{"id":17414,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-16T01:22:14","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T19:52:14","slug":"j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 10606 of 2000(K)\n\n\n\n1. J.THOMAS & COMPANY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n                 -----------------------------------------\n                        O.P.No.10606 of 2000\n                 -----------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies<\/p>\n
Act, 1956. It is carrying on business in a building erected on the lands<\/p>\n
leased out by the Cochin Port Trust. The Cochin Port Trust had leased<\/p>\n
out a parcel of land, 50.04 cents in extent, to the petitioner. The said<\/p>\n
lease expired on 3-6-1994. Thereupon, a fresh lease was granted in<\/p>\n
respect of the very same parcel of land and two lease deeds were<\/p>\n
executed on 12-11-1998 covering the period from 3-6-1994 to 31-12-<\/p>\n
1995 and the period from 1-1-1996 to 2-6-2024. In the lease deed<\/p>\n
dated 12-11-1998 relating to the period from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995<\/p>\n
the annual rent payable was fixed at Rs.27,458\/-. It was also recited<\/p>\n
that the lessee has paid an amount of Rs.27,458\/-, representing one<\/p>\n
year’s rent in advance.    In the second lease deed dated 12-11-1998<\/p>\n
relating to the period from 1-1-1996 to 2-6-2024 the annual rent<\/p>\n
payable was stipulated as Rs.54,944\/-. It was also stipulated that the<\/p>\n
lessee (the petitioner) has deposited with the lessor an advance<\/p>\n
amount equivalent to one year’s rent viz. Rs.54,944\/-. It was further<\/p>\n
stipulated that the rent shall be paid on a half yearly basis on or before<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                  -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the 30th of June and 31st of December every year for the period<\/p>\n
January to June and July to December respectively. There is a further<\/p>\n
stipulation that if the lessor decides to increase the rate of rent<\/p>\n
applicable to the land falling in category III of the Willington Island<\/p>\n
Land Use Plan the lessee will have the right to increase the lease rent<\/p>\n
at the beginning of every block of seven years starting from 1st<\/p>\n
January 1996 by an amount not exceeding 100% of the then existing<\/p>\n
rent and that in addition to such revision, the rent payable by the<\/p>\n
lessee every year shall be increased by 5% of the existing rent.<\/p>\n
      2. Both the documents were presented for registration before<\/p>\n
the Sub Registrar, Cochin, the competent registering authority.      In<\/p>\n
respect of the lease deed dated 12-11-1998 covering the period from<\/p>\n
1-1-1996 to 2-6-2024 the petitioner had paid the sum of Rs.34,450\/-<\/p>\n
as stamp duty and in respect of the other lease deed the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,160\/- was paid as stamp duty.        When the documents were<\/p>\n
presented for registration, the Sub Registrar impounded the<\/p>\n
documents under section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and<\/p>\n
forwarded them to the District Registrar, Ernakulam as required under<\/p>\n
section 37(2) of the Act. The District Registrar, after examining the<\/p>\n
documents, came to the conclusion that the documents have not been<\/p>\n
properly stamped.    Thereupon Ext.P1 notice dated 30-6-1999 was<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                   -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
issued informing the petitioner that the stamp duty payable on the<\/p>\n
lease deed relating to the period from 1-1-1996 to 2-6-2024             is<\/p>\n
Rs.4,56,617\/-. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.4,22,137\/- being the deficit stamp duty and penalty should<\/p>\n
not be realised from them. A similar notice of even date was issued to<\/p>\n
the petitioner in respect of the lease deed relating to the period from<\/p>\n
3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995. By that notice the petitioner was informed<\/p>\n
that the proper stamp duty payable on the said lease deed is<\/p>\n
Rs.5,137\/- and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the<\/p>\n
deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,977\/- and penalty should not be recovered<\/p>\n
from them.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   On receipt of Ext.P1 show cause notice the petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 16-7-1999 wherein the petitioner<\/p>\n
requested the District Registrar, Ernakulam to inform him of the basis<\/p>\n
on which the stamp duty as set out in the notices was arrived at. On<\/p>\n
receipt of Ext.P2 letter, the District Registrar sent Ext.P3 letter dated<\/p>\n
3-8-1999 informing the petitioner of the basis on which the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,56,617\/- was determined as the stamp duty payable on the lease<\/p>\n
