{"id":207905,"date":"1973-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973"},"modified":"2015-03-15T05:25:28","modified_gmt":"2015-03-14T23:55:28","slug":"k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973","title":{"rendered":"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 642, \t\t 1974 SCR (2) 650<\/div>\n
Author: S Dwivedi<\/div>\n
Bench: Dwivedi, S.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK. T. CHANDY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANSA RAM ZADE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/12\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nBENCH:\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  642\t\t  1974 SCR  (2) 650\n 1974 SCC  (1) 414\n\n\nACT:\nContempt   of  Court-Suit  by  employee\t against   employer-\nDismissal  of employee in exercise of right to terminate  as\nper contract of service-When does not amount to contempt.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent was employed in a company.  The contract  of\nservice\t Provided for, the termination of service by  giving\nthree  months  notice or three months pay ,in  lieu  thereof\nwithout assigning any cause.  The company  gave him a notice\nthat it was found that his performance and conduct have\t not\nbeen good and that he had not proved useful to the  company.\nHe was therefore advised to try for alternative\t employment.\nHe  was informed that he would be released from the  company\nat his request on payment by him of the amount under a\tbond\nexecuted  by  him  with\t some  concession.  The\t  respondent\nthereupon filed a suit claiming various reliefs. He, did not\nask for an interim injunction restraining the appellant\t and\nthe company from terminating his service during the pendency\nof the suit, nor did the appellant and the company give\t any\nsuch  undertaking.  The company gave the  respondent  notice\nterminating  his  service with effect from the date  of\t the\nservice of the notice and granted him three months' pay.\nThe High Court hold that the act of giving the second notice\namounted to con. tempt of court because, as a result of\t the\ntermination  some  of the reliefs Prayed  for  would  become\ninfructuous   and  that\t would\tamount\tto  obstruction\t  or\ninterference with due course of justice.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  Where a party to a suit terminates the service of\t the\nadversary  party in the honest exercise of his rights  under\nthe  contract of service and in the absence of\tany  interim\ninjunction  or\tundertaking,, the act would  not  constitute\ncontempt of court. [653 B-C]\n(a)  A\tcombined reading of the two notices shows  that\t the\nappellant had terminated the service in the honest  exercise\nof  the\t right\tvested in the company  by  the\tcontract  of\nservice.   The\torder  did not threaten\t the  respondent  to\nwithdraw the whole or part of the suit. [653 C]\n(b)The circumstance that one or more of the reliefs  claimed\nin the plaint had become infructuous   on  account  of\t the\ntermination  would  not\t establish  contumacy,\tbecause\t the\nrespondent  was\t free  amend  his  plaint  and\task  for  an\nappropriate relief. [653 D]\n(c)  The   fact\t  that\tthe  appellant\t had   tendered\t  an\nunconditional apology in the High Court is not a ground\t for\nthis  Court  refusing to interfere, because,  (i)  the\tHigh\nCourt had in fact held that appellant has committed contempt\nthough\tit did not award punishment because of\tthe  apology\nand(ii)the  High  Court had directed the  appellant  to\t pay\ncost to the respondent. [654 B]\nTaka Qim Goakar v. R. V.  Shakla, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 422,\tfang\nBahadur\t Singh v. Baij Nath<\/a> rewari, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 13\tCand\nMalojirao  Shitole  v. C. G. Matkar, A.I.R 1953 M.  B.\t245,\nreferred to.\nPratap ginirh v. Gurbaksh Sinqh, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R.\t838,\nand Govind Sahl v.  State  of  U. P.<\/a> [1969]  1\tS.C.R.\t176,\ndistinguished.\n651\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 129
\nof 1970.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby Special leave from-the Judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe  24th July, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in  Criminal
