{"id":255000,"date":"2011-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-24T05:17:16","modified_gmt":"2019-01-23T23:47:16","slug":"p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP(C).No. 1299 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. P.V.RAMU, S\/O.ELUMBAN, PUTHOORVAYAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. P.LAKSHMANAN, PUTHOORVAYAL VEEDU,\n3. M.C.SEBASTIAN, MADATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE,\n4. P.M.RAGHAVAN, PANAYI HOUSE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.C<\/a>.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :31\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n                      P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n                  --------------------------------------\n                  O.P.(Civil) No.1299 OF 2010\n                  --------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                         ~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n
      The    petitioners     are     the     judgment    debtors  in<\/p>\n
A.P.No.150\/2001, an arbitration award. In execution of the said<\/p>\n
award, the respondent filed E.P.No.8\/2009. Ext.P2 is the copy of<\/p>\n
the Execution Petition.      The prayer sought in the Execution<\/p>\n
Petition is for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors.<\/p>\n
According to the 1st respondent, the judgment debtors are<\/p>\n
having sufficient means to discharge the decree debt. To prove<\/p>\n
the same, affidavits were also filed before the Execution Court.<\/p>\n
Notice under Order XXI Rule 37 was served upon the judgment<\/p>\n
debtors.   In response to the notice, judgment debtors filed<\/p>\n
separate   counter     statements.      The     1st  judgment debtor<\/p>\n
(Petitioner No.1) mainly assailed the award though execution<\/p>\n
court is not the forum to assail the award. He had admitted that<\/p>\n
he had one acre of property and that was also attached by the<\/p>\n
decree holder. There is no mention that he lacks means to<\/p>\n
discharge the decree debt. It is revealed by the statment filed<\/p>\n
him under Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC that he is employed in<\/p>\n
O.P.(C) No.1299\/2010             2<\/span><\/p>\n
police department. However, he suppressed the gross salary.<\/p>\n
Other judgment debtors had raised a contention that they have<\/p>\n
no means to discharge the decree debt. The Execution Court on<\/p>\n
10.12.2010 passed the impugned order, which is quoted in<\/p>\n
paragraph 5 of the petition as follows: (Certified copy of the<\/p>\n
order is not produced)<\/p>\n
           “JD not filed affidavit as represented on
\n           15.11.2010.  Decree holder filed affidavit
\n           stating that Jds are having sufficient means
\n           but not paying deliberately.  It prima facie
\n           proved that deliberate omission on the part of
\n           JDs to remit decree amount, long pending as
\n           EP, hence ordered to arrest the JDs.\n<\/p>\n
           Issueorder of arrest. Arrest on 4.1.2011.”<\/p>\n
Assailing the said order, this petition was filed.<\/p>\n
     2.    I have heard Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.R.Dayananda Prabhu, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.<\/p>\n
O.P.(C) No.1299\/2010            3<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.    The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit<\/p>\n
that the 1st petitioner though employed in Police department,<\/p>\n
was having no sufficient means to pay off the decree debt in<\/p>\n
lump as the total claim exceeds Rs.10,25,000\/-.          In such<\/p>\n
submission, there is total lack of bonafides because the<\/p>\n
1st petitioner has no case that he had paid anything though the<\/p>\n
award was passed ten years back. Had he cared to pay within<\/p>\n
the means, sometimes, the decree debt could have been wiped<\/p>\n
off. It is evident that he was purposefully avoiding payment. As<\/p>\n
regards the other petitioners, the argument advanced is that<\/p>\n
since they are having no means to discharge the decree debt, the<\/p>\n
prayer for execution of the decree by arrest and detention is not<\/p>\n
at all sustainable. It was also submitted by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner that though the petitoners had filed objection,<\/p>\n
the Execution Court didn’t consider the same. According to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel, that is the main grievance of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
      4.    According to the learned counsel for the respondent,<\/p>\n
the court below ordered arrest after having satisfied by the<\/p>\n
affidavit of the respondent that the petitioners have sufficient<\/p>\n
O.P.(C) No.1299\/2010            4<\/span><\/p>\n
means to discharge the decree debt and they are wilfully<\/p>\n
avoiding discharge and hence the order of arrest is perfectly<\/p>\n
justified. It was also submitted that if it is a defence of no<\/p>\n
means, they could very well raise the same before the court<\/p>\n
below during the course of enquiry under Order XXI Rule 40 and<\/p>\n
this petition is premature and misconceived and the order<\/p>\n
impugned is not liable to be interfered.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      5.   Going by Order XXI Rule 40, I find that even if the<\/p>\n
petitioners were arrested and brought before the Execution<\/p>\n
Court in pursuance to the warrant of arrest, since the plea is of<\/p>\n
no means, they are at liberty to raise their objections before they<\/p>\n
being sent to civil prision as the legislature had provided post<\/p>\n
arrest enquiry. For a correct appraisal, I find that it would be<\/p>\n
appropriate to read Order XX1 Rule 40.\n<\/p>\n
           “40. Proceedings    on    appearance      of
