{"id":182929,"date":"2010-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-04T22:45:33","modified_gmt":"2015-03-04T17:15:33","slug":"vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 32 of 2008()\n\n\n1. VINAYAKUMAR @ VINAYAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SARATH CHANDRAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :12\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n          --------------------------------------------------------\n                       Crl.M.C No.32 OF 2008\n          ---------------------------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010.\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.450 of 2001 on the<\/p>\n<p>file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode, taken<\/p>\n<p>cognizance for the offences under Section 63 of Copy rights Act<\/p>\n<p>and Sections 418 and 420 r\/w Section 34 of Indian Penal code.<\/p>\n<p>The petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n<p>Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that<\/p>\n<p>ingredients of the offences are not at all attracted. Petitioner<\/p>\n<p>would contend that, the story of Malayalam Movie &#8216;Vasanthiyum<\/p>\n<p>Lakshmiyum Pinne Njanum&#8217; is not the story of &#8216;Partha&#8217; authored<\/p>\n<p>by the first respondent and, therefore, neither an offence under<\/p>\n<p>Section 63 of copy rights Act or offences under                Indian Penal<\/p>\n<p>code are attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the<\/p>\n<p>learned Public Prosecutor were heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. Annexure-A the final report submitted by the Sub<\/p>\n<p>Inspector of police which was taken cognizance by the learned<\/p>\n<p>Magistrate shows that prosecution case is that a story written by<\/p>\n<p>the first respondent by name &#8216;Partha&#8217; was published in 1999<\/p>\n<p>March-April issue of magazine &#8216;In Wayanad&#8217; and without<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.M.C No.32 OF 2008             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>permission, knowledge or        consent of the first respondent<\/p>\n<p>violating the copy right of the first respondent, fifth accused in<\/p>\n<p>furtherance of the common intention after making slight changes,<\/p>\n<p>making use of the story, created Malayalam Movie &#8216;Vasanthiyum<\/p>\n<p>Lakshmiyum Pinne Njanum&#8217; suppressing the real facts from the<\/p>\n<p>first respondent with an intention to cause loss to him, and<\/p>\n<p>thereby committed offences under section 418 and 420 r\/w 34 of<\/p>\n<p>Indian Penal Code and 63 of Copy Right Act.        The copy of the<\/p>\n<p>story &#8216;Partha&#8217; is produced by the petitioner as Annexure-F.<\/p>\n<p>Annexure-E is the summery of the story of Malayalam Movie<\/p>\n<p>&#8216;Vasanthiyum Lakshmiyum Pinne Njanum&#8217;. The learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Annexure-D story<\/p>\n<p>has no resemblance with the story seen as Annexure-E. Case is<\/p>\n<p>that except the main character is a blind singer and he is having<\/p>\n<p>a sister in both stories, there is no violation of the provisions of<\/p>\n<p>the Copy right Act. The learned counsel also pointed out that<\/p>\n<p>Annexure-E story has nothing to do with Annexure-F story of the<\/p>\n<p>first respondent and hence cognizance is to be quashed. Learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1734007\/\">R.G.Anand v.<\/p>\n<p>Delux Films, (AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 1613), which was followed by the<\/p>\n<p>Division Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1754074\/\">Madhavan v. S.K.Nayar and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.M.C No.32 OF<\/span><\/a> 2008            3<\/p>\n<p>others, (1987 (2) KLT 47).\n<\/p>\n<p>        4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent<\/p>\n<p>pointed out that the crime was registered based on a complaint<\/p>\n<p>filed by the first respondent and the complaint discloses that<\/p>\n<p>when the case of the first respondent is that the story of the<\/p>\n<p>Malayalam Movie &#8216;Vasanthiyum Lakshmiyum Pinne Njanum&#8217; is<\/p>\n<p>taken from a one line story handed over to the accused by the<\/p>\n<p>first respondent, and the Investigating Officer did not properly<\/p>\n<p>investigate the case. But the prosecution case is only that<\/p>\n<p>Malayalam movie was created based on the story of the first<\/p>\n<p>respondent by name &#8216;Partha&#8217; (Annexure-F) which is in violation of<\/p>\n<p>the Copy Right Act and not that there is violation of the copy<\/p>\n<p>right of a one line story.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5. A reading of Annexure-F story written by the first<\/p>\n<p>respondent and Annexure-E story of the Malayalam movie show<\/p>\n<p>that both stories are distinct and different. Hence learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>appearing for the first respondent was directed to point out the<\/p>\n<p>similarities in the two stories.     Learned counsel produced a<\/p>\n<p>statement prepared by the first respondent, which according to<\/p>\n<p>the first respondent shows that both the stories are similar. The<\/p>\n<p>said statement claims that the main characters of both         the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.M.C No.32 OF 2008             4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>stories are blind singers and both earn by singing and maintain<\/p>\n<p>their family and both characters have a younger sister who is<\/p>\n<p>maintained by the blind singer. It is also point out that there is a<\/p>\n<p>similar dialog in the story and in both stories when the singer<\/p>\n<p>reaches home his sister asks the causes for the delay. It is also<\/p>\n<p>claimed that in both the stories, the singer is a lover and both<\/p>\n<p>singers are dumb.        But Annexure-F story does not show that<\/p>\n<p>Andriya who loves the singer was a dumb person. It is claimed<\/p>\n<p>that the sisters in both the stories have a lover, though both the<\/p>\n<p>lovers were having different avocations. It is also stated that in<\/p>\n<p>both cases steps were taken to have operation to the main<\/p>\n<p>character, so that he could regain eye sight, though it is alleged<\/p>\n<p>that subsequently the story in the movie was developed.