\nMisc.  Case No. 179 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
D.   -Mukherjee,  and  DN.  Mukherjee,\tfor  the  appellant.
\nS.B. Wad, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDWIVEDI,  J. Seemingly it is a small case.  It has  not\t hit
\nthe  headlines\tin the news-media.  Nor it has\tgripped\t the
\npublic mind.  The pecuniary stake is trivial.  A tiny sum of
\nRs.  200\/- is payable as costs by the  appellant.   However,
\nthis  case  brings in to the flash-point an issue  of  great
\nconsequence  to\t liberty  of contract:\tWhere  to  draw\t the
\ndividing line between the area of contempt of court and\t the
\nare of opration of contractual rights.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant is the Chairman of the Hindustan Steel Limited
\n(hereinafter  referred to as the Company).   The  respondent
\nwas  employed in the Company on a contract of service.\t The
\ncontract  provided for termination of his service by  giving
\nthree  months’ notice or three months’ pay in  lieu  thereof
\nand without assigning any cause.  On February 21, 1968,\t the
\nCompany\t gave  him  this notice : “It  is  found  that\tyour
\nperformance and conduct in this plant have not been good and
\nthat  you have not proved useful for the Company.   You\t are
\nhereby\tadvised\t to note this position and also to  try\t for
\nalternative employment elsewhere.  You may be released\tfrom
\nthis  company  at  your request on  payment  of\t the  amount
\nrequired under the bond executed by you on pro-rota basis as
\na  very\t special  case taking into  account  the  period  of
\nservice that may be rendered by you at the time of  release.
\nin  other words, if you choose to leave the service  of\t the
\ncompany\t before expiry of bond period, you will be  required
\nto pay the company a sum not exceeding Rs. 20,000\/-  reduced
\nby the amount calculated on pro-rota basis in respect of the
\nservice you may render after completion of your training.”
\nSoon thereafter he rushed to the Court.\t On May 27, 1968  he
\ninstituted  a  suit  in\t the Court  of\tthe  Second  Munsif,
\nAsansol.  The material reliefs claimed in the plaint are:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   a  declaration  that  the  notice  dated
\n\t      February 21, 1968 is illegal, bad, mala  fide,
\n\t      without jurisdiction, void and inoperative and
\n\t      is not binding on the plaintiff;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   a  declaration  that  the  charge  sheet
\n\t      dated  July  1, 1966,  confidential  character
\n\t      report, dated April 27, 1967, are ultra vires,
\n\t      unenforceable,  illegal,\tunsustainable,\tmala
\n\t      fide and opposed to rules and natural  justice
\n\t      and are not binding on the plaintiff;
\n\t      (3)   a  declaration  that  the  plaintiff  is
\n\t      entitled\tto  promotion  to  the\tnext  higher
\n\t      grade, namely, foreman, from October 10, 1966;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      652<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (4)   a  mandatory  injunction  directing\t the
\n\t      defendant\t to  promote the  plaintiff  to\t the
\n\t      grade of foreman; and
\n\t      (5)   a  permanent injunction restraining\t the
\n\t      defendant\t from  giving effect to\t the  notice
\n\t      dated February 21, 1968.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He  did\t not ask the Munsif to grant an\t interim  injunction
\nrestraining  the appellant and the Company from\t terminating
\nhis service during pendency of his suit.  So no such interim
\ninjunction was operating at the relevant time.\tNor did\t the
\nappellant  and\tthe Company give an undertaking\t to  refrain
\nfrom  terminating his service during pendency of  the  suit.
\nForgetting the suit for a moment, there was no impediment in
\ntheir  way  of\tterminating his\t service  according  to\t the
\ncontract.   And on February 26, 1968, the Company  gave\t him
\nthis notice; “(T)he services of the ( respondent) are hereby
\nterminated  with  effect from the date of  service  of\tthis
\norder  on  him and payment of three months’ pay in  lieu  of
\nnotice\t in  terms  of\tclause\t(vi)  of   his\t appointment
\nletter…… dated January 29, 1962.”\n<\/p>\n
The Calcutta High Court (R.N. Dutt and B. Banerji JJ.).\t has
\nheld that the act of giving this notice amounts to, contempt
\nof  court.   The  learned Judges said:\t“It  seems  that  he
\n(plaintiff) was more or less non-suited. ..There is no doubt
\nthat since his services have been terminated, some of  the
\nreliefs\t which\twere  prayed for in the\t suit  could  become
\ninfructuous.   On  these considerations, we think  that\t the
\naction\tof the Chairman in terminating the services  of\t the
\n(plaintiff) …. does amount to obstruction or\tinterference
\nwith  due course of justice in the petitioner’s suit  before
\nthe  Munsif …. and- so it amounts to contempt of the\tsaid
\ncourt.”\n<\/p>\n
When  asked, counsel for the respondent could not  cite\t any
\ndecision  holding  a Muslim husband’s act of  divorcing\t his
\nwife  during pendency of her suit for future maintenance  as
\ncontempt of court.  The divorce completely aborts her  suit.
