{"id":172123,"date":"2009-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-29T00:08:42","modified_gmt":"2016-08-28T18:38:42","slug":"ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 30575 of 2004(M)\n\n\n1. M\/S.HANSALIA AGENCIES, XL-11\/1566,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOHNY, S\/O.SEBASTIAN, KOPPANALIL HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. LUCYKUTTY JOHNY, W\/O.JOHNY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :04\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                      ---------------------------\n                 W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 - M\n                    -----------------------------\n              Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The plaintiff in O.S.No.592\/2000 on the file of the 2nd<\/p>\n
Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the writ petitioner herein.<\/p>\n
The writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P8 order dated<\/p>\n
7.10.2004 passed in I.A.No.4617\/2004 in the suit.<\/p>\n
     2.    The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4 Lakhs and<\/p>\n
odd against the first respondent herein who is the sole defendant<\/p>\n
in the suit. The suit is for recovery of money being the cost of<\/p>\n
goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and towards sales<\/p>\n
tax dues. In the plaint which is produced as Ext.P1 herein, the<\/p>\n
status of the sole defendant was shown as proprietor of<\/p>\n
M\/s.Shruthi Industries, Thodupuzha. In Ext.P1 plaint it is also<\/p>\n
averred that the sole defendant had issued three cheques in<\/p>\n
discharge of his liability but when presented, the cheques were<\/p>\n
not honoured as the defendant had instructed stop payment. In<\/p>\n
the written statement filed by the sole defendant who is the first<\/p>\n
respondent herein it is inter alia contended that goods supplied<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff were of inferior quality and resisted claim of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 – M<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff for recovery of the plaint amount.        In the written<\/p>\n
statement filed by the first respondent\/defendant, he has no case<\/p>\n
that he is not the proprietor of M\/s.Shruthi Industries. Copy of<\/p>\n
the written statement is marked as Ext.P2.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      The 2nd respondent herein is the wife of the first<\/p>\n
respondent.     During the trial stage, the first defendant filed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.5090\/2002, marked as Ext.P3, seeking permission of the<\/p>\n
court to examine his wife as a witness. The said petition was<\/p>\n
allowed by the trial court. For the first time, in the affidavit filed<\/p>\n
in support of I.A.No.5090\/2002 (Ext.P3) the sole defendant<\/p>\n
revealed that the registration of the Unit is in the name of his<\/p>\n
wife and that he is not the proprietor of M\/s.Shruthi Industries.<\/p>\n
Ext.P3     is  dated   9.12.2002.       Thereupon    plaintiff   filed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.1503\/\/2002 dated 10.1.2003 seeking to implead the wife<\/p>\n
of the sole defendant as additional 2nd defendant in the suit. In<\/p>\n
the affidavit filed in support of the impleading petition, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff narrated the sequences of events right from the filing of<\/p>\n
the suit till the filing of Ext.P3 by the sole defendant.        The<\/p>\n
plaintiff in the affidavit stated that he came to know for the first<\/p>\n
time that the sole defendant’s wife is the proprietrix of<\/p>\n
M\/s.Shruthi Industries.        Impleading petition was allowed.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 – M<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
Subsequently the 2nd defendant filed a written statement marked<\/p>\n
as Ext.P5 on 15.9.2003.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    In paragraph 2 of Ext.P5 written statement the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant contended inter alia that the suit is barred by<\/p>\n
limitation, that she is the proprietrix of M\/s.Shruthi Industries<\/p>\n
and that summons is served on the 2nd defendant on 22.08.2003,<\/p>\n
in the impleading application, that the suit against the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant deemed to have been filed only on 22.8.2003 as<\/p>\n
service of summons, that the trial court allowed impleadment by<\/p>\n
order dated 17.3.2003 and therefore, the suit as against the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant can be presumed to have been instituted only on<\/p>\n
17.3.2003. It is also pleaded in the same paragraph that going<\/p>\n
by the averments in the plaint, last purchase by the defendant<\/p>\n
from the plaintiff was on 28.8.1998.       Therefore the suit as<\/p>\n
against the 2nd defendant deemed to have been instituted on<\/p>\n
22.8.2003 or on 17.3.2003 is barred by the law of limitation, so<\/p>\n
long as the purchases are made three year before the said date.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 3 of Ext.P5 written statement also deals with<\/p>\n
limitation question.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    Plaintiff subsequently filed I.A.No.4617\/2004 under<\/p>\n
Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act for a direction that suit as<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 – M<\/p>\n
                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
regards the 2nd defendant deemed to have been instituted on the<\/p>\n
date of filing of the suit. The additional 2nd defendant for and on<\/p>\n
behalf of the 1st defendant as well was examined on 16.9.2004.<\/p>\n
She testified that she is the proprietrix of the Unit and marked<\/p>\n
documents in support of her contentions. The plaintiff bona fide<\/p>\n
believed that the first defendant is the proprietor of M\/s.Shruthi<\/p>\n
Industries.    It is averred in the affidavit that he has no<\/p>\n
information regarding any interest of the 2nd defendant wife in<\/p>\n
the business run by the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
all through out the business transactions, he was dealing with the<\/p>\n
1st defendant and he was made to believe on all such occasions<\/p>\n
that the 1st defendant      is the sole proprietor of M\/s.Shruthi<\/p>\n
Industries, that all correspondence regarding the business<\/p>\n
transactions was made between the plaintiff and the first<\/p>\n
defendant, that the first defendant issued three cheques to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff as the sole proprietor of M\/s.Shruthi Industries. The said<\/p>\n
cheques are marked as Exts.A16 to A18. It is also averred in the<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 affidavit that in the plaint itself the status of the first<\/p>\n
defendant is stated as proprietor of M\/s.Shruthi Industries. In<\/p>\n