deed dated 12-11-1998 relating to the period from 1-1-1996 to<\/p>\n
2.6.2024. Even after receipt of Ext.P3 letter, the petitioner did not file<\/p>\n
his objections. The District Registrar thereupon issued Ext.P4 order<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                   -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 3-11-1999 calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp<\/p>\n
duty of Rs.4,22,137\/- together with penalty of Rs.250\/-. The District<\/p>\n
Registrar also issued Ext.P5 order dated 3-11-1999 demanding<\/p>\n
payment of the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,977\/- in respect of the lease<\/p>\n
deed relating to the period from 3-6-1994 to 31-12-1995 together<\/p>\n
with penalty of Rs.150\/-. The Sub Registrar thereupon issued Ext.P6<\/p>\n
letter dated 23-3-2000 informing the petitioner that if the amount<\/p>\n
demanded in Ext.P4 order is not paid within seven days from the date<\/p>\n
of receipt of the said letter, steps will be taken to recover the same<\/p>\n
under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. This writ petition was<\/p>\n
thereupon filed challenging Exts.P4, P5 and P6 and to restrain the<\/p>\n
respondents from taking steps to recover the deficit amount of stamp<\/p>\n
duty and penalty. The petitioner contends that the method adopted by<\/p>\n
the District Registrar to determine the stamp duty payable on the<\/p>\n
aforesaid lease deeds is arbitrary and perverse. It is also contended<\/p>\n
that the District Registrar ought to have furnished a copy of the report<\/p>\n
submitted by the Sub Registrar to the petitioner before passing Exts.P4<\/p>\n
and P5 orders.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The District Registrar (General) Ernakulam, the first<\/p>\n
respondent in the writ petition, has filed a counter affidavit.    It is<\/p>\n
contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                  -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
an appeal lies to the Land Revenue Commissioner under section 54(1)<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The first respondent has also justified<\/p>\n
the decision taken by him to levy stamp duty as determined in Exts.P4<\/p>\n
and P5. In respect of the lease deed dated 12.11.1978 covering the<\/p>\n
period from 1.1.1996 to 2.6.2024 it is contended that the average<\/p>\n
annual     rent was determined taking into account the 100%<\/p>\n
enhancement in rent at the beginning of every block of seven years<\/p>\n
starting from 1.1.1996. It is contended that in view of the stipulations<\/p>\n
in clause 10 of the lease deed the annual rent will stand increased by<\/p>\n
100% once in every block of seven years starting from 1.1.1996 and<\/p>\n
therefore, the enhanced rent has also to be considered for arriving at<\/p>\n
the average annual rent payable by the lessee.\n<\/p>\n
      5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 3-12-2008 this<\/p>\n
Court directed the learned Government Pleader to make available a<\/p>\n
copy of the report dated 28.1.1999 submitted by the Sub Registrar,<\/p>\n
Kochi to the District Registrar, Ernakulam, based on which the orders<\/p>\n
impugned in the writ petition had been passed.       Pursuant to that<\/p>\n
order, the learned Government Pleader has filed a memo dated<\/p>\n
20.2.2009 and produced along with it the reports dated 28-1-1999<\/p>\n
submitted by the Sub Registrar, Kochi to the District Registrar<\/p>\n
(General), Ernakulam, while forwarding the originals of the lease deeds<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                  -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to that officer.   The Sub Registrar, Kochi, has in his report dated<\/p>\n
28.1.1999 stated that the stamp duty payable in respect of the lease<\/p>\n
deed dated 12.11.1998 relating to the period 1.1.1996 to 2.6.2024 is<\/p>\n
Rs.1,70,588\/-. Likewise in respect of the lease deed dated 12.11.1998<\/p>\n
in respect of the period from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 the Sub<\/p>\n
Registrar had reported that the stamp duty payable on the instrument<\/p>\n
is Rs.5,087.50.   The petitioner has filed I.A.No.7917 of 2010 and<\/p>\n
produced along with it a copy of the lease deed dated 12.11.1998<\/p>\n
relating to the period from 1.6.1996 to 2.6.2024 as Ext.P8.        The<\/p>\n
petitioner has also produced Ext.P9 letter dated 7.6.2000 sent by the<\/p>\n
Cochin Port Trust informing them that the advance amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.54,944\/- is refundable without interest on the termination\/<\/p>\n
expiration of the lease, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   I heard Sri.M.Pathros Matthai, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Smitha Sukumaran, learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone<\/p>\n
through the pleadings and the materials on record. The Sub Registrar<\/p>\n
