{"id":198283,"date":"2010-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-29T07:21:00","modified_gmt":"2016-08-29T01:51:00","slug":"sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 1262 of 2010()\n\n\n1. SHERIFF NAZIMUDEEN ,S\/O.SHERIEF\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER\n\n3. THE DEPOT OFFICER\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :04\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n       J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.\n                  ------------------------------------------\n                      W.A. No. 1262 of 2010\n                  ------------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandra Menon, J.\n<\/p>\n
           The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was<\/p>\n
filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5, whereby the entire amount<\/p>\n
originally quoted by the appellant in respect of the ‘tender’ as well as<\/p>\n
the ‘spot auction’ was sought to be realised. The contention of the<\/p>\n
appellant\/petitioner is that the ‘tender’ submitted by him was rejected<\/p>\n
because of some technical defects, though the ‘spot auction’ was<\/p>\n
confirmed in favour of the appellant subsequently. When the<\/p>\n
appellant was directed to satisfy the liability under the auction as<\/p>\n
well as the tender, the appellant effected some payment so as to<\/p>\n
avoid black-listing by the department as contended in paragraph 6<\/p>\n
of the writ petition.      Thereafter the appellant submitted Ext.P3<\/p>\n
representation pointing out that the tender was originally rejected<\/p>\n
and it was later, that his tender was stated as accepted and the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1262 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                      – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
intimation of confirmation was issued much later, as borne by<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 dated 08.10.2009;followed by Ext.P5 dated 20.01.2010<\/p>\n
asking to clear the balance amount; lest adverse consequences<\/p>\n
should follow. The writ petitioner sought for setting aside Exts.P4<\/p>\n
and P5 and also for disposal of Ext.P3 representation preferred<\/p>\n
before the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
            2. A detailed statement was filed from the part of the<\/p>\n
second respondent before the learned Single Judge specifically<\/p>\n
contending in paragraph 5 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 “The contention of the petitioner that tenders submitted by<\/p>\n
          the petitioner were rejected by the 2nd respondent due to defects,<\/p>\n
          etc., are false and hence denied by the respondents.           It is<\/p>\n
          submitted that the 2nd respondent had confirmed on spot sale of 56<\/p>\n
          lots out of 101 lots bid by the petitioner on 27.8.2009.        The<\/p>\n
          grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of 56 lots confirmed<\/p>\n
          on the spot. 3rd respondent had issued chalan to the petitioner on<\/p>\n
          2.11.2009 for the first month, and on 2.12.2009 for the second<\/p>\n
          month and on 1.1.2010 for the third month respectively after<\/p>\n
          expiry of grace period. It is submitted that on receipt of the<\/p>\n
          chalans issued by the 3rd respondent the petitioner submitted a<\/p>\n
          representation dt.3.11.2009 requesting to make payment of the<\/p>\n
          sale price for the lots auctioned by the petitioner. True copy of<\/p>\n
          the Representation dt.3.11.2009 submitted by the petitioner before<\/p>\n
          the 3rd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1262 of 2010\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        – 3 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          R2(b). Even after extension of time of three months by the Depot<\/p>\n
          Officer after grace period for remittance as per rules, the<\/p>\n
          petitioner had not remitted the balance amount. In the case of<\/p>\n
          spot confirmation, by the 2nd respondent, time for remittance was<\/p>\n
          over by 31.1.2010.        In respect of lots confirmed by the<\/p>\n
          Conservator of Forests, Southern Circle, Kollam,            a time<\/p>\n
          extendable beyond grace period was over by 14.2.2010. As per<\/p>\n
          conditions of sale, the petitioner has thus become a defaulter. It is<\/p>\n
          submitted that the petitioner has submitted another representation<\/p>\n
          on 13.2.2010 to this respondent requesting three months’ time to<\/p>\n
          remit the balance sale consideration and to remove the timber<\/p>\n
          auctioned by the petitioner. True copy of Representation dated<\/p>\n
          Nil submitted by the petitioner before this respondent is produced<\/p>\n
          herewith and marked as Annexure-R2(c). It is submitted that in<\/p>\n
          the representations submitted by the petitioner he has no case that<\/p>\n
          the tenders submitted by the petitioner were rejected by the 2nd<\/p>\n
          respondent and he has admitted the confirmation of sale in his<\/p>\n
          favour. The petitioner has stated in Annex-R2(b) representation<\/p>\n
          that the petitioner could not make payment due to the economic<\/p>\n
          crisis in the middle east. Therefore, it is evident from the above<\/p>\n
          representations that petitioner has set up a different case before<\/p>\n
          this Hon’ble Court for obtaining favourable orders by suppressing<\/p>\n
          material facts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Subsequently two more documents were produced<\/p>\n
stating that the appellant had already sought for time to satisfy the<\/p>\n
entire liability as borne by Exts.R2(b) and (c). It was in the said<\/p>\n
