{"id":198414,"date":"2009-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-30T12:10:31","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T06:40:31","slug":"k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 1170 of 2004(E)\n\n\n1. K. NARAYANAN NAIR, S\/O. SREEDEVI AMMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MANOJ\n\n                For Respondent  :SC.KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DVP.CORPN.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :16\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                               R.S.A.No.1170 of 2004\n                            --------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             The Regular Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
learned Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in A.S.No.7 of 2001 confirming<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Kozhikode in O.S.No.125 of 1997.<\/p>\n
Appellant sued the respondent for a declaration and prohibitory injunction<\/p>\n
against realisation of the amount. According to the appellant his father, the late<\/p>\n
Govindankutty Nair conducted agency business under the respondent at Mavoor<\/p>\n
under the name and style ‘Sreeja,           Mavoor’.       Appellant’s mother, Sreedevi<\/p>\n
Amma was a guarantor to the respondent in that transaction. Appellant’s father<\/p>\n
died on 16.3.1988. On death of the father, it is contended, agency business<\/p>\n
stood terminated and the showroom was closed. According to the appellant,<\/p>\n
amount due from the late Govindankutty Nair could be realised only if a new<\/p>\n
agency was created but creation of agency requested by the appellant was<\/p>\n
refused by the respondent.         Hence the amount if any due from the late<\/p>\n
Govindankutty Nair is not recoverable.                 Appellant and his mother filed<\/p>\n
O.S.No.950 of 1988 against realisation of the amount. In the meantime, the<\/p>\n
mother died. Her legal representatives were not interested in joining the suit and<\/p>\n
ultimately that suit was dismissed on 4.8.1993. Appellant wants a declaration<\/p>\n
that on the death of Govindankutty Nair the agency business stood terminated<\/p>\n
and thereon his liability towards respondent stood discharged, respondent has<\/p>\n
RSA No.1170\/2004<\/p>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
no right to realise any amount and for consequential injunction. Respondent<\/p>\n
contended that the late Govindankutty Nair was conducting business in goods<\/p>\n
supplied by it and his wife was a guarantor in that transaction. She created<\/p>\n
equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent. On the death of Govindankutty<\/p>\n
Nair his legal heirs are liable to discharge the liability as they have inherited<\/p>\n
his property. The liability was not discharged and hence steps were taken for<\/p>\n
recovery of the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act (for short, “the Act”). It<\/p>\n
is contended that appellant unsuccessfully filed O.P.No.4695 of 1997 in this<\/p>\n
Court against the respondent and the State but the same was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Learned Munsiff held that the contention that on termination of agency by the<\/p>\n
death of Govindankutty Nair his liability to the respondent stood discharged is<\/p>\n
unsustainable and that respondent is entitled to realise the amounts from the<\/p>\n
assets of the late Govindankutty Nair and the mortgaged properties and<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit.   Appellate court has confirmed judgment and decree and<\/p>\n
hence the Second Appeal. Following substantial questions of law are framed for<\/p>\n
a decision:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      i.     Whether the respondent is entitled to proceed against the<\/p>\n
mortgaged properties without the intervention of court in view of the bar under<\/p>\n
Section 69(1) of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, “the T.P.Act”)?<\/p>\n
      ii.    Whether the respondent is entitled to recover the amount in view of<\/p>\n
the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty<\/a> (1999(2)<\/p>\n
KLT 146) and Halimathu Beevi v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 279)?<\/p>\n
RSA No.1170\/2004<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
        2.    It is contended by learned counsel for appellant       that only in<\/p>\n
accordance with Section 69(1)(b) of the T.P.Act and when the mortgagee is the<\/p>\n
Government, mortgagee could recover the amount by enforcing the mortgage<\/p>\n
except through the process of court. In this case the Government not being the<\/p>\n
mortgagee, respondent       is not entitled to take recourse to the said provision<\/p>\n
and hence the attempt to initiate revenue recovery proceedings under the Act is<\/p>\n
illegal. Further contention raised by learned counsel is that at any rate, there is<\/p>\n
no notification issued under Section 71 of the Act authorising recovery of the<\/p>\n
amount allegedly due to the respondent by recourse to the provisions of the said<\/p>\n
Act.   Lastly it is contended that   recovery of the amount if any due to the<\/p>\n