the written statement filed by the first defendant no contentions<\/p>\n
are raised. Neither he contended that he is not the proprietor of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 – M<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
the business nor the fact that his wife is the sole proprietrix. The<\/p>\n
written statement is silent about the said fact. In fact, in the<\/p>\n
written statement the only contention raised is that the goods<\/p>\n
supplied are of inferior quality and therefore the plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to claim the amount sought to be realised. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
also brought to the notice of the court that the first defendant<\/p>\n
revealed the fact that he is not the proprietor only in Ext.P3<\/p>\n
application. Subsequently, in the written statement filed by the<\/p>\n
2nd defendant she had taken the contention that the suit is<\/p>\n
hopelessly barred by limitation.          From the events and<\/p>\n
circumstances narrated above and the conduct of the defendants<\/p>\n
1 and 2 leads to be conclusion that both of them are waiting for<\/p>\n
expiry of the requisite period for contending that the suit is<\/p>\n
barred by limitation. The fact that the wife is the proprietrix is<\/p>\n
deliberately concealed.     The mention of the status of the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant as proprietrix by the 1st defendant after the expiry of<\/p>\n
the suit period as against the 2nd defendant is no doubt a conduct<\/p>\n
intended to defraud the plaintiff and the court. In fact, the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant waited and see that during the passage of time, the<\/p>\n
suit get barred and after finding that the suit was barred by<\/p>\n
limitation he presented his wife before the court and contended<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 – M<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
that she alone is the proprietress and suit as against her is barred<\/p>\n
by limitation. The conduct and subsequent events leading to the<\/p>\n
impleadment of the 2nd defendant and conduct of defendants 1<\/p>\n
and 2 justified in filing of Ext.P6 application by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      6.    The trial court passed Ext.P8 order dismissing Ext.P7<\/p>\n
application stating that the application is belated. Court below<\/p>\n
failed to consider the events and circumstances that led to the<\/p>\n
filing of the suit, filing of Ext.P3 I.A. by the first defendant, Ext.P4<\/p>\n
impleading application and Ext.p7 application under Section 21<\/p>\n
(1) of the Limitation Act.          No doubt, the attempt of the<\/p>\n
defendants was to defeat the plaintiff and going by the<\/p>\n
circumstances it is beyond doubt that the attempt of the<\/p>\n
defendants was to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      7.    The reasons stated for dismissing the application<\/p>\n
cannot stand. It is true that the suit was listed on 1.9.2004 and<\/p>\n
oral evidence was adduced by both sides during September,<\/p>\n
2004. The petition could have been filed by the plaintiff little<\/p>\n
earlier i.e., before the beginning of the trial. The learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge quoted Order I Rule 5 and Section 21(1) of the Limitation<\/p>\n
Act holding that a specific direction is necessary for considering<\/p>\n
the liability of additional defendant with effect from an earlier<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.30575 of 2004 – M<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
date other than the service of summons on the additional<\/p>\n
defendant.    The learned Judge further observed that in the<\/p>\n
present case, plaintiff did not pray for such a direction in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.4124\/2004 or in subsequent applications before adducing<\/p>\n
evidence of both sides. It is true that Ext.P6 application was filed<\/p>\n
belatedly. At the same time conduct of defendants 1 and 2 in<\/p>\n
concealing the fact that the additional defendant is the<\/p>\n
proprietress of the industry is the most important fact to be<\/p>\n
examined in a petition like Ext.P6. It is with specific purpose to<\/p>\n
save such suits from the protection of limitation the proviso to<\/p>\n
Section 21(1) was enacted. In these circumstances, prayer in<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 petition filed under Order I Rule 5, as regards the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant deemed to have been instituted on the date of filing of<\/p>\n
the above suit should have been allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 order is<\/p>\n
set aside. I.A.No.4617\/2004 is allowed. Sub Court, Ernakulam is<\/p>\n
directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law within a<\/p>\n
period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                     JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 30575 of 2004(M) 1. M\/S.HANSALIA AGENCIES, XL-11\/1566, … Petitioner Vs 1. JOHNY, S\/O.SEBASTIAN, KOPPANALIL HOUSE, … Respondent 2. LUCYKUTTY JOHNY, W\/O.JOHNY For Petitioner :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU For Respondent :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated […]<\/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-172123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 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\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-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=\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-28T18:38:42+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-28T18:38:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1550,\"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\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-28T18:38:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 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:\\\/\\\/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\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 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\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-28T18:38:42+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-28T18:38:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009"},"wordCount":1550,"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\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009","name":"M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-28T18:38:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hansalia-agencies-vs-johny-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Hansalia Agencies vs Johny on 4 March, 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:\/\/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\/172123","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=172123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}