had in his report dated 28.1.1999 sent to the District Registrar<\/p>\n
(General) Ernakulam in respect of the lease deed relating to the period<\/p>\n
from 1.6.1996 to 2.6.2024 stated that the annual rent is liable to be<\/p>\n
revised every year by 5% and that calculated on that basis the<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                 -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
average annual rent will be Rs.5,92,867\/- and that if the advance<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.54,944\/- is also reckoned for the purpose of determining<\/p>\n
the consideration for the lease deed, the stamp duty payable on the<\/p>\n
instrument will be Rs.1,70,588\/-. Likewise he has in his report dated<\/p>\n
28.1.1999 submitted in respect of the lease deed relating to the period<\/p>\n
from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 stated that the average annual rent will<\/p>\n
be Rs.27,500\/- and that the stamp duty payable in respect of the said<\/p>\n
instrument will be Rs.5,087.50.\n<\/p>\n
      7. It is evident from the report submitted by the Sub Registrar<\/p>\n
that he has arrived at the annual rent for the purpose of levy of stamp<\/p>\n
duty reckoning the advance rental paid by the lessee and also 5%<\/p>\n
increase in rent payable every year in respect of the lease deed<\/p>\n
covering the period from 1.6.1996 to 2.6.2024     The District Registrar<\/p>\n
has, however, taken into account the 100% enhancement in rent at<\/p>\n
the beginning of every block of seven years starting from 1.1.1996.<\/p>\n
The lease deeds in question disclose that in addition to the rent<\/p>\n
reserved to be paid, the lessee has paid an amount equivalent to one<\/p>\n
year’s annual rent as advance.      The lease deeds in question are<\/p>\n
admittedly governed by Article 33 (c) of the Schedule to the Kerala<\/p>\n
Stamp Act, 1959. As per the said Article where the lease is granted<\/p>\n
for a fine or premium or for money advanced in addition to the rent<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                  -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
reserved, the proper stamp duty payable is the stamp duty as in a<\/p>\n
conveyance (No.21 or 22 as the case may be), for a consideration<\/p>\n
equal to the amount or value of such fine or premium or advance as<\/p>\n
set forth in the lease in addition to the duty which would have been<\/p>\n
payable on such lease if no fine or premium or advance had been paid<\/p>\n
or delivered.   In the lease deed dated 12-11-1998 relating to the<\/p>\n
period from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 the annual rent payable is<\/p>\n
Rs.27,458\/-. The lessee had also admittedly paid the said sum as<\/p>\n
advance.    Since the lease is granted for money advanced in addition<\/p>\n
to the rent reserved, Article 33(c) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp<\/p>\n
Act, 1959 is attracted. The land leased out to the petitioner is situated<\/p>\n
within the Municipal Corporation limits.    Therefore, the stamp duty<\/p>\n
payable is as in a conveyance (Article 22 of the Schedule to the Kerala<\/p>\n
Stamp Act, 1959). Therefore, the lessee is liable to pay stamp duty as<\/p>\n
in a conveyance (Article 22) for the consideration equal to the amount<\/p>\n
or value of the advance as set forth in the lease deed in addition to<\/p>\n
duty which would have been payable on such lease, if no advance had<\/p>\n
been paid or delivered. The lease deed dated 12.11.1998 relating to<\/p>\n
the period from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 is for a term exceeding one<\/p>\n
year but not exceeding five years and therefore, the stamp duty<\/p>\n
payable on such lease is governed by Article 33(a)(ii) which stipulates<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                  -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the duty payable shall be the same duty as in a Bottomry Bond<\/p>\n
(Article 14 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959). Thus the<\/p>\n
stamp duty payable in respect of the lease deed dated 12.11.1998<\/p>\n
relating to the period from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995 is stamp duty<\/p>\n
calculated applying Article 22 for the consideration equal to the<\/p>\n
amount of advance stipulated therein and stamp duty on the average<\/p>\n
annual rent reserved to be paid under the said lease deed applying<\/p>\n
Article 14 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. Though, in<\/p>\n
the wake of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Chief Controlling<\/p>\n
Revenue Authority, Delhi v. Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt.<\/p>\n
Ltd., AIR 1980 Delhi 249, the Government have in letter<\/p>\n
No.14586\/E3\/82\/TD dated 24.2.1983 ordered that duty is not<\/p>\n
chargeable under Article 35(c) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp<\/p>\n
