{"id":174715,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-17T11:41:48","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T06:11:48","slug":"k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 39 of 1995()\n\n\n\n1. K.NARAYANAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SREEKRISHNA TYRES\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :22\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n              ------------------------------------------\n                   S.A .NO.39 OF 1995\n              ------------------------------------------\n\n             Dated      22nd     February         2008\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           Defendant in O.S.126\/1989 on the file of<\/p>\n
Munsiff court, Payyannur         is the appellant. Respondent<\/p>\n
is the plaintiff.     Respondent instituted the suit for<\/p>\n
realisation of Rs.6,000\/- due from the appellant. It<\/p>\n
was contended that the brother of the appellant was<\/p>\n
owning  bus  KLS-1188 and when he left for employment<\/p>\n
to  Gulf  countries,      it     was     being       managed   by  the<\/p>\n
appellant and   resoling work was carried out by the<\/p>\n
respondent  and in that account Rs.6,000\/- was due. It<\/p>\n
was contended that      towards security of that amount,<\/p>\n
appellant executed Ext.A1 agreement                   dated 12\/1\/1988<\/p>\n
fixing a period of three months for payment and even<\/p>\n
though the agreed period expired, appellant did not<\/p>\n
pay the amount and finally Ext.A2 lawyer notice was<\/p>\n
sent, which was returned            back to           the   respondent<\/p>\n
under  Ext.A4.  It     was     claimed        that      respondent  is<\/p>\n
entitled to   realise the amount. Appellant resisted<\/p>\n
the suit contending that               his description in the<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint is not correct and as per the description he is not<\/p>\n
the defendant and he has no           acquaintance with the<\/p>\n
respondent and he did not entrust      any resoling work  to<\/p>\n
respondent and is      not liable to pay any amount   and he<\/p>\n
did not execute Ext.A1 and is not liable      and suit is to<\/p>\n
be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4,<\/p>\n
DW1, Exts.A1 to A4 and X1     found that Ext.A1 agreement was<\/p>\n
executed     by the appellant and Ext.A1  is not a bond  but<\/p>\n
an agreement      and execution of Ext.A1 is proved by the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 the respondent and Pws.2 and 3 and granted<\/p>\n
a decree directing appellant     to pay the amount    claimed<\/p>\n
in the plaint with interest at 12% from the date of the<\/p>\n
suit. Appellant challenged the judgment before Sub court,<\/p>\n
Payyannur     in  A.S.150\/1990. Learned  Sub  Judge  on   re-<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence confirmed the findings of learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff and dismissed the appeal.    It is challenged in the<\/p>\n
second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Appeal was admitted formulating the following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
            1)   Whether courts below were correct in
\n        construing  Ext.A1  as an agreement and not a
\n        bond.\n<\/p>\n
            2)   Whether   the   courts   below   were<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
        justified  in   holding  that   the  appellant
\n        executed Ext.A1 and that too by comparing the
\n        signature of the appellant with  the  disputed
\n        signature in Ext.A1 with the signature in the
\n        written statement especially when the courts
\n        did not have the advantage of the report of an
\n        expert after comparing the signature.<\/p>\n
        4.  Learned counsel appearing for      appellant was<\/p>\n
heard. There was no representation for respondent.<\/p>\n
        5.  Learned    counsel   appearing   for    appellant<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that        courts below should not have<\/p>\n
upheld       Ext.A1,  when  Ext.A1  was  disputed    and  its<\/p>\n
execution was not proved. True, appellant had in his<\/p>\n
written statement       disputed the execution of Ext.A1 and<\/p>\n
when examined as DW1, he also denied the execution. But<\/p>\n
apart from the        respondent who was examined the two<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses     to Ext.A1  agreement were examined as<\/p>\n
Pws.2 and 3. Learned Munsiff had the advantage to see and<\/p>\n
appreciate       the   demeanour     of  the  witnesses   and<\/p>\n
appreciated the evidence and found that evidence of Pws.2<\/p>\n
and 3      are credible and reliable. First appellate court<\/p>\n
re-appreciated the evidence and found that     their evidence<\/p>\n
are reliable and their evidence establish       execution of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. There is nothing to show that appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence by the courts below was perverse. The factual<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
findings of the courts below that Ext.A1 was executed by<\/p>\n
the appellant cannot be interfered in exercise of the<\/p>\n
powers of this court under Section 100 of Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
        6. Arguments of learned counsel is that though<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 was found to be an agreement and not a bond by the<\/p>\n
courts below, it is in fact       a bond and courts below<\/p>\n
should not have relied on Ext.A1    which was not   properly<\/p>\n
stamped. Sub Section   (a) of Section 2 defines the bond as<\/p>\n
includes any instrument whereby a person obliges himself<\/p>\n
to pay money    to another, on condition that the obligation<\/p>\n
shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not<\/p>\n
performed, as the     case may be and     the instrument is<\/p>\n
attested by a witness and is not payable to order         or<\/p>\n
bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to<\/p>\n
another. Learned Single Judge of this court had occasion<\/p>\n
to consider the difference between a bond and an agreement<\/p>\n
in     West Coast Electroplating Co.  Ltd.   v.   Sreedharan<\/p>\n
(1971 KLT 383).     It was held that  no document can  be a<\/p>\n
bond within the relevant section unless       by itself it<\/p>\n
