{"id":250009,"date":"2009-06-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-17T17:27:05","modified_gmt":"2018-11-17T11:57:05","slug":"c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 311 of 2003()\n\n\n1. C.A.MATHEW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.SWADESHI TILE WORKS, CHERUVANNUR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. K.V.AVARANKUTTY HAJI, MANAGING PARTNER,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUDHIR, SC, P.F.\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :19\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J.\n                       ---------------------------\n        CRL.A.Nos.311\/2003, 312\/2003 and 313\/2003\n                 ---------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                          ~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n<p>       All these appeals are filed against the order passed by<\/p>\n<p>the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court &#8211; V, Kozhikode, in<\/p>\n<p>S.Ts.2035\/99, 2036\/99 and 2037\/99. It was a prosecution<\/p>\n<p>initiated under the provisions of the Employees&#8217; Provident<\/p>\n<p>Funds and <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_1\">Miscellaneous Provisions Act<\/a>, 1952.               The<\/p>\n<p>prosecution was launched by an Inspector appointed u\/s.13<\/p>\n<p>of the Act for violation and non-compliance of the statutory<\/p>\n<p>requirements under the Act. In the court below an argument<\/p>\n<p>was raised to the effect that the sanction obtained u\/s.14-AC<\/p>\n<p>of the said Act is not in conformity with law and therefore, the<\/p>\n<p>whole action has to be treated as invalid for want of proper<\/p>\n<p>sanction. The trial court agreed with that contention and held<\/p>\n<p>that the complainant should have obtained sanction from the<\/p>\n<p>State Government and therefore close all the cases by<\/p>\n<p>acquitting the accused u\/s.255(1) of <a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_1\">Cr.P.C<\/a>. It is against that<\/p>\n<p>CRL.A.Nos.311\/2003, 312\/2003 and 313\/2003<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>decision, the complainant has come up in appeal before this<\/p>\n<p>court. The point that arises for determination is,<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      1. Whether the trial court was right in holding that the<\/p>\n<p>sanction obtained is not proper and therefore prosecution<\/p>\n<p>will not lie.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">      2.     Point No.1 :-        As stated by me earlier, the<\/p>\n<p>prosecution is launched under the provisions of the<\/p>\n<p>Employees&#8217; Provident Funds and <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_2\">Miscellaneous Provisions<\/p>\n<p>Act<\/a>, 1952. Under the said enactment <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 14-AC<\/a>, deals<\/p>\n<p>with the cognizance and trial of offences. <a href=\"\/doc\/88376\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 14-AC<\/a> of<\/p>\n<p>the   Employees&#8217;        Provident     Funds and   <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_5\">Miscellaneous<\/p>\n<p>Provisions Act<\/a>, 1952 reads as follows :- &#8221; No court shall take<\/p>\n<p>cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, the<\/p>\n<p>Scheme or [ the (Pension) Scheme or the Insurance<\/p>\n<p>Scheme ], except on a report in writing of the facts constituting<\/p>\n<p>such offence made with the previous sanction of the Central<\/p>\n<p>Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be<\/p>\n<p>authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the<\/p>\n<p>Official Gazette, in this behalf, by an Inspector appointed<\/p>\n<p>under <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 13<\/a>.&#8221; A reading of this section would make it<\/p>\n<p>CRL.A.Nos.311\/2003, 312\/2003 and 313\/2003<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>clear that it is an Inspector appointed u\/s.13 of the Act on<\/p>\n<p>filing a report in writing with the previous sanction of the<\/p>\n<p>Central Provident Fund Commissioner or the authorised<\/p>\n<p>Officer appointed by the Central Government shall initiate the<\/p>\n<p>prosecution. Now what the trial court has done is, it went to<\/p>\n<p>the provisions regarding the appointment of inspectors u\/s.13<\/p>\n<p>and then held that they are appointed by the State<\/p>\n<p>Government and therefore, appropriate government is the<\/p>\n<p>State Government and so without the sanction of the State<\/p>\n<p>Government, the prosecution would not lie. I am afraid, the<\/p>\n<p>learned Magistrate has not understood the impact of <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section<\/p>\n<p>14-AC<\/a>. <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 14-AC<\/a> makes the inspector competent to file<\/p>\n<p>the complaint.      