{"id":144419,"date":"2008-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-21T08:01:04","modified_gmt":"2017-08-21T02:31:04","slug":"p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 527 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. P P KUKILLAYA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI P K JOSE, SRI JOHNSON ABRAHAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI P SANTHALINGAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :19\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                           A.S.No.527 of 1994\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                       Dated: 19th August, 2008\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The defendant in a suit filed by the respondent-K.S.E.B. is the<\/p>\n
appellant and the appellant is aggrieved by the positive decree<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the respondent.<\/p>\n
     2. Briefly stated the case of the respondent-plaintiff was that in<\/p>\n
response to tenders invited by the plaintiff for supply of 50,000<\/p>\n
meters of 20 mm PVC conduits, the appellant-defendant submitted<\/p>\n
the lowest tender and the same was accordingly accepted and<\/p>\n
purchase order was issued to the defendant. On the terms of the<\/p>\n
purchase order, the defendant should have supplied 20,000 meters at<\/p>\n
Aluva within 45 days of receipt of the order, 20,000 meters at<\/p>\n
Kundara store within 75 days of the receipt of the order and the<\/p>\n
remaining 10,000 meters at Kallai within 90 days of the receipt of the<\/p>\n
order. The purchase order was accepted by the defendant who<\/p>\n
executed necessary agreement in stamp paper in favour of the Chief<\/p>\n
Engineer of the K.S.E.B. The agreed rate was Rs.135.41 per 100<\/p>\n
meters inclusive of taxes. Contrary to the agreed terms the defendant<\/p>\n
altogether supplied only 20,000 meters on three occasions. The third<\/p>\n
occasion was 23.3.1977 when he supplied 10,250 meters. Thereafter<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                      – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the defendant defaulted supply causing huge loss to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Successive demands in writing for supplying balance conduits where<\/p>\n
of no avail and finally the defendant was informed that the contract<\/p>\n
will be cancelled and alternative arrangements for purchase of<\/p>\n
conduits will be made at the defendant’s risk and cost. The purchase<\/p>\n
order was accordingly cancelled. Before the cancellation of the<\/p>\n
purchase order issued to the defendant the plaintiff had invited<\/p>\n
tenders for supply of 70,000 meters of 20 mm PVC conduits for other<\/p>\n
purposes of the plaintiff and the lowest rate as per tenders received<\/p>\n
in that case was at the rate of Rs.172\/- per 100 meters received from<\/p>\n
M\/s.Trencos Ltd. 30,000 meters of conduits supplied by M\/s.Trencos<\/p>\n
Ltd. to the K.S.E.B. on 4.11.1977 was adjusted against balance 30<\/p>\n
meters which were ought to have been supplied by the defendant<\/p>\n
pursuant to the purchase order given to him. The difference price<\/p>\n
comes to Rs.13,041\/- and the suit was laid for recovering the above<\/p>\n
amount with interest and cost.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The appellant-defendant filed written statement and<\/p>\n
subsequently an additional written statement. The agreement for<\/p>\n
supply of conduits was admitted. But it was contended that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff never sustained any loss by reason of default in supply of<\/p>\n
materials by the defendant. It was denied that the contractual<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                         – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
obligations were violated by the defendant. It was contended that it is<\/p>\n
the plaintiff who failed to fulfill the obligations in the contract by not<\/p>\n
paying price for the goods supplied by the defendant. It was<\/p>\n
contended that the suit claim is unsustainable since the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
waived its rights under the contract by plaintiff’s conduct. It was also<\/p>\n
contended that time was not essential regarding the contract of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and that since the defendant was ready and willing to supply<\/p>\n
the agreed quantities of conduits, he is not liable to pay the<\/p>\n
difference in price as claimed in the plaint. As regards the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
claim for adjusting the conduits supplied by M\/s.Trencos Ltd. against<\/p>\n
the conduits which were having supplied by the defendant, it is<\/p>\n
contended that it is for the plaintiff to prove that claim.<\/p>\n
      4. The learned Subordinate Judge would formulate the following<\/p>\n
issues for trial:\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the defendant performed his contractual obligation<\/p>\n
relating to the agreement and purchase order No.T.A.36\/Ele.4\/76-77<\/p>\n
P.P. (69) dated 1.12.76?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the defendant accepted the purchase order and whether<\/p>\n
the conditions in the purchase order are binding on the defendant?<\/p>\n
3. Has the defendant supplied the agreed quantity? What is the<\/p>\n
quantity supplied?\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                          – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
4. Is the defendant a defaulter in satisfying the agreed conditions?<\/p>\n
5. Is there any loss due to the non supply of the balance quantity by<\/p>\n
the defendant caused to the Board? If so, what is the actual loss? Is<\/p>\n
the plaintiff entitled to realise the loss as damages from the<\/p>\n
defendant?\n<\/p>\n
6. Has the defendant caused breach of contract? Is the defendant<\/p>\n
liable for the breach?\n<\/p>\n
7. Is the plaintiff entitled for interest?\n<\/p>\n
8. Reliefs and costs.\n<\/p>\n