circumstances that the appellant chose to produce Ext.P6 obtained<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1262 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                  – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
under the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, to<\/p>\n
substantiate the contention raised before the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
that the tender was originally rejected and that by virtue of some<\/p>\n
endorsement in the proceedings, it was later shown as accepted at<\/p>\n
4.30 P.M. (for the belated revelation that the tender submitted by<\/p>\n
the appellant was the highest).        It was always the case of the<\/p>\n
appellant that the communication as to the confirmation of the<\/p>\n
tender in favour of the appellant, after rejecting the same in the<\/p>\n
evening on the date of auction, was never communicated to him.<\/p>\n
During the course of hearing it was stated from the part of the<\/p>\n
respondents that there was suppression of material facts by the<\/p>\n
petitioner, in so far as the factum of rejection of the tender (as the<\/p>\n
case put forward by the petitioner) was never pointed out in Exts.R2<\/p>\n
(b) and (c), wherein the writ petitioner only sought for some more<\/p>\n
time to satisfy the balance demand. It was in the said circumstances<\/p>\n
that a finding in this regard was made by the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
and the writ petition was dismissed with cost oft `25,000\/-.<\/p>\n
            4. On going through the materials on record, it is seen<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1262 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
that the case as put forth by the appellant was very much stated in<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 which is dated 22.9.2009. It is also revealed from Ext.P4<\/p>\n
and other records that the tender was confirmed only on a<\/p>\n
subsequent date as communicated to the appellant. It is further<\/p>\n
revealed that the appellant was given time to satisfy the various<\/p>\n
demands as to the amount that was to be realized pursuant to the<\/p>\n
tender as well as public auction. This Court finds that the factual<\/p>\n
particulars may have to be considered afresh so as to arrive at a<\/p>\n
correct conclusion as to the true state of affairs. However, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submits that, in view of the subsequent<\/p>\n
turn of events, re-auction has been conducted by the respondents<\/p>\n
and the remaining timber has also been sold to somebody else. In<\/p>\n
the said circumstances learned counsel for the appellant prays only<\/p>\n
for a direction to delete the costs ordered by the learned Single,<\/p>\n
Judge pointing out that there is absolutely no question of any<\/p>\n
suppression of material facts on the part of the appellant.       The<\/p>\n
factum of rejection of the tender initially, though was strongly<\/p>\n
resisted from the part of the respondents it has been brought to light<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1262 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
from Ext.P6 (obtained under the “Right to Information Act’) that the<\/p>\n
Tender was originally rejected due to some defects; but was later<\/p>\n
shown as accepted at 4.30 p.m. The sequence of events was not<\/p>\n
correctly narrated from the part of the respondents as well, till they<\/p>\n
were confronted on the basis of Ext.P6.\n<\/p>\n
            In the circumstances, we do not propose to go into the<\/p>\n
merits of the case any further, but for finding it fit and proper to<\/p>\n
delete the costs ordered by the learned Single Judge. It is ordered<\/p>\n
accordingly.     The writ appeal is disposed of with the above<\/p>\n
modification in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             J.Chelameswar,
\n                                             Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                        P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
\n                                                Judge<\/p>\n
vns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 1262 of 2010() 1. SHERIFF NAZIMUDEEN ,S\/O.SHERIEF … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER 3. THE DEPOT OFFICER For Petitioner :SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN For Respondent : No […]<\/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-198283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 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\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-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=\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-29T01:51:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T01:51:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1218,\"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\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T01:51:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 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":"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 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\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-29T01:51:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T01:51:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010"},"wordCount":1218,"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\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010","name":"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T01:51:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheriff-nazimudeen-vs-state-of-kerala-on-4-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheriff Nazimudeen vs State Of Kerala on 4 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\/198283","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=198283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}