{"id":22062,"date":"2008-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008"},"modified":"2014-11-16T16:56:24","modified_gmt":"2014-11-16T11:26:24","slug":"c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 401 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. C.MANIKANTAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. S.KRISHNAKUMAR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :11\/04\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.\n           ------------------------------------------------\n                 Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001\n           ------------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    The complainant in C.C.510\/96 on the file<\/p>\n
of  the  Judicial           First         Class         Magistrate’s<\/p>\n
Court-I, Neyyattinkara is the appellant. He<\/p>\n
assails in this appeal the acquittal of the<\/p>\n
first respondent of offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide Section 255<\/p>\n
(1) of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The first respondent filed complaint<\/p>\n
in the court below alleging inter alia that<\/p>\n
the accused is a business man engaged in real<\/p>\n
estate  business;            that         for        his     business<\/p>\n
purposes  he     borrowed           Rs.89,500\/-            from   the<\/p>\n
appellant on 15\/03\/96 and issued Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
in  discharge      of      the      said        debt       with  date<\/p>\n
15\/04\/96 drawn on his account at the District<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank, Kollam; that the cheque was<\/p>\n
forwarded for encashment through his bankers<\/p>\n
the Federal Bank Nemom branch Thiruvananthapuram<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
        and it was returned dishonoured by the drawee<\/p>\n
        bank         under    Ext.P2   dishonour  memorandum<\/p>\n
        assigning the reason funds insufficient that<\/p>\n
        Ext.P1 cheque along with Ext.P2 memorandum was<\/p>\n
        forwarded to him by his bankers under Ext.P3<\/p>\n
        memorandum that thereupon, the original of<\/p>\n
        Ext.P4 notice dt.15\/05\/96 was caused to be<\/p>\n
        issued to the first respondent under Ext.P5<\/p>\n
        postal         registration receipt  intimating the<\/p>\n
        first respondent of dishonour of the said<\/p>\n
        cheque and demanding payment of the amount<\/p>\n
        covered by the cheque, but that the first<\/p>\n
        respondent who received the original of Ext.P4<\/p>\n
        notice under Ext.P6 postal acknowledgment card<\/p>\n
        has not paid up the amounts covered by the<\/p>\n
        cheque either within the statutory period or<\/p>\n
        ever thereafter and he has thereby committed<\/p>\n
        offence punishable under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
        N.I. Act.\n<\/p>\n
                3. The learned Magistrate registered the<\/p>\n
        complaint on his file as C.C.510\/96 taking<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
        cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
        the N.I. Act recording the sworn statement of<\/p>\n
        the appellant. On issuance of summons the<\/p>\n
        first respondent entered appearance and he was<\/p>\n
        served with copies of all relevant records in<\/p>\n
        the      case      and he   was  questioned by  the<\/p>\n
        Magistrate reading over the particulars of the<\/p>\n
        offence and explaining it to him. Thereupon,<\/p>\n
        he pleaded not guilty and consequently, a<\/p>\n
        trial of the case was conducted by the court<\/p>\n
        below. On the side of the appellant PWs.1 and<\/p>\n
        2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were got<\/p>\n
        marked.          On  the  complainant  closing  his<\/p>\n
        evidence the first respondent was questioned<\/p>\n
        by the Magistrate under Section 313 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
        Thereupon,           he    generally   denied   all<\/p>\n
        incriminating          circumstances  appearing  in<\/p>\n
        evidence against him and maintained that he is<\/p>\n
        innocent. According to him, Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
        issued by him not in connection with the<\/p>\n
        transaction alleged but that in connection<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
        with an agreement to sell property belonging<\/p>\n
        to     the      first respondent  an  agreement  was<\/p>\n
        executed and by way of advance Rs.10,500\/- was<\/p>\n
        paid in cash and for the balance Rs.89,500\/-<\/p>\n
        Ext.P1 cheque was issued and the appellant<\/p>\n
        gave him duly executed the agreement and the<\/p>\n
        prior documents but that as the extent of the<\/p>\n
        property was less by three cents the agreement<\/p>\n
        was not performed.\n<\/p>\n
                4. On the defence side DW1 is examined<\/p>\n
        and Exts.D1 to D7 were got marked. The court<\/p>\n
        below considered the case in the light of the<\/p>\n
        evidence adduced as aforesaid; found that the<\/p>\n
        appellant has failed to prove and establish<\/p>\n
        guilt         in   the accused   and   consequently,<\/p>\n
        acquitted         the first  respondent of   offence<\/p>\n
        punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act<\/p>\n
        as already stated. Hence, this appeal by the<\/p>\n
        aggrieved appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                5. It is vehemently contended before me<\/p>\n
        by the learned counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001           -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
        Ext.D1          agreement   was   executed   by   the<\/p>\n
        appellant;         his  wife  and  his  father-in-law<\/p>\n