Act, 1899 on the amount of security deposit\/advance, which is<\/p>\n
refundable on determination of the lease, in addition to the duty<\/p>\n
payable on the rent reserved under Article 35(a) of the Schedule to<\/p>\n
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in the instant case the lease deed does<\/p>\n
not recite that the advance is refundable on the termination of the<\/p>\n
lease. The petitioner cannot therefore, be heard to contend that they<\/p>\n
are not liable to pay stamp duty on the amount of advance in terms of<\/p>\n
Article 33(c) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. I am,<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                   -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore, of the considered opinion that in respect of the lease deed<\/p>\n
dated 12.11.1998 relating to the period from 3.6.1994 to 31.12.1995<\/p>\n
the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty for the average annual rent<\/p>\n
reserved therein, applying Article 33(a)(ii) and in addition to that<\/p>\n
stamp duty under Article 33(c) in respect of the amount of advance. I<\/p>\n
accordingly direct that on the petitioner remitting the requisite stamp<\/p>\n
duty calculated on that basis, the Sub Registrar shall make necessary<\/p>\n
endorsements on the original of the lease deed dated 12.11.1998,<\/p>\n
register it and return the original thereof to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      8.    I shall now deal with the lease deed dated 12.11.1998<\/p>\n
relating to the period from 1.6.1996 to 2.6.2024. The lease granted<\/p>\n
as per the said lease deed is for a term exceeding 20 years but not<\/p>\n
exceeding 30 years and therefore, the stamp duty payable on the said<\/p>\n
lease deed is in terms of Article 33(a)(v) of the Schedule to the Kerala<\/p>\n
Stamp Act, 1959. The said lease deed also evidences deposit of one<\/p>\n
year’s rent by the lessee with the lessor as advance. The said lease<\/p>\n
deed also does not recite that the money advanced shall be refundable<\/p>\n
on the termination of the lease though the petitioner has produced<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 letter dated 7-6-2000 wherein the lessor has clarified that the<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.54,944\/- paid by the petitioner (lessee) as advance deposit<\/p>\n
is refundable without interest on the termination or expiry of lease<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                    -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
whichever is earlier. Ext.P9 letter is dated 7-6-2000. The lease deed<\/p>\n
in question was executed on 12.11.1998 and was presented for<\/p>\n
registration before the date of Ext.P9. Therefore, in respect of the said<\/p>\n
lease deed also the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty on the<\/p>\n
amount of advance. Then the only question is whether the petitioner<\/p>\n
is liable to pay stamp duty reckoning the probable increase in rent by<\/p>\n
100% at the beginning of every block of seven years. The District<\/p>\n
Registrar has taken the stand that the average annual rent has to be<\/p>\n
calculated taking into account the 100% increase in rent during every<\/p>\n
block of seven years in addition to the increase in the rate of rent at<\/p>\n
5% per annum. The Sub Registrar has however, taken the stand that<\/p>\n
the annual increase in rent alone need be taken into account.<\/p>\n
Clauses 10 and 11 of the lease deed dated 12-11-1998 relating to the<\/p>\n
period from 1-1-1996 to 2-6-2024 read as follows:-<\/p>\n
                  “10.    It is distinctly agreed between the<\/p>\n
            parties that notwithstanding anything contained<\/p>\n
            hereinbefore the Lessor has the right to increase the<\/p>\n
            base lease rent at the beginning of every block of<\/p>\n
            seven years starting from First January One<\/p>\n
            Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninetysix by an amount<\/p>\n
            not exceeding 100% of the existing rent provided in<\/p>\n
            the meantime, it is decided to increase the rate of<\/p>\n
            rent applicable to the land in Category III of the<\/p>\n
            Willingdon Island land use plan.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                   -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                  11.   In addition to the revision of rent<\/p>\n
           provided for in clause 10 above, the rent payable by<\/p>\n
           the Lessee every year shall be increased by 5% of<\/p>\n
           the then existing rent.”\n<\/p>\n
      9. As per clause 10 of the lease deed, the agreement between<\/p>\n
the parties is that if the lessor decides to increase the rate of rent<\/p>\n
applicable to the land in Category III of the Willingdon Island Land Use<\/p>\n
Plan, the lessor shall have the right to increase the base lease rent at<\/p>\n
