{"id":16171,"date":"2010-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010"},"modified":"2014-11-25T11:17:00","modified_gmt":"2014-11-25T05:47:00","slug":"the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1290 of 2003()\n\n\n1. THE MUVATTUPUZHA CITTY FUND\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M.SAHIR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :28\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n           ---------------------------------------------\n            CRL.R.P.NO.1290 OF 2003\n           ---------------------------------------------\n                Dated 28th         May, 2010\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
               Petitioner,                 the         accused in<\/p>\n
C.C.227\/1998 on the file of Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class   Magistrate-I,                   Muvattupuzha           was<\/p>\n
convicted     and           sentenced                 to    simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one month and compensation<\/p>\n
of  Rs.40,000\/-          for         the        offence      under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
Petitioner challenged the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence   before             the          Sessions         court,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam     in         Crl.A.725\/2001.                   Learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence  confirmed               the         conviction       and<\/p>\n
sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is<\/p>\n
challenged in this revision.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Learned             counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03              2<\/span><\/p>\n
the       petitioner  and  second respondent  were<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
           3. Argument of the    learned   counsel<\/p>\n
is   that    Ext.P1  cheque  was  also  signed  by<\/p>\n
Noushad,     partner of the partnership firm apart<\/p>\n
from the petitioner and he was not made an<\/p>\n
accused and Ext.P1 dishonoured cheque was not<\/p>\n
issued towards discharge of any liability and<\/p>\n
in fact, it was signed and kept at the      office<\/p>\n
of the firm which was obtained by the second<\/p>\n
respondent in collusion with the said Noushad<\/p>\n
and     learned Magistrate and learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence<\/p>\n
and the conviction is not legal or sustainable.<\/p>\n
It was argued that when Noushad who is one of<\/p>\n
the drawers of the cheque was not made an<\/p>\n
accused, and Ext.P1 cheque was allegedly issued<\/p>\n
by   the    partnership  firm,   petitioner  alone<\/p>\n
should not have been convicted and in any case,<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03              3<\/span><\/p>\n
the     sentence  may be modified.\n<\/p>\n
           4. It is not disputed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
that    he   is  the  Managing  partner  of    the<\/p>\n
partnership firm by name Muvattupuzha Chitty<\/p>\n
Funds. His case is only     that though he is the<\/p>\n
Managing     partner,  the  firm  was   originally<\/p>\n
started along with late Hamsa and after the<\/p>\n
death of Hamsa,       Noushad was    taken as the<\/p>\n
partner of the firm and they were running      the<\/p>\n
partnership business. Ext.P1 cheque which was<\/p>\n
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as<\/p>\n
proved by the evidence of PW2, the accountant<\/p>\n
of   the    bank,    was  issued  in  the  account<\/p>\n
maintained by     Muvattupuzha Chitty Funds. This<\/p>\n
aspect is not in     dispute. The only contention<\/p>\n
is that as the cheque is signed by         partner<\/p>\n
Noushad also and the said Noushad is not made<\/p>\n
an accused, petitioner cannot be convicted. It<\/p>\n
is also contended that Ext.P1 cheque was not<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03              4<\/span><\/p>\n
issued to the petitioner, but it was given to<\/p>\n
the petitioner by Noushad and cheque was in<\/p>\n
fact signed and kept at the chitty office.<\/p>\n
           5.    Learned   Magistrate and learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence found<\/p>\n
that      Ext.P1 cheque was issued to the second<\/p>\n
respondent towards the     amount due to him as he<\/p>\n
had    subscribed    to  a  chitty   conducted  by<\/p>\n
Muvattupuzha     chitty Funds.  Apart  from  cross<\/p>\n
examining PW1, petitioner did not       adduce any<\/p>\n
evidence to substantiate his contention that<\/p>\n
the cheque was signed and kept at the office.<\/p>\n
Evidence of PW1 conclusively established that<\/p>\n
second      respondent  subscribed  to  a   chitty<\/p>\n
conducted by       Muvattupuzha Chitty Funds and<\/p>\n
towards the chitty amount, second respondent is<\/p>\n
entitled to get Rs.40,200\/- from the firm and<\/p>\n
towards payment of      that amount Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
was issued. I find no reason whatsoever        to<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03             5<\/span><\/p>\n
interfere with the said factual findings, as<\/p>\n
that     finding of   the  courts  below  is  in<\/p>\n
accordance      with    the   evidence.   Though<\/p>\n
petitioner contended that   he had signed Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque and kept at the chitty office and Ext.P1<\/p>\n
was handed over to the second respondent by<\/p>\n
Noushad the     other partner, in collusion with<\/p>\n
the second respondent, there is no evidence<\/p>\n
whatsoever in support of the said case. Even<\/p>\n
when    petitioner  received   notice   sent  by<\/p>\n
second respondent demanding the amount covered<\/p>\n
by the dishonoured cheque he did not     send a<\/p>\n
reply denying the liability. It will not be the<\/p>\n
case    if  the  cheque  was not  issued towards<\/p>\n
payment of the amount due by the firm and that<\/p>\n
too if a signed blank cheque was misused by the<\/p>\n
partner of the firm and based on that cheque a<\/p>\n
