{"id":232184,"date":"2008-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-13T05:38:40","modified_gmt":"2016-03-13T00:08:40","slug":"cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 1109 of 2007()\n\n\n1. CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LIMITED,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.H.ABDULLA, S\/O. HASSAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. P.A.ISHA, W\/O. K.H.ABDULLA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :04\/07\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                       -------------------------------\n\n                         C.R.P.No.1109 of 2007\n\n                       -------------------------------\n\n                      Dated this the 4th July, 2008.\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                Original sole defendant in O.S.No.1441 of 2006, on the<\/p>\n
file of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, is the petitioner. Respondents are the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the certificate<\/p>\n
issued by Additional Registering Authority is valid and subsisting, and<\/p>\n
that the finance with the defendant has been cancelled with effect from<\/p>\n
31.12.2003 as shown in the certificate, and also for a permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction restraining defendant from proceeding against<\/p>\n
the vehicle. When petitioner, the sole defendant, filed a petition under<\/p>\n
Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’),<\/p>\n
contending that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement entered<\/p>\n
into by the petitioner and respondents, respondents got impleaded the<\/p>\n
registering authority as well as State of Kerala as additional<\/p>\n
defendants.     In the written statement filed subsequently, petitioner<\/p>\n
contended that they re-possessed the vehicle as per the terms of the<\/p>\n
agreement on 11.7.2002 and thereafter sold the vehicle to one<\/p>\n
Mammooty for Rs.2,15,000\/= and as he paid that amount, form No.35<\/p>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
declaration was issued to him to enable him to cancel the endorsement<\/p>\n
in the registration certificate of the vehicle, and thereafter respondents<\/p>\n
purchased the vehicle from the said Mammooty and they obtained<\/p>\n
cancellation of the endorsement from Regional Transport Officer and<\/p>\n
registering authority and the State are not necessary parties to the<\/p>\n
suit.   Learned Munsiff, under order dated 25.10.2007 dismissed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.522\/2007, the petition filed under Section 8(1) of the Act. This<\/p>\n
revision petition is filed challenging that order.<\/p>\n
                2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the respondents were heard.<\/p>\n
                3.      Under the impugned order, learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
dismissed the petition on three grounds. Firstly, it was found that the<\/p>\n
original agreement between petitioner and respondents was not<\/p>\n
produced, and what was produced is only a notorised copy, which is<\/p>\n
not a duly certified copy or the original of the agreement, as provided<\/p>\n
under Section 8 of the Act.         Secondly, it was found that as the<\/p>\n
agreement was not produced before the court at all and therefore<\/p>\n
Section 8 of the Act cannot be applied. Thirdly, it was found that the<\/p>\n
contract between the petitioner and respondents was cancelled, and,<\/p>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore, the arbitration clause cannot be invoked.       Finally, it was<\/p>\n
found that in the suit, additional defendants 2 and 3 are also parties,<\/p>\n
and they are not parties to the agreement contained in the arbitration<\/p>\n
clause, and the relief sought for in the suit is for a declaration with<\/p>\n
regard to the certificate issued by the second defendant, and the cause<\/p>\n
of action as against them cannot be split up and the suit referred to<\/p>\n
arbitration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                4.   Section 8(1) of the Act provides that a judicial<\/p>\n
authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the<\/p>\n
subject of an arbitration agreement, and a party applies not later than<\/p>\n
submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, has to<\/p>\n
refer the parties to arbitration. Under sub-section (2), the application<\/p>\n
referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained       unless it is<\/p>\n
accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified<\/p>\n
copy thereof.    Petitioner did not produce the original agreement. The<\/p>\n
original agreement was not produced before the court by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
also. What was produced was only a notorised copy. It is for that<\/p>\n
reason learned Munsiff held that it is not a duly certified copy. True, a<\/p>\n
notorised copy cannot be a duly certified copy.          But question is<\/p>\n
whether a notorised copy of the agreement will suffice for a reference<\/p>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
as provided under Section 8(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in N.I.I.T v.<\/p>\n
Manoharan<\/a> (2005 (3) KLT 1025) considered a similar question. In<\/p>\n
that case, the original document was available in the court though not<\/p>\n
produced by the party who filed the petition. The question whether a<\/p>\n
copy of the agreement would suffice was considered by the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge in the light of the decision of Calcutta High Court in ITC<\/p>\n
Classic Finance Ltd. v. Grapco Mining & Co. Ltd. (AIR 1997<\/p>\n
CALCUTTA 397). It was held that production of the original agreement<\/p>\n
or duly certified copy is to find out whether there is an arbitration<\/p>\n
clause in the agreement and when the original agreement is before<\/p>\n
the court or when existence of the agreement and the arbitration<\/p>\n
clause therein is not disputed, failure to produce the original<\/p>\n
agreement or duly certified copy is not fatal. That view was followed<\/p>\n
by another Single Judge of this Court in Natarajan v General<\/p>\n
Manager, Southern Railways (2006(2) klt 390). Considering the<\/p>\n
object of Section 8, I am in agreement with the views expressed by<\/p>\n
the learned Judges in those cases. When there is no case for the<\/p>\n
respondents that the notorised copy of the agreement produced is not<\/p>\n
the original agreement, learned Munsiff should not have held that the<\/p>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
application is not maintainable for the non production of the original<\/p>\n
agreement or the duly certified copy thereof.<\/p>\n
                6. But question is when the relief sought for in the suit<\/p>\n
is a declaration with regard to the certificate issued by the second<\/p>\n
defendant, whether that relief could be split up or whether it is a<\/p>\n
dispute which could be settled by the arbitration as provided in the<\/p>\n
agreement.      Clause 23 of the agreement in the case defenitely<\/p>\n
provides for arbitration under that clause, all disputes, differences and<\/p>\n
claims arising out of the agreement during the subsistence of the<\/p>\n
agreement, as well as thereafter, is covered by the said arbitration<\/p>\n
clause. But when the subject matter of the suit is not the dispute<\/p>\n
covered by the agreement, there cannot be a reference of that dispute<\/p>\n
to the Arbitrator as sought for by the petitioner. Even according to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, vehicle was re-possessed from the possession of<\/p>\n
respondents and was sold to one Mammooty. When that vehicle was<\/p>\n
sold for Rs.2,15,000\/= to Mammooty, the hire purchase agreement<\/p>\n