\nIt  is true that the law of contempt of court  is  essential
\nfor   keeping  the  administration  of\tjustice\t  pure\t and
\nundefiled.  It is also well to remember that our society  is
\nalso  interested in the fulfillment of a man’s\texpectations
\nunder a contract.  To that end we have a law of contract  in
\nour  country.  Assigning an unlimited and undefined area  to
\neither\tof them would unduly curtail the area of the  other.
\nEach  should have a viable area so that ‘ justice  may\thold
\nhigh her head and contract is not cribbed and cramped.\t But
\nwhat is the yardstick to measure their area of operation.
\nIt  has\t been  held that ‘initiation in\t good  faith’  of  a
\ndepartmental’  enquiry under the Customs Act by\t the  Custom
\nauthorities on the basis of facts which are the subject of a
\ncriminal  prosecution under that Act against  the  appellant
\nwould not amount to contempt as the authorities’ are  acting
\nbona fide and discharging their statutory duties.’ (Ruka Ram
\nG.  Geokar v. R. N. Shukla.1<\/a> see also Jang Bahadur Singh  v.
\nBaij  Nath  Tewari).2 In<\/a> another case it was held  that\t the
\nissue  of a notification under the Abolition of\t Jagirs\t Act
\nfor  resumption\t of Jagirs during pendency of  a  jagirdar’s
\nwrit   petition\t for  restraining  such\t resumption-is\t not
\ncontempt, because the Government was acting bona fide in the
\nexercise of its statutory rights. (See
\n(1) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 422.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1969] 1 S.C.R.. 134..\n<\/p>\n
653<\/span><\/p>\n
Malojirao Shitole v. C. G. Matkar)(1) These cases  establish
\nthat bona fide exercise of a statutory right by a party to a
\nproceeding  is\tnot contempt in the absence  of\t an  interim
\ninjunction  against  or undertaking by\tthat  party.   There
\nappears to be so sound’ reason why this principle should not
\nextend\t to  the  exercise  of\trights\tunder  a   contract.
\nThe rights of a party under a contract are his legal rights.
\nIn  our view bonafide or honest exercise of a right under  a
\ncontract  should  be  the  yardstick  for  allocating  their
\nrespective area to contempt and it gives to each its  proper
\nsphere.\t  So where a party to a suit,, as here,.  terminates
\nthe service of the adversary party in the honest exercise of
\nhis rights under the contract of service and in the  absence
\nof any interim injunction or undertaking, his act would\t not
\nconstitute  contempt  of  court.  We are  satisfied  from  a
\ncombined reading of the two notices relating to\t termination
\nof service that the appellant had terminated the service of
\nthe respondent in the honest exercise of the right vested in
\nthe  Company  by  the contract of service.  So\the  has\t not
\ncommitted contempt of the Munsif’s Court.
\nThe  order  terminating his service does  not  threaten\t the
\nrespondent  to withdraw the whole or part of his suit.\t The
\nmere circumstance that one or more of the reliefs claimed in
\nthe  plaint  have  become  infructuous\ton  account  of\t the
\ntermination  order  would  not\testablish  contumacy.\t The
\nrespondent is free to amend his plaint and ask for a  relief
\nagainst the termination order.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for  the respondent has relied on Pratap  Singh  V.
