{"id":189541,"date":"2007-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-01-17T19:58:51","modified_gmt":"2018-01-17T14:28:51","slug":"k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 26575 of 2007(L)\n\n\n1. K.N. SHEREEF, AGED 52 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. K.A. ASHRAF, AGED 48 YEARS,\n3. M. NAEEEMA, AGED 44 YEARS,\n4. K.N. SAJITH, AGED 36 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. UNION BANK OF INDIA,\n\n3. REJI MATHEW,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :30\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n              W.P.(C) No. 26575 OF 2007 L\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n           Dated this the 30th October, 2007\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    The petitioners seek to quash the sale of the<\/p>\n
property owned by their deceased mother and also Ext.<\/p>\n
P4 notice.   There is a further prayer to direct the<\/p>\n
respondents to re-auction the property in compliance<\/p>\n
with the procedure established by law.<\/p>\n
    2. The petitioners’ mother late Mariyam Beevi was<\/p>\n
a guarantor for the two loans availed of by the two<\/p>\n
partnership  firms,  namely,  M\/s.   Jyothis  and  M\/s.<\/p>\n
Associated Enterprises.  When default was committed in<\/p>\n
repaying  the  amount  to   the  2nd  respondent  bank,<\/p>\n
proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and<\/p>\n
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of<\/p>\n
Security Interest Act, 2002 against the properties<\/p>\n
mortgaged by the deceased mother of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
It is stated that when notice of sale of the property<\/p>\n
was published, a compromise was arrived at between the<\/p>\n
parties on 10-3-2006 and as a result thereof the bids<\/p>\n
WPC No.26575\/07          – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
received in response to Ext. P2 notice of sale were<\/p>\n
withdrawn by the bidders.  According to the petitioners<\/p>\n
they were continuing efforts to raise necessary amounts<\/p>\n
and pay it to the bank and while so to, their shock and<\/p>\n
dismay, they received Ext. P3 to the effect that the<\/p>\n
sale of the mortgaged property was concluded in favour<\/p>\n
of the 3rd respondent.  Thereafter Ext. P4 notice was<\/p>\n
issued to their mother requiring her to vacate and<\/p>\n
thereupon she filed litigations before this Court as<\/p>\n
also before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) which<\/p>\n
resulted in its dismissal.  It is thereafter that this<\/p>\n
writ   petition   has   been   filed  by    the   legal<\/p>\n
representatives of the guarantor challenging the sale<\/p>\n
of the mortgaged properties and also Ext. P4 notice.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner<\/p>\n
when sale was adjourned following a compromise between<\/p>\n
the parties, a subsequent sale could not have been<\/p>\n
effected by the respondent Bank without taking fresh<\/p>\n
proceedings for that purpose.  It is on that ground the<\/p>\n
petitioner seeks to quash the sale.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     The 2nd respondent Bank and also the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent, the purchaser of the property, have filed<\/p>\n
WPC No.26575\/07          – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
their statements.  It is stated by the Bank that the<\/p>\n
petitioners’ mother was a guarantor for certain loans<\/p>\n
and that the account became Non-Performing Asset (NPA)<\/p>\n
and hence proceedings were initiated under the Act. It<\/p>\n
is stated that notices were issued under Section 13(2)<\/p>\n
and 13(4) and the Bank had taken possession of the<\/p>\n
property on 15-2-2006 and invited Ext. P2 tender notice<\/p>\n
for sale of the property.   According to the Bank the<\/p>\n
mother of the petitioners had filed W.P.(C) No. 23447<\/p>\n
of 2006 to quash the proceedings in which, this Court<\/p>\n
granted her time to file appeal before the DRT and<\/p>\n
thereafter S.A. No. 6 of 2007 was filed before the DRT,<\/p>\n
withdrawing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
    4. It is stated that the bids received in response<\/p>\n
to the tender notice were scheduled to be opened on 23-<\/p>\n
4-2006  in   the presence   of  the  tenderers.     The<\/p>\n
petitioners along with another person who were partners<\/p>\n
of the firms approached them and submitted Ext. R1(a)<\/p>\n
proposal for settling the liability.    The Bank would<\/p>\n
state that though the Bank had postponed the opening of<\/p>\n
the bids.   As the petitioners they did not honour the<\/p>\n
terms of the compromise proposed by them they had<\/p>\n
WPC No.26575\/07          – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
opened the bid and that it was on account of this that<\/p>\n
the sale was confirmed. It is stated that the purchaser<\/p>\n
has also paid the money to the Bank and the Bank issued<\/p>\n
the sale letter as well.  Thereafter, the purchaser had<\/p>\n
filed W.P.(C) No. 27966\/06 which was disposed of by<\/p>\n
Ext. R1(b) judgment directing that the Bank is bound to<\/p>\n
take effective steps to evict the petitioners’ mother<\/p>\n
to put the purchaser in possession. At that stage<\/p>\n
petitioners’ mother filed W.P.(C)No.4910\/07 challenging<\/p>\n
the interim order passed in S.A. No. 6\/07.     In that<\/p>\n
case, this Court issued a direction that the auction<\/p>\n
purchaser shall be put in possession of the property<\/p>\n
and Ext.R1(c) is the judgment. It is stated that there-<\/p>\n
after S.A. No.6 of 2007 filed by the deceased was also<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Tribunal.   As in   the meanwhile the<\/p>\n