the beginning of every block of seven years by an amount not<\/p>\n
exceeding 100% of the existing rent. That stipulation in clause 10 of<\/p>\n
the lease deed cannot, in my opinion, be taken into account for the<\/p>\n
purpose of determining the average annual rent reserved to be paid<\/p>\n
under the lease deed. The revision of rent contemplated in the lease<\/p>\n
deed in clause 10 is contingent on the lessor (Cochin Port Trust)<\/p>\n
deciding to increase the rate of rent applicable to the land in Category<\/p>\n
III of the Willingdon Island Land Use Plan. Even in that contingency it<\/p>\n
is not stipulated that the rent will stand increased by 100% in every<\/p>\n
block of seven years starting from 1.1.1996. The stipulation in clause<\/p>\n
10, in my opinion, only empowers the lessor to increase the base rent<\/p>\n
by an amount not exceeding 100% of the existing rent. The lessor<\/p>\n
may decide to increase the rent by 10% or 20% or 30% or 40% or<\/p>\n
50%. It may even go up by 100%. Therefore, the registering authority<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                    -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot, in my opinion, determine the average annual rent payable on<\/p>\n
the basis that the rent is liable to be increased by 100% in every block<\/p>\n
of seven years starting from 1.1.1996. However, the respondents are,<\/p>\n
in my opinion, right in the stand taken by them that the annual<\/p>\n
increase in the rent contemplated in clause 11 of the lease deed can be<\/p>\n
taken into account for determining the average annual rent reserved.<\/p>\n
The lease deed dated 12.11.1998 relating to the period from 1.1.1996<\/p>\n
to 2.6.2024 is a lease of the land for a term exceeding 20 years but<\/p>\n
not exceeding 30 years. Therefore, the stamp duty payable is the duty<\/p>\n
as in a conveyance (Article 22 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp<\/p>\n
Act, 1959) for a consideration equal to three times the average annual<\/p>\n
rent reserved. In addition to that since the lease is granted for money<\/p>\n
advanced in addition to the rent reserved to be paid Article 33(c) also<\/p>\n
applies and therefore in respect of the amount of advance also the<\/p>\n
lessee is liable to pay stamp duty as in a conveyance (Article 22 of the<\/p>\n
Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959).\n<\/p>\n
      10. I accordingly direct that in the event of the petitioner<\/p>\n
remitting the requisite stamp duty calculated on the above basis, the<\/p>\n
Sub Registrar shall make necessary endorsements on the original of<\/p>\n
the lease deed dated 12.11.1998, register it and return the original<\/p>\n
thereof to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
O.P.No.10606 of 2000
\n                                   -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The<\/p>\n
parties shall bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             P.N.RAVINDRAN,
\n                                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ahg.\n<\/p>\n
  P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
—————————\n<\/p>\n
 O.P.No.10606 of 2000\n<\/p>\n
—————————-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
      9th July, 2010<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 10606 of 2000(K) 1. J.THOMAS & COMPANY … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Dated :09\/07\/2010 […]<\/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-17414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 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\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-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=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-15T19:52:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T19:52:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3163,\"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\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T19:52:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 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":"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 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\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-15T19:52:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T19:52:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":3163,"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\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010","name":"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T19:52:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-thomas-company-vs-the-district-registrar-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Thomas & Company vs The District Registrar on 9 July, 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\/17414","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=17414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}