respondent is barred by law of limitation and hence resort could not be had to<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in      State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty<\/a> (1999(2)<\/p>\n
KLT 146) and Halimathu Beevi v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT<\/p>\n
279).\n<\/p>\n
        3.    So far    as the contention regarding want of notification under<\/p>\n
Section 71 of the Act is concerned, learned counsel for respondent has brought<\/p>\n
to my notice notification No.32706\/B3\/70\/RD dated 24.5.1970 of the Government<\/p>\n
of Kerala (Revenue (B) Department) wherein it is stated that in exercise of the<\/p>\n
power conferred under Section 71 of the Act the Government of Kerala being<\/p>\n
satisfied that it is necessary to do so in public interest have declared that the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act shall be applicable to recovery of the amount due from any<\/p>\n
person to the ‘Kerala Handloom Finance Corporation Limited, Kannur’. A fresh<\/p>\n
RSA No.1170\/2004<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
certificate of incorporation consequent to change of name was issued by the<\/p>\n
Registrar of Companies.      Learned counsel for respondent        explained that<\/p>\n
originally name of the respondent was ‘Kerala Handloom Finance Corporation<\/p>\n
Limited’ which was incorporated under the Companies Act on 24.6.1968 and<\/p>\n
thereafter its name was changed as ‘Kerala Handloom Finance and Trading<\/p>\n
Corporation Limited’. That name has been changed as Kerala State Handloom<\/p>\n
Developments Corporation Limited (respondent in the case on hand). Thus it is<\/p>\n
clear that subsequent to the notification which I have referred to above, there<\/p>\n
was change of name of the respondent Corporation which resulted in its present<\/p>\n
name. The notification under Section 71 of the Act in respect of the original<\/p>\n
name should enure to the         benefit of the respondent since respondent<\/p>\n
Corporation continues to be the same though its name has been changed.<\/p>\n
        4.    More forcible contention raised by learned counsel is based on<\/p>\n
Section 69(1) of the T.P.Act. That provision states the circumstance under<\/p>\n
which     without recourse to   a court of law a mortgage can be enforced.<\/p>\n
Respondent has no case that the mortgage in its favour created by the mother<\/p>\n
of appellant came within the scope of Section 69 (1)(b) of the T.P. Act. But it is<\/p>\n
contended that the said provision concerned enforcement of mortgage while<\/p>\n
what is sought to be enforced under the Act is not enforcement of the mortgage.<\/p>\n
        5.    The preamble to the Act states that the said Act is intended to<\/p>\n
consolidate and amend the laws relating to recovery of arrears of public revenue<\/p>\n
in the State of Kerala. The object of enactment of the Act is to provide speedier<\/p>\n
and cheaper remedy for recovery of public revenue due on land and amounts<\/p>\n
RSA No.1170\/2004<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
declared by notification issued under Section 71 of the Act. On receipt of a<\/p>\n
requisition under Section 69 of the Act, the authorities mentioned in the Act<\/p>\n
initiates action for recovery of the amount.     When they proceeded against<\/p>\n
movable properties of the defaulter, a notice under Section 7 and when it is<\/p>\n
immovable properties a notice under Section 34 of the Act is required.         The<\/p>\n
attempt of the authorities under the Act is not the enforcement of the mortgage<\/p>\n
as such but to recover the amount due from the defaulter and his surety by sale<\/p>\n
of movable or immovable properties as the case may be belonging to them.<\/p>\n
Except in the matter of deciding the period of limitation for recovery of the<\/p>\n
amount, it makes no difference, so far as recovery under the Act is concerned<\/p>\n
whether the property proceeded against is subject to a mortgage in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondent, or not. Hence the contention that since the property of the mother<\/p>\n
of the appellant has been mortgaged to the respondent recovery proceedings<\/p>\n
under the Act is not permissible as it violates Section 69(1) of the T.P.Act<\/p>\n
cannot stand.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    It is then contended by learned counsel for appellant that the Act<\/p>\n
contemplated proceeding against        the properties of the ‘defaulter’ alone.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, appellant or his mother are not ‘defaulters’ to<\/p>\n
the respondent. So far as appellant is concerned, he is a legal representative of<\/p>\n
the defaulter, the late Govindankutty Nair and though the word ‘defaulter’ as<\/p>\n
defined in the Act does not take in a legal representative, the settled position of<\/p>\n
law informs me that a legal representative is none but a persona of the<\/p>\n
deceased. Hence a legal representative also comes within the definition of the<\/p>\n
RSA No.1170\/2004<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
word “defaulter”. So far as mother of appellant who is admittedly the guarantor<\/p>\n
to the respondent is concerned, she squarely comes within the definition of<\/p>\n