Addl.9. Has the plaintiff relieved of its contractual obligations, and<\/p>\n
was the plaintiff free to make alternate arrangements without<\/p>\n
informing the defendant that the contract was cancelled?<\/p>\n
10. Was time of the essence of the contract?\n<\/p>\n
11. Was the defendant ready and willing to supply the required<\/p>\n
quantity of PVC pipes?\n<\/p>\n
In the first instance the suit was dismissed on the ground that actual<\/p>\n
damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff could not be ascertained<\/p>\n
from the evidence which was available on record. Against that decree<\/p>\n
the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.433 of 1982 and this court allowing<\/p>\n
that appeal remanded the matter back to the court below for a de<\/p>\n
novo consideration after affording sufficient opportunities. The<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                       – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence prior to the remand consisted of Ext.A1 and the oral<\/p>\n
testimony of P.W.1 alone. After remand the plaintiff produced Exts.A2<\/p>\n
to A10. After remand also the defendant did not adduce any counter<\/p>\n
evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence answered issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and held that<\/p>\n
the defendant had accepted the purchase order and that the<\/p>\n
conditions of the purchase order are binding on the defendant. To<\/p>\n
arrive at such a finding it was noticed by the court below that the<\/p>\n
averments in the plaint to that effect had not been specifically denied.<\/p>\n
Oral evidence of P.W.1 and documents Exts.A2 and A3 were also<\/p>\n
relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge in the above context.<\/p>\n
Issue No.3 was also answered in favour of the plaintiff finding that<\/p>\n
the allegations regarding short supply by the defendant had not been<\/p>\n
denied even, by the defendant. Issue Nos.1 and 4 and additional<\/p>\n
issue No.10 were considered together by the learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge. The learned Judge noticed that supplies were received by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff even after the expiry of the time specified in Ext.A2 purchase<\/p>\n
order and held that time was not essence of the contract between the<\/p>\n
parties. Referring to Section 55 of the Contract Act it was held that<\/p>\n
nevertheless the plaintiff-promisee is entitled to compensation from<\/p>\n
the defendant-promisor for the loss occasioned and further held that<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                       – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence was nil for substantiating the plea that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
waived its right to claim damages. Additional issue Nos.9 and 11 were<\/p>\n
also considered together by the learned Subordinate Judge. It was<\/p>\n
noticed that the averments in the plaint that despite several demands<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff for supply of balance quantity of conduits, supplies<\/p>\n
were not made by the defendant had not been denied. It was further<\/p>\n
noticed that for vindicating the contention that the defendant became<\/p>\n
constrained to stop the supply due to the failure of the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
make payments for the supply already made, absolutely no evidence<\/p>\n
had been adduced by the defendant. Clauses 9 and 13 of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
agreement were relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge to hold<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff was justified in making alternative arrangements for<\/p>\n
purchase of the quantity not supplied by the defendant. Issues were<\/p>\n
answered accordingly. Issue Nos.5 and 6 were also considered by the<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge. Following the findings already entered on<\/p>\n
the earlier issues and noticing that there was absolutely no counter<\/p>\n
evidence on the side of the defendant to the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff regarding the damages actually sustained, the learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge answered these issues also in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. Issue No.7 dealing with the plaintiff’s claim for interest on<\/p>\n
the compensation amount was also answered holding that the claim<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                        – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
at the rate of 6% is perfectly justified.\n<\/p>\n
     5. I have heard the submissions of Smt.Tessy Jose, counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant and those of      Mr.C.K.Karunakaran, learned Standing<\/p>\n
Counsel for the K.S.E.B.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Smt.Tessy Jose would argue that the very purpose of the<\/p>\n
order of remand passed by this court in A.S.No.433\/1982 was to<\/p>\n
enable the respondent-plaintiff to adduce evidence to show that the<\/p>\n
defendant had been informed that the purchase order will be<\/p>\n
cancelled if supplies are not made within the stipulated time. Though<\/p>\n
after remand Exts.A2 to A10 were produced, the letter dated<\/p>\n
26.9.1977 by which the plaintiff claims to have informed the<\/p>\n
defendant that the purchase order is liable to be cancelled was not<\/p>\n
produced. She argued that even the letter dated 5.12.1977 through<\/p>\n
which the purchase order was cancelled was not produced. Since the<\/p>\n
evidence produced after remand does not serve the purpose of the<\/p>\n
remand order, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in<\/p>\n
reversing the earlier judgment and in decreeing the suit. She also<\/p>\n
argued that preponderance of probabilities      was in favour of the<\/p>\n
defence case and therefore the plaintiff should have been non-suited.<\/p>\n
     7. Mr.C.K.Karunakaran, Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B.<\/p>\n
