                             -20-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sri.E.K.Muraleedharan, Retired District and Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
presently at Ernakulam as arbitrator for settling all the<\/p>\n
claims and counter claims raised by the applicant and the<\/p>\n
respondent respondent as detailed in Annexures A1 to A4 as<\/p>\n
well as in the arbitration request. The arbitrator will enter<\/p>\n
on arbitration and make and publish his award without<\/p>\n
undue delay.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
\nksv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AR.No. 25 of 2007() 1. R.GEORGE PEREIRA, … Petitioner Vs 1. ST.JOSEPH’S INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.L.VARGHESE For Respondent :FR.JOHNY THOTTAM The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Dated :08\/05\/2009 O R D […]<\/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-126884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.George Pereira vs St.Joseph'S International ... on 8 May, 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\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph'S International ... on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-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=\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-09T19:24:29+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-09T19:24:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3248,\"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\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009\",\"name\":\"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph'S International ... on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-09T19:24:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph'S International ... on 8 May, 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\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph'S International ... on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-09T19:24:29+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-09T19:24:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009"},"wordCount":3248,"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\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009","name":"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph'S International ... on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-09T19:24:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-george-pereira-vs-st-josephs-international-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.George Pereira vs St.Joseph’S International … on 8 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/126884","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=126884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}