‘defaulter’ as it includes a ‘surety’ also.\n<\/p>\n
       7.      It is then contended by learned counsel for appellant that<\/p>\n
proceeding under the Act could be initiated only after crystallizing the amount<\/p>\n
due to the respondent.         Learned counsel referred to me the notice dated<\/p>\n
10.9.1988 issued by the respondent regarding the amount allegedly due from<\/p>\n
the late Govindankutty Nair. In that regard I may say that there is no challenge<\/p>\n
in this proceeding to the amount payable to the respondent and at any rate, no<\/p>\n
settlement of      account   was also sought for.  Challenge to recovery of the<\/p>\n
amount was only on the ground that on the death of Govindankutty Nair,<\/p>\n
agency with him stood terminated and in the absence of fresh agency created in<\/p>\n
the name of any of his legal representatives the liability would not survive. That<\/p>\n
contention has no legs to stand as rightly found by the courts below.<\/p>\n
       8.      According to the learned counsel for the appellant ‘amount due’<\/p>\n
means the amount which is legally recoverable.    Learned counsel contends that<\/p>\n
appellant’s father died in the year 1988, his mother died on 26.7.1991 and<\/p>\n
hence recovery of the amount has become time barred. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent contends that respondent is entitled to the protection of Article 112<\/p>\n
of the Limitation Act and that at any rate, pendency of cases at various levels at<\/p>\n
the instance of appellant and his mother prevented recovery of the amount and<\/p>\n
the said period is to be excluded. It is also argued that in any event, the period<\/p>\n
of limitation for recovery of the amount due from the properties under mortgage<\/p>\n
RSA No.1170\/2004<\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
is 12 years.\n<\/p>\n
       9.     There is no specific contention raised in the plaint that the amount<\/p>\n
due to the respondent has become barred by limitation. That apart question<\/p>\n
whether recovery of the amount is barred by limitation and hence the amount<\/p>\n
could be legally recovered is a matter which the authorities mentioned under<\/p>\n
Section 72 of the Act has to consider as it relates to the execution of the written<\/p>\n
demand and that is not a matter which the civil court can entertain except when<\/p>\n
the suit is brought on the ground of fraud. There is no allegation of fraud in this<\/p>\n
case and hence       the civil court cannot go into the question of legality of<\/p>\n
recoverability of the amount by way of written demand for the reason that the<\/p>\n
debt is barred by law of limitation. That is a matter which the appellant could<\/p>\n
raise before the Collector or other authorities mentioned under Section 72 of<\/p>\n
the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       10.    I answer the substantial question of law raised in the Second<\/p>\n
Appeal as above.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly, Second Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No cost.<\/p>\n
       I.A.No.2137 of 2004 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1170 of 2004(E) 1. K. NARAYANAN NAIR, S\/O. SREEDEVI AMMA, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ For Respondent :SC.KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DVP.CORPN. […]<\/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-198414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom ... on 16 November, 2009 - 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-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\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 The Kerala State Handloom ... on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T06:40:31+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=\"10 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-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T06:40:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1842,\"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-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\",\"name\":\"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom ... on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T06:40:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 The Kerala State Handloom ... on 16 November, 2009 - 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-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom ... on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T06:40:31+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T06:40:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009"},"wordCount":1842,"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-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009","name":"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom ... on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T06:40:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-narayanan-nair-vs-the-kerala-state-handloom-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Narayanan Nair vs The Kerala State Handloom … on 16 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/198414","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=198414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}