{"id":217455,"date":"2004-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004"},"modified":"2015-12-15T20:08:03","modified_gmt":"2015-12-15T14:38:03","slug":"ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 13\/02\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. SINGHARAVELU\n\nC.M.A. No. 731 of 1996\n\nM\/s. Kedarnath Brijlal,\nMadurai. .. Appellant\/Applicant.\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Union of India,\nowning Southern Railway,\nrepresented by its General Manager,\nMadras. .. Respondent\/Respondent.\n\n\nAppeal against the judgement and decree dated 31-1-19\n95 and made in O.A.I\/1091\/92 on the file of Railway  Claims  Tribunal,  Madras\nBench.\n\nMr.  T.  Rajamohan:-For Appellant.\n\nMr.  V.G.  Sureshkumar:- For Respondent.\n\n\n:JUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgement of the Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n<p>Applicant  in  O.A.I\/1091\/92  on  the  file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras<br \/>\nBench is the appellant in the above appeal.  For convenience, we  shall  refer<br \/>\nthe case  of the parties as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal.  The applicant<br \/>\npurchased and received a consignment of 140 bags of Gram from Baran to Madurai<br \/>\nthrough the respondentSouthern Railway under Invoice No.  179 dated 5-2-92, RR<br \/>\nNo.  520549.  According to  him,  at  the  time  of  taking  delivery  of  the<br \/>\nconsignment  at  the  destination  station  i.e.,  Madurai,  all the bags were<br \/>\ndamaged by insects and weevil action, contents found  with  holes  and  powder<br \/>\npouring out  from the holes, black insects flying.  The Railway officials gave<br \/>\nopen delivery of all the bags and assessed the damages at 50  per  cent  i.e.,<br \/>\n13,860 kgs  and  issued  a  joint  survey report on 30-5-92.  The value of the<br \/>\ndamage is Rs.49,342\/-.    According  to  the  applicant,  the  damage  to  the<br \/>\nconsignment was only due to the gross negligence and misconduct on the part of<br \/>\nthe  Railway  administration and employees and also due to the defective wagon<br \/>\nand delay.  Further, the consignment was booked under railway risk rate; hence<br \/>\nthe respondent is bound to recoup the loss sustained by the  applicant.    The<br \/>\napplicant  sent a claim notice as required under Section 106 on 13-6-92 to the<br \/>\nChief Commercial  Superintendent,  Tiruchirapalli  claiming   damage.      The<br \/>\nrespondents sent  a  reply repudiating their claim on 30-6-92.  Therefore, the<br \/>\napplicant filed O.A.I\/1091\/92 for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,342\/- with future<br \/>\ninterest and cost before the Railway Claims Tribunal.   The  said  application<br \/>\nwas heard  along with another O.A.I\/1090\/92 by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal has<br \/>\nfound that the applicant has got title to the consignment.  It also found that<br \/>\nweevil action is due to inherent defect\/vice of  the  goods  at  the  time  of<br \/>\nloading.   Finally,  the  Claims  Tribunal  concluded  that  the  applicant is<br \/>\nentitled for 60 per cent of the damage and directed the respondent\/Railways to<br \/>\npay Rs.25,904\/- with interest at 12 per  cent  per  annum  from  the  date  of<br \/>\napplication till realisation with proportionate costs.  Contending that having<\/p>\n<p>found  that the Railways have not used reasonable foresight and care, erred in<br \/>\nattributing negligence on the part of the applicant,  has  filed  the  present<br \/>\nappeal with reference to disallowed claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Heard Mr.   T.  Rajamohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.  V.G.<br \/>\nSureshkumar for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether  the  applicant  is<br \/>\nentitled  to the entire amount of Rs.49,342\/- or to the extent of 60 per cent,<br \/>\nas assessed by the Railway Claims Tribunal?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  There is no dispute regarding title to the consignment and eligibility  to<br \/>\nfile claim  petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal.  Now let us consider,<br \/>\nwhether the bags that were consigned, were damaged  at  the  time  of  booking<br \/>\nitself.  In this regard, it is relevant to refer Section 98:-<br \/>\n&#8220;Section 98.    Goods in defective condition or defectively packed.