        receiving an amount of Rs.1 lakh in advance<\/p>\n
        agreeing to sell an extent of 19.5 cents to<\/p>\n
        the first respondent before 15\/04\/96; that the<\/p>\n
        value was being fixed at Rs.13,250\/- per cent<\/p>\n
        and that the transaction evidenced by Ext.P1<\/p>\n
        has       absolutely     no    connection  with   the<\/p>\n
        transaction evidenced by Ext.D1 and that there<\/p>\n
        is no mention in Ext.D1 that the amount of<\/p>\n
        Rs.1 lakh was being advanced by payment of<\/p>\n
        Rs.89,500\/- by Ext.P1 cheque and the balance<\/p>\n
        only in cash and that the court below has not<\/p>\n
        properly          appreciated   the  case   and   has<\/p>\n
        acquitted the accused entering into a wrong<\/p>\n
        finding that the appellant has not established<\/p>\n
        the      case     alleged  though   the  evidence is<\/p>\n
        sufficient         to  establish   the  case  of  the<\/p>\n
        appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                6. On the other hand, it is vehemently<\/p>\n
        contended         by  the   counsel  for   the  first<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
        respondent that the extent of property was<\/p>\n
        found to be less on measurement and therefore,<\/p>\n
        the first respondent withdrew from purchasing<\/p>\n
        the property and consequently Ext.D1 agreement<\/p>\n
        was not performed and that it is to wreak<\/p>\n
        vengeance that the appellant has filed the<\/p>\n
        present           complaint and   that  the  first<\/p>\n
        respondent has already filed O.S.1329\/98 on<\/p>\n
        the         file      of   the   Munsiff’s  Court,<\/p>\n
        Thiruvananthapuram           against   the   first<\/p>\n
        respondent, his wife and his father-in-law who<\/p>\n
        are parties in Ext.D1 agreement praying for a<\/p>\n
        decree for return of the advance amount of<\/p>\n
        Rs.10,500\/- with interest and cost and for a<\/p>\n
        direction for return of Ext.P1 cheque for the<\/p>\n
        balance          amount  of Rs.89,500\/- that being<\/p>\n
        cheque delivered over to the appellant to<\/p>\n
        satisfy the advance of Rs.1 lakh under Ext.D1<\/p>\n
        agreement.\n<\/p>\n
                7. Ext.D3 is the plaint in the said suit.<\/p>\n
        Ext.D4 is the written statement filed therein<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001          -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
        by defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit of whom<\/p>\n
        the second defendant is the appellant. Ext.D5<\/p>\n
        is     copy       of petition  filed by the  first<\/p>\n
        respondent for attachment before judgment of<\/p>\n
        the property agreed to be sold for the amount<\/p>\n
        sought to be recovered in Ext.D3 suit. Ext.D2<\/p>\n
        is the attested copy of notice issued by the<\/p>\n
        first respondent to the appellant, his wife<\/p>\n
        and his father in law and Ext.D6 is reply<\/p>\n
        issued by them thereto. The said notice and<\/p>\n
        reply would show that there existed dispute<\/p>\n
        with       respect   to  extent  of land that  was<\/p>\n
        available for sale to the first respondent<\/p>\n
        under Ext.D1 agreement. It is seen from Ext.D2<\/p>\n
        that it was being issued on 12\/06\/96 whereas<\/p>\n
        the complaint was being filed by the appellant<\/p>\n
        in the court below subsequent to that on<\/p>\n
        15\/06\/96. This suggests that the complaint<\/p>\n
        filed by the appellant in the court below is a<\/p>\n
        counter blast for action proposed vide Ext.D2<\/p>\n
        notice from the second respondent. Even in<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
        Ext.D2 notice the case of the first respondent<\/p>\n
        is that the amount of Rs.1 lakh advanced under<\/p>\n
        Ext.D1 agreement was by payment of Rs.10,500\/-<\/p>\n
        in cash and the balance by Ext.P1 cheque. If<\/p>\n
        at all the first respondent had paid Rs.1 lakh<\/p>\n
        in cash under Ext.D1 agreement certainly he<\/p>\n
        would not have filed Ext.D3 suit advancing<\/p>\n
        claim for return of Ext.P1 cheque and the<\/p>\n
        balance amount paid under Ext.D1 agreement.<\/p>\n
        The appellant as PW1 has admitted in cross<\/p>\n
        examination        that the   amount  of Rs.1 lakh<\/p>\n
        received          under Ext.D1    from  the  first<\/p>\n
        respondent is not refunded to him but in the<\/p>\n
        next breath he says that that amount was<\/p>\n
        received by his father-in-law. The suggestion<\/p>\n
        put to him that Ext.D1 was being issued to<\/p>\n
        satisfy the amount made mention of in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
        has however been denied by PW1. It is worthy<\/p>\n
        to note that there is absolutely no evidence<\/p>\n
        furnished by PW1 as regards the source of<\/p>\n
        money that he had, to advance Rs.89,500\/- to<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
        the first respondent on 15\/03\/96 especially<\/p>\n
        when he states that the amount under Ext.D1<\/p>\n
        was being received by way of advance by his<\/p>\n
        father-in-law. It has been held by the Apex<\/p>\n
        Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde<\/a> (2008<\/p>\n
        (1) KHC 410 SC) that the presumption available<\/p>\n
        under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is not<\/p>\n
        regarding existence of a debt or regarding<\/p>\n
        existence of a legally enforceable\/recoverable<\/p>\n
        debt but that the presumption available in<\/p>\n
        favour of the holder of the cheque is only<\/p>\n
        that he received it in discharge of debt or<\/p>\n
