{"id":144563,"date":"2010-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-18T01:10:42","modified_gmt":"2016-04-17T19:40:42","slug":"m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCon.Case(C).No. 538 of 2009(S)\n\n\n1. M.V.VISWANATHAN, S\/O.RAMAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SHRI.T.P.SENKUMAR, IPS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J.\n                & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n              ------------------------------------------------\n                       C.O.C.No.538 of 2009\n               -----------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Petitioner is the writ petitioner in O.P.No.13110\/03,<\/p>\n
which was disposed of by Annexure (I) judgment dated<\/p>\n
20.6.2008. Petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Kerala<\/p>\n
State    Road     Transport       Corporation         (for    short “the<\/p>\n
Corporation”), the respondent in the writ petition, pursuant to<\/p>\n
advice issued by the Public Service Commission.                  He was<\/p>\n
initially appointed on daily wages on 14.10.1992, but, later<\/p>\n
regular appointment was given with effect from 6.10.1996.<\/p>\n
He was granted pension, on his retirement from service,<\/p>\n
reckoning his period of service only from the date of<\/p>\n
regularisation i.e. 6.10.1996. Similarly placed employees like<\/p>\n
him, who were initially appointed on casual basis till the date<\/p>\n
of regularisation, were given additional benefits in pension,<\/p>\n
by virtue of a judgment rendered by this court was his case in<\/p>\n
the writ petition filed seeking identical reliefs. Ext.P11<\/p>\n
judgment previously rendered by this court produced in the<\/p>\n
writ petition, was relied by the petitioner for the relief<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                            :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
canvassed. Under Annexure (I) judgment, the writ petition<\/p>\n
was disposed of directing the respondent “to give pension to<\/p>\n
the petitioner counting his service on daily wages also subject<\/p>\n
to his satisfying the required service in terms of Clause 3 of<\/p>\n
Rule extracted in Ext.P11 judgment”.         The writ appeal<\/p>\n
preferred by the respondent Corporation was dismissed by<\/p>\n
Annexure (V) judgment, but providing for extension of time<\/p>\n
for implementing Annexure (I) judgment. Petitioner has filed<\/p>\n
the above contempt petition, setting forth a case that the<\/p>\n
directions given by this court in Annexure (I) judgment as<\/p>\n
affirmed by Annexure (V) judgment had been wilfully<\/p>\n
disobeyed and not given effect to, by the alleged contemnor,<\/p>\n
the Managing Director of the Corporation.<\/p>\n
        2.   In the counter affidavit filed by the alleged<\/p>\n
contemnor, it is averred that pension orders had been issued<\/p>\n
granting the petitioner the benefits as provided in the<\/p>\n
Pension Rules strictly in compliance with the directions<\/p>\n
issued in Annexure (I) judgment. With the counter affidavit, a<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                           :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
copy of the pension order issued was produced as Ext.R1(a).<\/p>\n
        3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending<\/p>\n
that the pension order has been issued by an incompetent<\/p>\n
authority and the pension had been revised disobeying and<\/p>\n
discarding the directions given in Annexure (I) judgment. An<\/p>\n
additional counter affidavit was thereupon filed by the<\/p>\n
alleged contemnor producing a revised pension order issued<\/p>\n
by the Managing Director of the Corporation, asserting that<\/p>\n
in compliance with the Pension Rules and also directions in<\/p>\n
Annexure (I) judgment revised pension had been extended to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, reckoning the period of his service on daily<\/p>\n
wages also as per the agreement referred as No.3 in Ext.R1<\/p>\n
(c). In Ext.R1(c)the pension order issued, it is stated that as<\/p>\n
per Clause 23 of the Pay Revision Agreement of 1997, in<\/p>\n
calculating the qualifying service of employees, who had<\/p>\n
worked previously on daily wages for pension the duty<\/p>\n
performed by them on casual basis has to be reckoned for<\/p>\n
zero day as zero, 1 to 10 days as half month and 10 or above<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                           :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
days as a month. The petitioner, had served on daily wages<\/p>\n
during the period from 14.10.1992 to 10.12.1995, till he was<\/p>\n
given regular appointment and his qualifying service for<\/p>\n
pension reckoned with reference to the dates served in a<\/p>\n
month during such period of casual service, it is stated, is<\/p>\n
only 5 months. His service had been calculated for pension<\/p>\n
taking the above period of 5 months as well and accordingly<\/p>\n
pension was fixed and benefits extended to him.<\/p>\n
        4. We heard the counsel on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
        5. The main thrust of the argument canvassed by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.R1(c), the<\/p>\n
pension order issued is incorrect as it has not reckoned his<\/p>\n
service from the date of his appointment on daily wages as<\/p>\n
qualifying service for pension. In the case of other similarly<\/p>\n
placed employees, pensionary benefits by counting the daily<\/p>\n
wages service had been provided, but a differential treatment<\/p>\n