which was existing till then will cease to subsist thereafter, because as<\/p>\n
far as Mammooty is concerned, he has purchased the vehicle from the<\/p>\n
financier and the vehicle was sold in favour of Mammooty for<\/p>\n
realisation of the amount due under the finance transaction.<\/p>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore, the registering authority certified that the finance originally<\/p>\n
available to the vehicle is not subsisting. The declaration sought for in<\/p>\n
the suit is only with regard to that certificate. The declaration is not<\/p>\n
that the liability of the respondents under the agreement is either<\/p>\n
satisfied or closed. As the relief sought for is limited to the extent of<\/p>\n
the certificate issued by second defendant, it cannot be said that that<\/p>\n
is a dispute to be referred to arbitration invoking the arbitration clause<\/p>\n
in the agreement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                7. The question whether when the reliefs sought for in<\/p>\n
the suit and the subject matter of the suit are overlaping and the<\/p>\n
subject matter could be split up and arbitration clause could be made<\/p>\n
applicable to one part alone and whether the suit could be referred to<\/p>\n
arbitration in such a case, under Section 8 of the Act, was considered<\/p>\n
by the Apex Court in India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG<\/p>\n
Household and Healthcare Ltd.<\/a> (2007 (5) SCC 510).                Following<\/p>\n
the earlier decision in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh<\/p>\n
H.Pandya<\/a> (2003 (5) SCC 531) it was held:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “21.    The said prayers fall outside the
\n            arbitration agreement since LG logo belongs to LG
\n            Corporation which is the owner of the trade mark.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
            It is not a party to the arbitration agreement. It
\n            allegedly has filed a separate suit. In a case of this
\n            nature, a Division Bench of this Court in Sukanya
\n            Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H.Pandya<\/a> held:(SCC
\n            p.535, para 13)<\/p>\n
                         “13. Secondly, there is no provision in
\n                  the Act that when the subject matter of the
\n                  suit includes subject matter of the arbitration
\n                  agreement as well as other disputes, the
\n                  matter     is  required   to  be   referred   to
\n                  arbitration.   There is also no provision for
\n                  splitting the cause or parties and referring the
\n                  subject matter of the suit to the arbitrators.”<\/p>\n
             It was further stated: (SCC p.536, paras 16-17)<\/p>\n
                       “16.    The next question which requires
\n                  consideration is-even if there is no provision
\n                  for partly referring the dispute to arbitration,
\n                  whether such a course is possible under
\n                  Section 8 of the Act. In our view, it would be
\n                  difficult to give an interpretation to Section 8
\n                  under which bifurcation of the cause of action,
\n                  that is to say, the subject matter of the suit or
\n                  in some cases bifurcation of the suit between
\n                  parties who are parties to the arbitration
\n                  agreement and others is not possible. This
\n                  would be laying down a totally new procedure
\n                  not contemplated under the Act. If bifurcation
\n                  of   the    subject  matter   of  a   suit  was
\n                  contemplated, the legislature would have
\n                  used appropriate language to permit such a
\n                  course. Since there is no such indication in
\n                  the language, it follows that bifurcation of the<\/p>\n
CRP.No.1109 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
                   subject matter of an action brought before a
\n                   judicial authority is not allowed.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                          17. Secondly, such bifurcation of suit in
\n                   two parts, one to be decided by the Arbitral
\n                   Tribunal and the other to be decided by the
\n                   civil   court  would     inevitably delay   the
\n                   proceedings.    The whole purpose of speedy
\n                   disposal of dispute and decreasing the cost of
\n                   litigation  would    be   frustrated by    such
\n                   procedure. It would also increase the cost of
\n                   litigation and harassment to the parties and
\n                   on occasions there is possibility of conflicting
\n                   judgments and       orders    by two  different
\n                   forums.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        22. We, are, however, not oblivious of
\n                   the fact that Sukanya Holdings has been
\n                   distinguished in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v.
\n                   Verma Transport Co. The<\/a> present case,
\n                   however, is covered by Sukanya Holdings.\n<\/p>\n
                 In the light of the law as settled, I do not find any<\/p>\n
illegality of irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order.<\/p>\n
Revision Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
nj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 1109 of 2007() 1. CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LIMITED, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.H.ABDULLA, S\/O. HASSAN, … Respondent 2. P.A.ISHA, W\/O. K.H.ABDULLA, For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-232184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCholamandalam Dbs Finance ... vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 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\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance ... vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-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=\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-13T00:08:40+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\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T00:08:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1650,\"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\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance ... vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T00:08:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 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":"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance ... vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 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\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance ... vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-13T00:08:40+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\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T00:08:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008"},"wordCount":1650,"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\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008","name":"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance ... vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T00:08:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cholamandalam-dbs-finance-vs-k-h-abdulla-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cholamandalam Dbs Finance … vs K.H.Abdulla on 4 July, 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\/232184","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=232184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}