claim was raised. On the facts, evidence and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case       findings of the<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03               6<\/span><\/p>\n
courts below that Ext.P1 cheque was       issued by<\/p>\n
the partnership firm to the second respondent<\/p>\n
towards payment of the chitty amount due is<\/p>\n
absolutely correct.       Evidence also establish<\/p>\n
that     cheque   was   dishonoured  for  want   of<\/p>\n
sufficient     funds  and   second  respondent  had<\/p>\n
complied     with  all  the  statutory  formalities<\/p>\n
provided      under  Section   138  of   Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Though      Learned   counsel  argued that<\/p>\n
failure to implicate the other partner of the<\/p>\n
firm     is   fatal,  I   cannot  agree  with   the<\/p>\n
submission.       Section    138   of    Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments     Act   provides  that  whenever  any<\/p>\n
cheque      drawn by a     person, on   an account<\/p>\n
maintained by him      with a banker for payment of<\/p>\n
any amount of money to another       person,   from<\/p>\n
out of      that account, for  the discharge of any<\/p>\n
debt or liability either in whole or in part<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03              7<\/span><\/p>\n
is    dishonoured for insufficient funds and the<\/p>\n
drawer on failure to pay     the amount within the<\/p>\n
period, on       demand intimating the dishonour,<\/p>\n
shall be punishable for the offence as provided<\/p>\n
thereunder. Section 141 provides that      if the<\/p>\n
person committing an offence under Section 138<\/p>\n
is a company, every person who, at the time the<\/p>\n
offence was committed,      was in charge of, and<\/p>\n
was       responsible  to the  company    for  the<\/p>\n
conduct of the business of the company, as well<\/p>\n
as the company, shall be deemed to be       guilty<\/p>\n
of   the    offence  and shall  be  liable  to  be<\/p>\n
proceeded against and punished        accordingly.<\/p>\n
Under explanation clause (a) to the Section, a<\/p>\n
company means any body corporate and includes a<\/p>\n
firm    or   other   association of   individuals.<\/p>\n
Therefore,     as provided under Sub Section (1)<\/p>\n
of Section 141, it is      not only  the firm but<\/p>\n
every partner      who at the time of the offence<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03             8<\/span><\/p>\n
was in charge of      and was responsible to the<\/p>\n
firm, for the conduct or    business of  the firm<\/p>\n
as well as the firm shall be deemed to be<\/p>\n
guilty of the offence. Therefore, petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot contend that he is not      liable. He is<\/p>\n
also not entitled to contend that as the other<\/p>\n
partner, who is also liable, was not implicated<\/p>\n
and so he cannot be convicted. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
conviction cannot be challenged on the ground<\/p>\n
that Noushad, the     other partner was not made<\/p>\n
an accused. In such circumstances, conviction<\/p>\n
of the petitioner for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly<\/p>\n
legal.\n<\/p>\n
           7. Then the only question is regarding<\/p>\n
the sentence. Considering the entire    facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, interest of justice<\/p>\n
will be met, if the sentence is modified to<\/p>\n
imprisonment    till  rising of   the  court  and<\/p>\n
CRRP 1290\/03              9<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation     of  Rs.45,000\/-   to  the   second<\/p>\n
respondent and in default simple imprisonment<\/p>\n
for one month.\n<\/p>\n
           Revision petition is allowed. Conviction<\/p>\n
of the petitioner for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed.<\/p>\n
Sentence is modified. Petitioner is sentenced<\/p>\n
to imprisonment      till rising of court and a<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.45,000\/- (Rupees forty five<\/p>\n
thousand     only)  to  second  respondent  and  in<\/p>\n
default     simple  imprisonment  for  one   month.<\/p>\n
Petitioner is directed to appear before the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate on 28\/6\/2010.<\/p>\n
                              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1290 of 2003() 1. THE MUVATTUPUZHA CITTY FUND … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent 2. M.SAHIR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM For Respondent :SRI.JOHN […]<\/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-16171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 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\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-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=\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-25T05:47:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-25T05:47:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1184,\"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\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010\",\"name\":\"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-25T05:47:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 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":"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 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\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-25T05:47:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-25T05:47:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010"},"wordCount":1184,"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\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010","name":"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-25T05:47:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-muvattupuzha-citty-fund-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Muvattupuzha Citty Fund vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 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\/16171","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=16171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16171\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}