The said inspector has to put a report in<\/p>\n<p>writing. He has to get the previous sanction of the Central<\/p>\n<p>Provident Fund Commissioner or such other Officer as may<\/p>\n<p>be authorised by the Central Government. So the sanction is<\/p>\n<p>to be obtained only either from the Central Provident Fund<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner or the persons authorised on that behalf by the<\/p>\n<p>Central Government. Now learned counsel had pointed out to<\/p>\n<p>me the sanction order which is marked as Ext.P5 in the case.<\/p>\n<p>CRL.A.Nos.311\/2003, 312\/2003 and 313\/2003<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Ext.P5 is an order of sanction issued by the Regional<\/p>\n<p>Provident Fund Commissioner, Calicut.            So unless the<\/p>\n<p>complainant is able to establish that the Regional Provident<\/p>\n<p>Fund Commissioner, Calicut is authorised by necessary<\/p>\n<p>notification by the Central Government to give sanction, then<\/p>\n<p>a prosecution will not lie. But on a reading of Ext.P5 there is a<\/p>\n<p>specific reference to a notification and S.O.549 (E dated<\/p>\n<p>17.10.1973), a photo copy had been made available for<\/p>\n<p>perusal and I feel that the said notification will cover the field.<\/p>\n<p>But the learned counsel for the respondent in the cases would<\/p>\n<p>submit before me that let that be not decided here and he be<\/p>\n<p>permitted to raise the contentions regarding the correctness<\/p>\n<p>and applicability before the court below when the notification<\/p>\n<p>itself is produced. I do not want to deny the opportunity to be<\/p>\n<p>given to the respondent herein, but suffice to say, all these<\/p>\n<p>three cases requires reconsideration at the hands of the<\/p>\n<p>concerned Magistrate.          Therefore, the order of acquittal<\/p>\n<p>passed in all these cases are set aside and the matter is<\/p>\n<p>remitted back to the concerned Magistrate for fresh hearing<\/p>\n<p>on the question, whether there is a proper sanction as<\/p>\n<p>CRL.A.Nos.311\/2003, 312\/2003 and 313\/2003<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>contemplated u\/s.14-AC of the Employees&#8217; Provident Funds<\/p>\n<p>and <a href=\"\/doc\/269107\/\" id=\"a_9\">Miscellaneous Provisions Act<\/a>, 1952.          For the said<\/p>\n<p>purpose both the complainant and the accused are permitted<\/p>\n<p>to produce documentary evidence in support of their<\/p>\n<p>respective contention and let the matter be heard and<\/p>\n<p>disposed of in accordance with law. Needless to say if the<\/p>\n<p>court finds that sanction is proper, the court will proceed<\/p>\n<p>further by giving an opportunity to the parties to raise their<\/p>\n<p>contention in support of their cases. It is submitted that the<\/p>\n<p>accused in the case is old and the matter is being looked<\/p>\n<p>after by the children and when an application is filed for<\/p>\n<p>exemption, let the court below consider it sympathetically and<\/p>\n<p>pass appropriate orders. The parties are directed to appear<\/p>\n<p>before the court below on 29.7.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\n<p id=\"p_4\">                                         M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>ami.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 311 of 2003() 1. C.A.MATHEW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.SWADESHI TILE WORKS, CHERUVANNUR, &#8230; Respondent 2. K.V.AVARANKUTTY HAJI, MANAGING PARTNER, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHIR, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 - 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\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-17T11:57:05+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=\"5 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-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\\\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T11:57:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":900,\"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-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\",\"name\":\"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\\\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T11:57:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\\\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 - 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\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-17T11:57:05+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T11:57:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009"},"wordCount":900,"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-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009","name":"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T11:57:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-mathew-enforcement-officer-vs-ms-swadeshi-tile-works-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.A.Mathew Enforcement Officer vs M\/S.Swadeshi Tile Works on 19 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/250009","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=250009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}