creates an obligation to pay money.    Learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
relied on the decision of    a Division Bench of High Court<\/p>\n
of    Lahore in  Dawan Chand v. Punjab and Kashmir Bank (AIR<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
1937 Lahore 220) where it was held that          essential<\/p>\n
feature    for  construing a document as a bond is that it<\/p>\n
must create an obligation to pay    and no such obligation<\/p>\n
can be inferred from a mere acknowledgment of a previous<\/p>\n
balance and    implied obligation cannot therefore convert<\/p>\n
an acknowledgment    into a bond. An agreement     is not<\/p>\n
defined   under the Stamp  Act. It is   defined  under the<\/p>\n
Contract Act as   every promise and every set of promises<\/p>\n
forming the consideration  for each other. A Full Bench of<\/p>\n
the High Court of Delhi      in Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf)<\/p>\n
Delhi’s   case  (AIR  1968 Delhi  page  No.1)  elaborately<\/p>\n
considered this question.    The principles laid down   by<\/p>\n
the High Court of Calcutta in   Gisborne and Co.  v. Subal<\/p>\n
Bowri    (1882  ILR 8 Calcutta   284)  was   reiterated as<\/p>\n
follows. Distinction   of a bond and agreement is    under<\/p>\n
the event of breach of party to the instrument who had<\/p>\n
obliged to pay money and is liable to pay the same<\/p>\n
stipulated under the agreement.   In the case of agreement<\/p>\n
quantum of damages is to be fixed by the court. Another<\/p>\n
Single Judge of this court as his Lordship then was     in<\/p>\n
Mathai   Mathew  v.  Thampi   (1989  (1)  KLT  138)  after<\/p>\n
analysing the     settled legal position held that the<\/p>\n
document     obliges  to  pay  money  and  it  shows  that<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
obligation in so far as the debtor   and the creditor are<\/p>\n
concerned is not a    pre-existing  one and so it is the<\/p>\n
agreement.\n<\/p>\n
        7. Ext.A1 shows that before the date of execution<\/p>\n
of Ext.A1 on 12\/1\/1988, appellant had the resoling work<\/p>\n
carried out by respondent. He was thus liable to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/-. Under Ext.A1 appellant had undertaken to pay<\/p>\n
that amount within three months. The agreement    provides<\/p>\n
that if appellant fails to pay, respondent is entitled to<\/p>\n
take possession of the vehicle and the appellant is liable<\/p>\n
to pay damages. Therefore as distinguishable from a bond,<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 provides for   payment of damages quantum of which<\/p>\n
is to be worked out separately, in the event of breach of<\/p>\n
condition provided therein.     As rightly found by the<\/p>\n
courts below in such circumstances, Ext.A1 cannot be<\/p>\n
construed a bond. It is an agreement. Courts below rightly<\/p>\n
found that appellant is liable to pay Rs.6,000\/- with<\/p>\n
interest.\n<\/p>\n
        8. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued<\/p>\n
that rate of interest awarded by the courts below was<\/p>\n
excessive. Ext.A1   shows that there was no agreement  to<\/p>\n
pay interest. It only provides for payment of Rs.6,000\/-<\/p>\n
which was the pre-existing liability, within three months<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
from the date of execution of the agreement. It also<\/p>\n
provides that on failure to pay the amount, respondent is<\/p>\n
entitled to take possession of the vehicle and also<\/p>\n
entitled to damages.    In the suit respondent has claimed<\/p>\n
interest at 12% per annum from the date of the agreement.<\/p>\n
Courts below     granted  said interest not only till the<\/p>\n
date of the decree but till realisation.   It is seen from<\/p>\n
the plaint that there is no allegation in the plaint that<\/p>\n
it is a commercial transaction and so respondent is<\/p>\n
entitled to interest at 12%. More over, when the agreement<\/p>\n
does not provide for interest at 12% courts below were not<\/p>\n
justified in granting interest at 12%.   The decree granted<\/p>\n
by the courts below, is to be modified with regard to the<\/p>\n
future    interest from  the  date  of  the  decree    till<\/p>\n
realisation at 6% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
        9. Appeal is  partly allowed. Decree granted by the<\/p>\n
courts below are modified   on the future interest awarded.<\/p>\n
Appellant is liable to pay     interest   from the date of<\/p>\n
institution of the suit till the date of decree        and<\/p>\n
thereafter at 6% per annum till realisation. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                                 JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.\n<\/p>\n
SA 39\/95
\n            8<\/span><\/p>\n
             =============================
\n               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n<\/p>\n
                  JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
               S.A.NO.39 OF 1995<\/p>\n
              22nd   February 2008<\/p>\n
              ============================<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 39 of 1995() 1. K.NARAYANAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. SREEKRISHNA TYRES … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN For Respondent :SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :22\/02\/2008 O R D […]<\/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-174715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-17T06:11:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T06:11:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1416,\"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\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T06:11:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-17T06:11:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T06:11:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":1416,"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\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008","name":"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T06:11:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-sreekrishna-tyres-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Narayanan Nair vs Sreekrishna Tyres on 22 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174715","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=174715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}