{"id":204697,"date":"2007-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007"},"modified":"2014-04-02T05:39:15","modified_gmt":"2014-04-02T00:09:15","slug":"palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 14475 of 2004(W)\n\n\n1. PALAKKAD PLANTATION AND GENERAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NELLIYAMPATHY TEA PRODUCE COMPANY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :05\/12\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.\n                         =======================\n                           W.P.(C) No. 14475 of 2004\n                         =======================\n\n                   Dated this the  5th day of December, 2007\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The Union in ID no.56\/2001 before the Industrial Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>Palakkad challenges in this writ petition Ext.P1 award passed by<\/p>\n<p>the Tribunal in that ID. The issue referred for adjudication was<\/p>\n<p>as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;Whether the dismissal of Sri.Murukan and Sri.Arumughan<br \/>\n        is justifiable? If not what relief they are entitled to?.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      2.    Since the dismissal of the workmen was after having<\/p>\n<p>been found guilty in a          domestic enquiry, the validity of the<\/p>\n<p>enquiry was considered as a preliminary point. The tribunal after<\/p>\n<p>adjudication of the preliminary point came to the finding that the<\/p>\n<p>enquiry was conducted validly and properly and that there was<\/p>\n<p>sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to support the<\/p>\n<p>charges against the workmen.                Thereafter, since the charges<\/p>\n<p>proved against the workmen involved theft of property belonging<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 14475 \/2004           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to the management, the tribunal upheld        the punishment of<\/p>\n<p>dismissal imposed on the workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.    The union is challenging that award on the following<\/p>\n<p>grounds: First is that the workmen were not paid subsistence<\/p>\n<p>allowance during the enquiry. Second, in the enquiry the<\/p>\n<p>management produced documents, copies of which were not<\/p>\n<p>furnished to the workmen. Thirdly, the enquiry officer relied on<\/p>\n<p>statements made by the workmen before the police, which the<\/p>\n<p>enquiry officer ought not to have done.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.    In answer to the same, the counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>management would contend that the workmen were not<\/p>\n<p>suspended as they were only temporary employees. Regarding<\/p>\n<p>the documents the counsel for the management would submit<\/p>\n<p>that list of documents were given in advance to the workmen and<\/p>\n<p>they were also permitted to peruse the documents. Therefore no<\/p>\n<p>principles of natural justice have been violated. Regarding the<\/p>\n<p>reliance on the      statements of the workmen before the police,<\/p>\n<p>the counsel would argue that since the Rules of Evidence Act<\/p>\n<p>does not apply to departmental\/domestic enquiries, the reliance<\/p>\n<p>on the statements before the police cannot be held against the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 14475 \/2004                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>validity of the enquiry. He also relies on the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n<p>Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab (1997 (1) LLJ 131) in this<\/p>\n<p>regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the       first contention of non-payment of subsistence<\/p>\n<p>allowance, the industrial tribunal has held in paragraphs 2-6 of<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;The first point raised by the union in the charter of<br \/>\n    demands dated 15.1.01 is that the subsistence allowance was not<br \/>\n    paid to the delinquent workmen. This union has not denied the<br \/>\n    averment of the management that         they were only temporary<br \/>\n    workmen and they were not suspended from service. According to<br \/>\n    management, they remained absent during the relevant time. The<br \/>\n    management has also issued showcause notices to the workmen<br \/>\n    for unauthorised absence. In the circumstance, it cannot be held<br \/>\n    that the workmen were suspended pending enquiry and they were<br \/>\n    entitled to claim the subsistence allowance.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      5.    In view of the above findings, I do not think that the<\/p>\n<p>enquiry is vitiated for non-payment of subsistence allowance.<\/p>\n<p>Further, non-payment of subsistence allowance alone is not a<\/p>\n<p>ground for vitiating the enquiry            unless it is supported by<\/p>\n<p>pleadings and proof of prejudice caused to            the workmen on<\/p>\n<p>account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. There is no<\/p>\n<p>pleadings or proof regarding any prejudice caused to the<\/p>\n<p>workmen on account of           non-payment of subsistence allowance<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 14475 \/2004                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>in this case.       Therefore, I do not find any merit in that<\/p>\n<p>contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6.     The contention regarding nonsupply of copies of<\/p>\n<p>documents have been dealt with by the tribunal in paragraphs 2-<\/p>\n<p>8 of award, thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The workman had submitted Ext.W6 representation dated<br \/>\n     4.11.2000 to the enquiry officer requesting to furnish them<br \/>\n     the documents produced on that day.          It is seen from the<br \/>\n     enquiry proceedings that some material documents were<br \/>\n     produced on 4.11.2000 and the same were marked as<br \/>\n     Exhibits.  