would resist the submissions of Smt.Tessy Jose. He would support the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                        – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment of the court below on the reasons stated therein.<\/p>\n
      8. I have considered the rival submissions and I have<\/p>\n
reappreciated the entire evidence adduced by the parties before the<\/p>\n
court below. I am not impressed by the submission of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant that the non-production of the letter dated<\/p>\n
26.9.1977 informing the defendant that the intention of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
to cancel the purchase order and the letter of cancellation dated<\/p>\n
5.12.1977 amounts to fatal lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Paragraphs 9, 11 and 12 of the plaint are the relevant paragraphs<\/p>\n
and the same is quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
      “9. The defendant was requested again by letters dated<\/p>\n
16.5.77, 1.7.77, 26.9.77 & 3.11.1977 to complete the supply as<\/p>\n
agreed to. The plaintiff-Board was urgently in need of the conductor.<\/p>\n
      11. Finally the Chief Engineer on behalf of the Plaintiff-Board on<\/p>\n
3.11.1977 sent the final notice to the defendant informing the<\/p>\n
defendant that if the defendant fails to furnish the revised schedule<\/p>\n
for effecting the supplies within 7 days, the purchase order will be<\/p>\n
cancelled at the defendant’s risk and cost. In the letter dated<\/p>\n
26.9.1977 also it was made clear to the defendant that the order is<\/p>\n
liable to be cancelled at their risk and cost if they fail to complete the<\/p>\n
balance supply of 30,000 Mts. within 15 days. The defendant-firm did<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                       – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
not even reply to the final notice dated 3.11.1977.<\/p>\n
      12. So the Purchase Order was cancelled by letter dated<\/p>\n
5.12.1977. The defendant-firm neither furnished a clear indication of<\/p>\n
the schedule of delivery of the balance quantity of Metres, nor even<\/p>\n
replied to the repeated reminders requesting to effect the supply of<\/p>\n
the balance. So the Board was constrained to cancel the order at the<\/p>\n
defendant’s risk and cost. The conduct of the defendant-Firm is a<\/p>\n
clear violation of the contractual obligations thereby causing huge<\/p>\n
loss to the plaintiff for which the defendant alone is responsible and<\/p>\n
liable.”\n<\/p>\n
These averments are answered by the defendant in paragraphs 6, 8<\/p>\n
and 9 and the same is quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
      “6. The statement in para 9 of the plaint that the plaintiff Board<\/p>\n
was urgently in need of the conductor is not admitted.<\/p>\n
      8. In reply to the allegations made in para 11 of the plaint, it is<\/p>\n
submitted that the plaintiff    Board has waived its right under the<\/p>\n
contract by its conduct and for that reason, the claim made in the<\/p>\n
plaint is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The statement in para 12 of the plaint to the effect that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff Board has incurred huge loss due to the non supply of the<\/p>\n
material is denied being not true.”\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No.527\/94                       – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
It is thus seen that the plaintiff’s averment regarding issuance of a<\/p>\n
notice informing the defendant of the intention to cancel the purchase<\/p>\n
order and actual cancellation of the purchase order have not been<\/p>\n
denied by the defendant. It is one of the fundamental rules of<\/p>\n
pleadings that what is not specifically denied can be deemed to be<\/p>\n
admitted and admitted facts are not expected to be proved.<\/p>\n
      9. The result of the above discussion is that the challenge<\/p>\n
against the judgment and decree fails and the appeal will stand<\/p>\n
dismissed. However, having regard to the special circumstances<\/p>\n
which attend on this case, there will be a direction that if the principal<\/p>\n
amount due under the decree is paid by the appellant to the<\/p>\n
respondent on or before 30.11.2008, the respondent will receive such<\/p>\n
payment in full and final settlement of all its claims. No costs.<\/p>\n
srd                                 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 527 of 1994() 1. P P KUKILLAYA … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI P K JOSE, SRI JOHNSON ABRAHAM For Respondent :SRI P SANTHALINGAM […]<\/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-144419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 - 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\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-21T02:31:04+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-21T02:31:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2112,\"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\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\",\"name\":\"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-21T02:31:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 - 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\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-21T02:31:04+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-21T02:31:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008"},"wordCount":2112,"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\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008","name":"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-21T02:31:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-kukillaya-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P P Kukillaya vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/144419","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=144419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}