- (1) xx xx<br \/>\nxx<\/p>\n<p>(2) When any goods entrusted to a  railway  administration  for  carriage  are<br \/>\nfound  on  arrival  at the destination station to have been damaged or to have<br \/>\nsuffered deterioration, leakage or wastage, the railway  administration  shall<br \/>\nnot  be  responsible  for the damage, deterioration, leakage or wastage of the<br \/>\ngoods on proof by railway administration,-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  that  the  goods  were  at  the  time  of  entrustment  to  the   railway<br \/>\nadministration,  in  a  defective  condition,  or  were  at  that  time either<br \/>\ndefectively packed or not packed in such manner as may be prescribed and as  a<br \/>\nresult of which were liable to damage, deterioration, leakage or wastage; and<\/p>\n<p>(b)  that  such  defective  condition or defective or improper packing was not<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of the railway administration or any of its servants  at<br \/>\nthe  time  of  entrustment  of  the  goods  to  the railway administration for<br \/>\ncarriage by railway:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that the railway administration shall be  responsible  for  any  such<br \/>\ndamage,  deterioration,  leakage or wastage if negligence or misconduct on the<br \/>\npart of the railway administration or of any of its servants is proved.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above provision makes it clear that the defective nature of the goods,  if<br \/>\nany,  found  at  the time of booking shall be recorded by the consignor or his<br \/>\nagent in the forwarding note and in the absence of such remarks either in  the<br \/>\nforwarding  note  or in the railway receipt, the presumption shall be that the<br \/>\ngoods did not suffer from any inherent defect at the time of booking.  In  the<br \/>\ncase  on hand, the forwarding note has not been produced by the respondent and<br \/>\neven the railway receipt (RR) i.e., Ex.B-1 did not contain  any  such  adverse<br \/>\nremarks.  It is also relevant to mention that the liability of the respondent\/<br \/>\nrailways  under  Section  93  of  the  Railways  Act is that a insurer and the<br \/>\nrespondent shall not be relieved of its responsibility  for  loss  and  damage<br \/>\nunless the railway administration proves that it has used reasonable foresight<br \/>\nand care in carriage of goods.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The applicant has also established that there had been a inordinate delay<br \/>\nin transit of the consignment as against usual transit period of 15 days.   It<br \/>\nis  pointed  out  that  as  against 15 days of normal transit, the transit has<br \/>\ntaken 105 days and hence the railways has not exercised reasonable care.    As<br \/>\nrightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, the railways have not<br \/>\nlead  any  data to determine what will be the normal transit time against this<br \/>\ntheoretical transit time that is one day for every 250 k.m.  of lead, nor they<br \/>\nhave produced any evidence to justify the transit.   Accordingly,  the  Claims<br \/>\nTribunal  has  rightly  found  that  the  railways did not exercise reasonable<br \/>\nforesight and care in the movement of the consignment in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  The Claims Tribunal in spite of holding that there  was  inordinate  delay<br \/>\nand  railways has not used reasonable foresight and care in carriage of goods,<br \/>\narrived at a conclusion that the weevil action is due to inherent  defect\/vice<br \/>\nof the  goods  at  the  time  of  loading.    Here  again,  there is a factual<br \/>\nconclusion by the Tribunal that there is no  evidence  to  indicate  that  the<br \/>\ncontents  have  not  been  damaged due to intrusion of water, etc., enroute in<br \/>\ntransit.  We have already found that the forwarding note has not been produced<br \/>\nby the respondent and the railway receipt-Ex.B-1 did not contain  any  adverse<br \/>\nremark regarding the defective nature of the goods at the time of booking.  In<br \/>\nthe  light  of  the  materials  placed, finding by the Claims Tribunal, we are<br \/>\nunable to sustain its conclusion that the damage was mainly  due  to  inherent<br \/>\ndefect\/vide of  the  goods  at  the  time  of  loading.  Having found that the<br \/>\nrailways shall not be relieved of its responsibility of loss  and  damage,  no<br \/>\ninformation regarding condition of the goods consigned in the forwarding note,<br \/>\ninordinate  delay  in  transit,  we hold that the applicant is entitled to the<br \/>\nvalue of the consignment as claimed.  In other words, the entire liability for<br \/>\nthe damages should have been fastened on the railways.  We have  already  held<br \/>\nthat Section 98 (1) (a) of the Act requires that the facts have to be recorded<br \/>\nin the  forwarding  note  that  has  not been done in this case.  Transhipment<br \/>\nrecords have also not been produced.  