\n           judgment debtor in obedience to notice or
\n           after arrest:-\n<\/p>\n
                (1)  When a judgment debtor appears
\n           before the Court in obedience to a notice
\n           issued under Rule 37, or is brought before
\n           the Court after being arrested in execution<\/p>\n
O.P.(C) No.1299\/2010               5<\/span><\/p>\n
            of a decree for the payment of money, the
\n            Court shall proced to hear the decree holder
\n            and take all such evidence as may be produced
\n            by him in support of his application for
\n            execution, and shall then give the judgment
\n            debtor an opportunity to showing cause why
\n            he should not be committed to civil prison.”<\/p>\n
In the light of the above provision, when the judgment debtors<\/p>\n
are brought before the Execution Court after being arrested, the<\/p>\n
Execution Court is bound to hear the decree holder and take all<\/p>\n
such evidence and the judgment debtors shall be given an<\/p>\n
opportunity to show cause for not committing to civil prison in<\/p>\n
execution of the decree. At that stage, the petitioners can raise<\/p>\n
their plea of no means.       So, appropriate remedy is provided<\/p>\n
under the Civil Procedure Code itself even if the petitioners<\/p>\n
were arrested and produced before the court. The petitioners<\/p>\n
ought have availed the same instead of rushing to this Court.<\/p>\n
Since it is revealed that the Execution Court had ordered to<\/p>\n
issue arrest warrant on satisfaction of the means of the judgment<\/p>\n
debtors for discharge of the decree debt, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
affidavit filed by the decree holder in support of the Execution<\/p>\n
Petition and since the Civil Procedure Code provides provision<\/p>\n
O.P.(C) No.1299\/2010            6<\/span><\/p>\n
for hearing the judgment debtors before committing to the civil<\/p>\n
prison, I find that the order impugned has no way caused any<\/p>\n
prejudice to the petitioners. Neither it is illegal so as to be<\/p>\n
rectified in exercise of the powers vested on this Court under<\/p>\n
Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      6.   I find that, in the above circumstance, this Writ<\/p>\n
Petition can be disposed with a direction to the petitioners to<\/p>\n
move the Execution Court for ventilating their grievance and to<\/p>\n
direct the Execution Court to proceed further only after<\/p>\n
conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Order XXI<\/p>\n
Rule 40.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      In the above circumstance, this Writ petition is disposed<\/p>\n
with a direction to the Execution Court to proceed further only<\/p>\n
after conducting an enquiry under Order XXI Rule 40.       It is<\/p>\n
submitted from the Bar that the Execution Petition is posted on<\/p>\n
17.2.2011. The petitioners are directed to appear before the<\/p>\n
Execution Court on 17.2.2011. On their appearance, they shall<\/p>\n
be treated as brought under arrest and to proceed further under<\/p>\n
O.P.(C) No.1299\/2010            7<\/span><\/p>\n
Order XXI Rule 40.       If the petitioners fail to appear, the<\/p>\n
execution court shall issue fresh warrant. In the case of the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner, issuance of arrest warrant shall be intimated to the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police of the District with request for<\/p>\n
initiating action under Rule 51 of the Government Servants’<\/p>\n
Conduct Rule. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                  (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
ps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP(C).No. 1299 of 2010(O) 1. P.V.RAMU, S\/O.ELUMBAN, PUTHOORVAYAL … Petitioner 2. P.LAKSHMANAN, PUTHOORVAYAL VEEDU, 3. M.C.SEBASTIAN, MADATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, 4. P.M.RAGHAVAN, PANAYI HOUSE, Vs 1. M\/S.MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD., … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) For […]<\/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-255000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex ... on 31 January, 2011 - 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\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex ... on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-23T23:47:16+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.V.Ramu vs M\\\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T23:47:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1178,\"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\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\",\"name\":\"P.V.Ramu vs M\\\/S.Maharashtra Apex ... on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T23:47:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.V.Ramu vs M\\\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex ... on 31 January, 2011 - 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\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex ... on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-23T23:47:16+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T23:47:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011"},"wordCount":1178,"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\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011","name":"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex ... on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T23:47:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-ramu-vs-ms-maharashtra-apex-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.V.Ramu vs M\/S.Maharashtra Apex … on 31 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/255000","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=255000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}