is made to him, disobeying the directions given by this court<\/p>\n
in Annexure (I) judgment, is the submission of the learned<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                            :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as<\/p>\n
and when the petitioner was appointed on daily wages, a<\/p>\n
substantive vacancy of such post was available in the<\/p>\n
respondent Corporation and so much so, his initial<\/p>\n
appointment on daily wages has to be taken in fixing the<\/p>\n
period of his service for the purpose of pension. Reliance has<\/p>\n
been placed on the decision in District Transport Officer v.<\/p>\n
Kunchan<\/a> {2009(3) KLT 954} to contend that if a person<\/p>\n
was entitled to be treated as a regular employee on he being<\/p>\n
advised by the Public Service Commission, it would be illegal<\/p>\n
to proceed to appoint him as a daily wages employee or a<\/p>\n
casual employee.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    After going through the affidavits, counter<\/p>\n
affidavits and other materials produced and also taking note<\/p>\n
of the reply affidavit and also additional counter affidavit, we<\/p>\n
find that there is no merit in the submission made by the<\/p>\n
counsel.   The petitioner has no case that in the case of<\/p>\n
calculating the pensionary service of employees appointed<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                          :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
initially  on daily wages, but later appointed on<\/p>\n
substantive vacancy and regularisation of their service<\/p>\n
from the date of such appointment, the terms of the Pay<\/p>\n
Revision Agreement of 1997 covered by reference No.3<\/p>\n
in Ext.R1(c) order is inapplicable and some other Rule or<\/p>\n
Regulation is in force. In a contempt proceedings, the<\/p>\n
only question that emerges for consideration is whether<\/p>\n
the alleged contemnor has wilfully and deliberately<\/p>\n
violated the orders\/directions of a court and such act<\/p>\n
amounts to a contumacious conduct lowering the<\/p>\n
majesty of the court.    Whether the direction\/order in<\/p>\n
Annexure (I) judgment as confirmed by Annexure (V)<\/p>\n
judgment, has been complied with by the alleged<\/p>\n
contemnor or not is the sole question to be examined in<\/p>\n
the present proceedings. The new case developed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner, placing reliance on the decision referred to<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                         :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
above that his service ever since his appointment on<\/p>\n
daily wages has to be reckoned in calculating the period<\/p>\n
of his service and treated as regularised service for the<\/p>\n
purpose of extending pensionary benefits to him, even<\/p>\n
assuming that he was entitled to such benefits, is<\/p>\n
not at all a matter to be considered by this court in<\/p>\n
the contempt proceedings.       He has no case that the<\/p>\n
period of service calculated as his pensionable service as<\/p>\n
under Ext.R1(c) issued by the alleged contemnor, the<\/p>\n
Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation in<\/p>\n
any way is violative and conflicting with the reckoning<\/p>\n
of qualifying service for the purpose of pension in<\/p>\n
counting his service on daily wages also as under Clause<\/p>\n
3 of Rule extracted in Ext.P11 judgment as directed<\/p>\n
in Annexure (I) judgment in the writ petition.      When<\/p>\n
that   be so,   we find     that   the  respondent, the<\/p>\n
alleged  contemnor   has   complied  with the directions<\/p>\n
C.O.C.No.538 of 2009
\n                          :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
in Annexure (I) judgment and there is no merit in the present<\/p>\n
proceedings to proceed against him for contempt.<\/p>\n
       In that view of the matter, we dismiss the Contempt<\/p>\n
of Court Case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      (P.R.RAMAN)
\n                                   AG. CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
SK\/-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                    P.S. to Judge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Con.Case(C).No. 538 of 2009(S) 1. M.V.VISWANATHAN, S\/O.RAMAN NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. SHRI.T.P.SENKUMAR, IPS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :09\/02\/2010 O […]<\/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-144563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-17T19:40:42+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T19:40:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1239,\"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\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\",\"name\":\"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T19:40:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-17T19:40:42+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T19:40:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010"},"wordCount":1239,"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\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010","name":"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T19:40:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-viswanathan-vs-shri-t-p-senkumar-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.V.Viswanathan vs Shri.T.P.Senkumar on 9 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144563","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=144563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}