The Enquiry Officer has noted in the proceedings<br \/>\n     dated 4.11.2000 that the representative of the workmen<br \/>\n     requested for the copies of these documents and also for<br \/>\n     adjournment     of  the   enquiry    for   studying  the   same.<br \/>\n     Accordingly, the enquiry was adjourned to 8.11.2000. It is<br \/>\n     further  observed    from   the    enquiry proceedings      dated<br \/>\n     8.11.2000, that the Enquiry Officer had asked the delinquent<br \/>\n     workmen before the cross-examination of the witness whether<br \/>\n     they wanted to read out the documents produced on<br \/>\n     4.11.2000. They replied in the negative and this has been<br \/>\n     recorded in the enquiry proceedings.       In Ext.B4 letter dated<br \/>\n     8.11.2000 addressed to the Enquiry Officer, the workmen had<br \/>\n     admitted that they had received some of the documents<br \/>\n     produced by the management on 4.11.2000. However, it is<br \/>\n     not specified therein the details of the documents which were<br \/>\n     received or not received by them. The witness, Devadas who<br \/>\n     had produced the above documents was cross-examined on<br \/>\n     behalf of the workmen only on 8.11.2000.            The material<br \/>\n     documents which were produced on 4.11.2000 are documents<br \/>\n     connected with the police case viz. scene Mahazer, Seizer<br \/>\n     Mahazer, release order, confession statement etc. It is clear<br \/>\n     from the enquiry file that the list of these documents had been<br \/>\n     furnished to the workmen in advance and they were also given<br \/>\n     ample opportunity      to peruse them during the course of<br \/>\n     enquiry. It was therefore possible for the workmen and their<br \/>\n     union-representative to study these documents with the<br \/>\n     assistance of a legal expert before 8.11.2000 and to get ready<br \/>\n     for the cross-examination of Devadas on these documents. I<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 14475 \/2004                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     therefore do not find any merit in the contention of the union<br \/>\n     that the enquiry is vitiated for the reason of non-furnishing the<br \/>\n     copies of certain documents to the workmen.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     7.     I do not find any perversity whatsoever in the said<\/p>\n<p>findings. After the production of those documents, at the request<\/p>\n<p>of the workmen, the enquiry was adjourned to enable them to<\/p>\n<p>prepare their defence and they were also given opportunity to<\/p>\n<p>peruse the documents. As such there is no violation of principles<\/p>\n<p>of natural justice as contended by the counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>     8.     Regarding the reliance on the statements made before<\/p>\n<p>the police, it is settled law that Rules of Evidence, under the<\/p>\n<p>Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings in a domestic<\/p>\n<p>enquiry. Domestic enquiry cannot be equated to a criminal trial.<\/p>\n<p>Further in the decision in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab,<\/p>\n<p>Supreme Court has held that statements before the police cannot<\/p>\n<p>be held to be inadmissible in evidence in domestic enquiries.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore the contention           of the petitioner on this count also<\/p>\n<p>without any merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>     9.     Regarding the question of punishment admittedly the<\/p>\n<p>workmen were found guilty of theft. For such mis-conduct, the<\/p>\n<p>punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 14475 \/2004         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. For<\/p>\n<p>the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition<\/p>\n<p>accordingly, the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        S.SIRI JAGAN,<br \/>\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>jp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 14475 of 2004(W) 1. PALAKKAD PLANTATION AND GENERAL &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. NELLIYAMPATHY TEA PRODUCE COMPANY &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) For Respondent :. The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice [&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-204697","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>Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce ... on 5 December, 2007 - 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\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce ... on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-02T00:09:15+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\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-02T00:09:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1143,\"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\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce ... on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-02T00:09:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 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":"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce ... on 5 December, 2007 - 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\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce ... on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-02T00:09:15+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\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-02T00:09:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007"},"wordCount":1143,"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\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007","name":"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce ... on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-02T00:09:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palakkad-plantation-and-general-vs-nelliyampathy-tea-produce-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Palakkad Plantation And General vs Nelliyampathy Tea Produce &#8230; on 5 December, 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\/204697","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=204697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}