\nGurbakah Singh(4) and Gobind Sahai v. State of U.P.(5) These
\ncases  are clearly distinguishable on facts.  In  the  first
\ncase a Government employee had instituted a suit as well  as
\na  writ\t petition against the Government in respect  of\t his
\nservice\t conditions.   Thereupon the  appropriate  authority
\nstarted a departmental proceeding against the employee.\t The
\ncharge\tsheet  stated  that he had gone to a  court  of\t law
\nbefore exhausting all his departmental remedies and that his
\naction was contrary to official propriety and subversive  of
\ngood discipline.  This charge was framed on the strength  of
\na  circular  letter  issued by the Chief  Secretary  of\t the
\nGovernment  on\tJune  25, 1953.\t  It  emphasised  that\t“any
\nattempt\t by a Government servant to seek a decision on\tsuch
\nissues in a court of law without first exhausting the normal
\nofficial  channels  of\tredress could only  be\tregarded  as
\ncontrary  to  official\tpropriety  and\tsubversive  of\tgood
\ndiscipline   and  could\t well  justify\tthe  initiation\t  of
\ndisciplinary  action against him.  This Court held that\t the
\nauthorities have committed contempt of court.  In the second
\ncase while the respondent’s suit challenging the election of
\nhis  opponent  to  a  committee of  a  political  party\t was
\npending, the appellant letters expelling him from the  party
\non the strength of an earlier resolution of the party  which
\nbarred\treference  of  such  disputes to  a  law  court\t and
\nprovided  for summary removal of any member who initiated  a
\nsuit.  This Court held that the action of expulsion amounted
\nto  contempt of court.\tIt ‘should be observed that in\tboth
\ncases  the  complainant\t had a right to\t institute  a  legal
\nproceeding  in\ta law court for redress\t of  his  grievance.
\nThis legal right
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1953 MB 245.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 838.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1969] 1 SCR. 176.\n<\/p>\n
654<\/span><\/p>\n
could  be taken away only by a valid law.  But there was  no
\nsuch  law  in  operation.  So neither the  officers  of\t the
\nGovernment nor the political party had a legal right to take
\nany  action for punishing the \/suitor for his mere  ‘act  of
\ninstituting a legal proceeding in a law court.\tIn our\tcase
\nthe- appellant had a right under the contract to  terminate,
\nthe service of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for  the  respondent  has  submitted-that  as\t the
\nappellant had tendered an unconditional apology. in the High
\nCourt, we should not interfere with the High Court’s  order.
\nWe are unable to appreciate the submission.  Apology goes to
\nsentence  and  may  be accepted only  upon  a  finding\tthat
\ncontempt  has  been committed.\tThe High Court has  in\tfact
\nheld that the appellant has committed contempt.\t But it\t has
\naccepted  his  apology\tand  refrained\tfrom  awarding\t any
\npunishment.   Moreover, the appellant has been\tdirected  to
\npay  Rs. 200\/as costs to the respondent.  So the  appellant
\nis entitled to have the order of the High Court set aside.
\nWe  allow  the appeal and set aside the order  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
A02SCI\/74-2500-28-5-75-GIPP.\n<\/p>\n
655<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 642, 1974 SCR (2) 650 Author: S Dwivedi Bench: Dwivedi, S.N. PETITIONER: K. T. CHANDY Vs. RESPONDENT: MANSA RAM ZADE DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/12\/1973 BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. BENCH: DWIVEDI, S.N. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. CITATION: 1974 AIR 642 1974 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 - 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-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-14T23:55:28+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=\"12 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-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-14T23:55:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\"},\"wordCount\":1787,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\",\"name\":\"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-14T23:55:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973\"}]},{\"@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. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 - 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-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-14T23:55:28+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973","datePublished":"1973-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-14T23:55:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973"},"wordCount":1787,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973","name":"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-14T23:55:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-t-chandy-vs-mansa-ram-zade-on-11-december-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. T. Chandy vs Mansa Ram Zade on 11 December, 1973"}]},{"@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\/207905","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=207905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}