purchaser,   even  after  having   complied  with   the<\/p>\n
conditions of sale was not put in possession, had filed<\/p>\n
Contempt of Court Case No. 972\/07 which was closed as<\/p>\n
per Ext. R1(d) judgment.    In the meantime the Bank<\/p>\n
proceeded to obtain order of the District Collector<\/p>\n
under Section 14 of the Act.      Even at that stage<\/p>\n
complaining of disobedience of the judgment of this<\/p>\n
WPC No.26575\/07          – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Court, the purchaser filed C.O.C No. 1250\/07 and that<\/p>\n
case now stands posted for the statement of the Bank.<\/p>\n
In substance what the Bank would argue is that the<\/p>\n
issue   canvassed  by  the  petitioner  regarding   the<\/p>\n
correctness or otherwise of the proceedings initiated<\/p>\n
by the Bank stands concluded by virtue of the earlier<\/p>\n
judgments  of  this  Court.    According  to  the  Bank<\/p>\n
contentions stated including the one relating to the<\/p>\n
invalidity of the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
have  already   been  considered  by  this  Court   and<\/p>\n
therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to agitate<\/p>\n
this issue once again.\n<\/p>\n
    5.   The  3rd respondent  also would   support  the<\/p>\n
contentions of the Bank.    It is stated that the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent having been successful in a public auction<\/p>\n
and also having paid the amount, is entitled to be put<\/p>\n
in possession of the property.\n<\/p>\n
    6. Having considered the submissions on either<\/p>\n
side I am inclined to accept the contention of the<\/p>\n
respondents.   This is a case where proceedings were<\/p>\n
initiated  under  the  Act  which was   fought  by  the<\/p>\n
guarantor at every stage both before this Court and<\/p>\n
WPC No.26575\/07           – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
before the Tribunal.   The Tribunal having accepted the<\/p>\n
validity of the proceedings initiated by the      Bank,<\/p>\n
those issues cannot be gone into by this Court.     The<\/p>\n
argument raised was only regarding the correctness of<\/p>\n
the procedure adopted by the Bank in accepting the<\/p>\n
offer of the 3rd respondent.  It is true that on account<\/p>\n
of the compromise that was proposed by the petitioners<\/p>\n
the Bank had deferred the sale.    It is also true that<\/p>\n
subsequently when the compromise failed the Bank had<\/p>\n
confirmed the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent.  In<\/p>\n
the statement filed by the Bank it has been stated that<\/p>\n
as a result of the failure of the compromise the   Bank<\/p>\n
had issued notice to the 3rd respondent and the tender<\/p>\n
was   opened   in  the   presence  of   his  authorised<\/p>\n
representatives and sale was confirmed for Rs.16 lakhs<\/p>\n
which has been paid by the purchaser.   In my view this<\/p>\n
was the only option that was available with the Bank at<\/p>\n
that stage of the proceedings.     The Bank had got a<\/p>\n
successful purchaser at a time when the petitioners<\/p>\n
were trying to delay the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
    7.   In   any  case   the  guarantor   herself  had<\/p>\n
unsuccessfully filed various proceedings and it is not<\/p>\n
WPC No.26575\/07          – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
open to the petitioners to take up the very same issues<\/p>\n
at this distance of time.     If I entertain this writ<\/p>\n
petition,   I will be defeating the very purpose of the<\/p>\n
Act  which has been enacted with the laudable object of<\/p>\n
speedy recovery of dues to financial institutions.    I<\/p>\n
do not find any merit in the writ petition.   This writ<\/p>\n
petition is dismissed, but without any order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        ANTONY DOMINIC
\n                                             JUDGE
\njan\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 26575 of 2007(L) 1. K.N. SHEREEF, AGED 52 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. K.A. ASHRAF, AGED 48 YEARS, 3. M. NAEEEMA, AGED 44 YEARS, 4. K.N. SAJITH, AGED 36 YEARS, Vs 1. THE […]<\/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-189541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 - 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-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-17T14:28:51+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-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T14:28:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1245,\"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-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\",\"name\":\"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T14:28:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 - 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-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-17T14:28:51+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-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T14:28:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007"},"wordCount":1245,"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-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007","name":"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T14:28:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-n-shereef-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.N. Shereef vs The Authorised Officer on 30 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/189541","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=189541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}