<\/p>\n<p>        6. On a reading of the two stories I cannot agree with the<\/p>\n<p>case of the          prosecution that the story of &#8216;Vasanthiyum<\/p>\n<p>Lakshmiyum Pinne Njanum&#8217; the same as seen Annexure-F and it is<\/p>\n<p>in violation of the Copy right of the story &#8216;Partha&#8217; written by the<\/p>\n<p>first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme court in R.G. Anand&#8217;s case(Supra)<\/p>\n<p>laid down the following        propositions emerging on a careful<\/p>\n<p>consideration and elucidation of the various authorities based on<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.M.C No.32 OF 2008                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the case law on the subject of Copy Right. They are:-<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter,<br \/>\n         themes, plots or historical or legendry facts and violation of the<br \/>\n         copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and<br \/>\n         arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the<br \/>\n         copyrighted work.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different<br \/>\n         manner, it is manifest that the source being common,<br \/>\n         similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should<br \/>\n         determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or<br \/>\n         substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the<br \/>\n         copyrighted work.     If the defendant&#8217;s   work is nothing but a<br \/>\n         literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations<br \/>\n         here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In<br \/>\n         other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a<br \/>\n         substantial and material one which at once leads to the<br \/>\n         conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                3. one of the surest and the safest test to determine<br \/>\n         whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see<br \/>\n         if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen<br \/>\n         both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an<br \/>\n         unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to<br \/>\n         be a copy of the original.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and<br \/>\n         treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a<br \/>\n         completely new work, no question of violation of copyright<br \/>\n         arises.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in<br \/>\n         the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities<br \/>\n         which negative the intention to copy the original and the<br \/>\n         coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental<br \/>\n         no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy<br \/>\n         it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying<br \/>\n         the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                7. Where, however, the question is of the violation of the<br \/>\n         copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task<br \/>\n         of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy.     It is<br \/>\n         manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader<br \/>\n         perspective, wider field and a bigger background where the<br \/>\n         defendants can by introducing a variety      of incidents gave a<br \/>\n         colour and complexion different from the manner in which the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.M.C No.32 OF 2008                    6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer<br \/>\n         after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is<br \/>\n         by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the<br \/>\n         copyright may be said to be proved.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This Court in           Madhavan&#8217;s case(supra) followed the said<\/p>\n<p>principles.\n<\/p>\n<p>       8. When the story written by the first respondent is read<\/p>\n<p>along with Annexure-E story of the Malayalam Movie it can only<\/p>\n<p>be formed that it is not in violation of Copy Right of Annexure-F<\/p>\n<p>story. If that be so the cognizance taken for the offence under<\/p>\n<p>Section 63 of the Copy Right Act can only be quashed.<\/p>\n<p>        9. If the prosecution case is that the Malayalam movie<\/p>\n<p>created by the petitioner, was not the same story of the first<\/p>\n<p>respondent, by name &#8216;Partha&#8217;, the further case of the prosecution<\/p>\n<p>that petitioner has committed offences under Sections 418 and<\/p>\n<p>420 of Indian Penal code can only be quashed.                       The learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that said<\/p>\n<p>case is based on the allegation that the one line story furnished<\/p>\n<p>by first respondent to the petitioner and others was used for<\/p>\n<p>creating the film. But no such one line story was produced by the<\/p>\n<p>prosecution or it was relied by the prosecution in the final report.<\/p>\n<p>In such circumstances the cognizance taken for the offences<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.M.C No.32 OF 2008             7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>under Section 418 and 420 also can also quashed.<\/p>\n<p>           Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken in C.C.No.450 of<\/p>\n<p>2001, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV,<\/p>\n<p>Kozhikode is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<p>mns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 32 of 2008() 1. VINAYAKUMAR @ VINAYAN, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. SARATH CHANDRAN, &#8230; Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon&#8217;ble [&hellip;]<\/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-182929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-04T17:15:33+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\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-04T17:15:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1536,\"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\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-04T17:15:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 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":"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-04T17:15:33+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\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-04T17:15:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010"},"wordCount":1536,"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\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010","name":"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-04T17:15:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayakumar-vinayan-vs-sarath-chandran-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinayakumar @ Vinayan vs Sarath Chandran on 12 November, 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\/182929","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=182929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}