Section 93 provides that even when there<br \/>\nis an act or omission or negligence of the consignor or the consignee  or  the<br \/>\nendorsee  or  the  agent  or  servant of the consignor or the consignee or the<br \/>\nendorsee and where there is natural deterioration or wastage in bulk or weight<br \/>\ndue  to  inherent  defect,  quality  or  vide  of  the  goods,   the   railway<br \/>\nadministration  shall  not  be  relieved  of  its responsibility for the loss,<br \/>\ndestruction,  damage,  deterioration,  or  non-delivery  unless  the   railway<br \/>\nadministration  further  proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care<br \/>\nin the carriage of the goods.  The very finding of the Tribunal  is  that  the<br \/>\nrailway  administration  has  not proved that it had used reasonable foresight<br \/>\nand care in carriage of the goods under Section 98 (1) (a) of the Act when any<br \/>\ngoods are entrusted to the railway administration for carriage, if  the  goods<br \/>\nare  in  a  defective  condition  as a consequence of which they are liable to<br \/>\ndamage, deterioration, leakage or wastage or the goods are either  defectively<br \/>\npacked  or not packed in such a manner as may be prescribed and as a result of<br \/>\nsuch defective or  improper  packing  are  liable  to  damage,  deterioration,<br \/>\nleakage  or wastage, the Railway Administration had to ensure that the fact of<br \/>\nsuch condition or defective or improper  packing  had  been  recorded  by  the<br \/>\nconsignor or  his  agent  in the forwarding note to escape liability.  As said<br \/>\nearlier, admittedly,  the  forwarding  note  has  not  been  produced  by  the<br \/>\nrailways.  The railway receipt does not contain any such adverse remarks.  The<br \/>\ndefect in  the  goods  have  not been noted in the railway receipt.  There had<br \/>\nbeen inordinate delay in transporting the goods.  We are  satisfied  that  the<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal had assumed without any basis that there is inherent defect in<br \/>\nthe goods.  We have already held that the provisions of the Act requires facts<br \/>\nto be recorded in the forwarding note and the same has not been done.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  Under these circumstances, we hold that the Railway Claims Tribunal was in<br \/>\nerror in  apportioning  the  liability.    It  should have fastened the entire<br \/>\nliability on the respondent railways.  Similar  view  has  been  expressed  by<br \/>\nSivasubramaniam, J., in C.M.A.No.  578 of 1992 on 20-9-1999; Murugesan, J., in<br \/>\nC.M.A.No.  1275 of 1992 on 21-9-2000; and K.  Sampath, J.,in (2001) I MLJ 462.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   In  the  light of what is stated above, the order dated 31-1-95 passed by<br \/>\nthe Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.I\/1091\/92 is  set  aside  and<br \/>\nthe  respondent\/Southern  Railway  is  directed  to  pay  the  entire value of<br \/>\nRs.43,173.90 rounded off to Rs.43,174\/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum<br \/>\nfrom the date of application till the date of payment.  The appeal is allowed.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:- Yes<br \/>\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench with records.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Record Keeper, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 13\/02\/2004 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.R. SINGHARAVELU C.M.A. No. 731 of 1996 M\/s. Kedarnath Brijlal, Madurai. .. Appellant\/Applicant. -Vs- The Union of India, [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 - 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\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-15T14:38:03+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T14:38:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1727,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T14:38:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 - 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\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-15T14:38:03+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T14:38:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004"},"wordCount":1727,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004","name":"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T14:38:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kedarnath-brijlal-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Kedarnath Brijlal vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/217455","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=217455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}