        other liability. If at all as is contended by<\/p>\n
        the first respondent the cheque was not being<\/p>\n
        issued to make up Rs.1 lakh by way of advance<\/p>\n
        under Ext.D1 agreement and as contended by the<\/p>\n
        appellant the said advance was being received<\/p>\n
        by      his      father-in-law  it  was     up    to    the<\/p>\n
        appellant to show from where he did have so<\/p>\n
        much funds with him to advance Rs.89,500\/- to<\/p>\n
        the first respondent on his asking for a loan.<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001         -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
        There is absolutely no evidence as regards the<\/p>\n
        financial         ability  of   the appellant.  A<\/p>\n
        suggestion was put from this Court as to<\/p>\n
        whether the appellant is ready to settle the<\/p>\n
        matter along with Ext.D3 suit and to have an<\/p>\n
        amicable settlement of all disputes between<\/p>\n
        him and the first respondent provided the<\/p>\n
        first respondent gives up all claims under<\/p>\n
        Ext.D1 and returns all the original documents<\/p>\n
        received under Ext.D1. But counsel for the<\/p>\n
        appellant submitted that the transactions are<\/p>\n
        different and that he has to ascertain however<\/p>\n
        the willingness of his party. Accordingly the<\/p>\n
        case was posted to this day to ascertain<\/p>\n
        chances of settlement. Today, the counsel for<\/p>\n
        the respondent has brought all the original<\/p>\n
        documents which the first respondent received<\/p>\n
        under        Ext.D1  agreement  for sale and  the<\/p>\n
        counsel for the appellant submits that he is<\/p>\n
        not      aware     as  to whether  these are  the<\/p>\n
        documents. When asked as to whether the appeal<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001         -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
        can be withdrawn in case the documents brought<\/p>\n
        by the counsel for the respondent are the<\/p>\n
        documents received under Ext.D1 the answer of<\/p>\n
        the counsel for the appellant was that he has<\/p>\n
        further to ask the appellant. However, the<\/p>\n
        appellant also is not present before court. It<\/p>\n
        appears that the appellant is not at all<\/p>\n
        interested in settling the matter and it is<\/p>\n
        not proper also to adjourn this case further<\/p>\n
        when the party is not desirous of settling the<\/p>\n
        matter. In view of my discussions on merits of<\/p>\n
        the case made above, I am of the view that the<\/p>\n
        appellant         has not established that Ext.P1<\/p>\n
        cheque is one issued by the first respondent<\/p>\n
        to him in discharge of any debt or other<\/p>\n
        liability and that the appellant is also not<\/p>\n
        shown to have any source to advance so much<\/p>\n
        amount to the first respondent on the mere<\/p>\n
        asking especially when even the amount which<\/p>\n
        the appellant states as having been received<\/p>\n
        namely         Rs.1  lakh under Ext.D1 was being<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2001         -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
        received according to him by his father-in-law<\/p>\n
        and not by him. Hence, concurring with the<\/p>\n
        finding of the court below I also conclude<\/p>\n
        that the appellant has miserably failed to<\/p>\n
        establish a case for conviction for offence<\/p>\n
        under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as against<\/p>\n
        the first respondent. This appeal is hence,<\/p>\n
        devoid         of  merit and  deserves   only to  be<\/p>\n
        dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                8. In the result, I dismiss this Criminal<\/p>\n
        Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
\n                                                       JUDGE
\n        kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 401 of 2001() 1. C.MANIKANTAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. S.KRISHNAKUMAR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN Dated :11\/04\/2008 O R D E R K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ———————————————— […]<\/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-22062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 - 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\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-16T11:26:24+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\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-16T11:26:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1884,\"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\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\",\"name\":\"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-16T11:26:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 - 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\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-16T11:26:24+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\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-16T11:26:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008"},"wordCount":1884,"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\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008","name":"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-16T11:26:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-s-krishnakumar-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Manikantan Nair vs S.Krishnakumar on 11 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/22062","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=22062"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22062\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}