{"id":2571,"date":"2010-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-31T04:27:51","modified_gmt":"2016-05-30T22:57:51","slug":"fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 963 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. FACT UDYOGAMANDAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. T.M.SASI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC,A.M.SHAFFIQUE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER,P.B.KRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :09\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                   A.S. NO. 963 OF 1996\n                      & Cross Objection\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n          Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010.\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    This  appeal       is     preferred       against  the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge, North Paravur in O.S.338\/92.                The suit<\/p>\n
is one for realisation of the amount due for<\/p>\n
transporting garbage from the Fertilizers and<\/p>\n
Chemicals Travancore Ltd.              The plaintiff has<\/p>\n
claimed an amount of Rs.66,726.25 and the trial<\/p>\n
court has granted a decree for Rs.44,362.26.            It<\/p>\n
is against that decision the defendant has come<\/p>\n
up in appeal. The plaintiff has also filed a<\/p>\n
cross-objection with respect to the disallowance<\/p>\n
of the amount which he had claimed as the amount<\/p>\n
not due from him towards provident fund and<\/p>\n
other statutory liabilities.<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      2.     Heard the learned counsel for both the<\/p>\n
sides.        Though the issue is very simple and it<\/p>\n
could       have   been  settled    out  without any<\/p>\n
confusion,       but  I  find   that  the issues are<\/p>\n
unnecessarily complicated and therefore it is<\/p>\n
desirable to understand the scope of the suit<\/p>\n
itself.        Lastly it is desirable to refer to<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 document first to know the claim of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     The plaintiff would contend that out of<\/p>\n
the amount due from 1.5.89 to 31.10.89(6 months)<\/p>\n
he is entitled at the rate of Rs.12,650\/- each<\/p>\n
per month but only 40% of the amount had been<\/p>\n
given and the rest had been withheld by the<\/p>\n
defendants amounting to Rs.45,540\/-. It is also<\/p>\n
the case of the plaintiff that under the heads<\/p>\n
of statutory deductions Rs.30,000\/- had been<\/p>\n
deducted which is also not correct and therefore<\/p>\n
the plaintiff is entitled to have an amount of<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.75,540\/-. At the time of filing of the suit<\/p>\n
the    plaintiff    would  contend  that  since  the<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.8813.75 had been reimbursed to him,<\/p>\n
he has filed the suit for balance amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.66,726.25.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     On the other hand, the defendant as seen<\/p>\n
from the written statement would contend for the<\/p>\n
position       that    the   work   has   not    been<\/p>\n
satisfactorily done and as per the terms of the<\/p>\n
agreement only 40% need to be paid and all the<\/p>\n
amounts so due has been paid and statutory<\/p>\n
conditions has been met and only when it was<\/p>\n
found that an amount of Rs.8,800\/- which was<\/p>\n
found in excess of the statutory due collected<\/p>\n
was reimbursed. Therefore the defendant would<\/p>\n
contend that there is no reason to grant any<\/p>\n
relief to the plaintiff.        So the crux of the<\/p>\n
matter only depends upon the fact what is the<\/p>\n
amount due and whether it has been paid or not.<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. The learned trial judge had elaborately<\/p>\n
considered the matter and held that Rs.9295.99<\/p>\n
as per Bill No. 28 in Ext.A2 is given to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in 1989. The Court also found that an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.13,068\/- also is due from the<\/p>\n
defendant as Provident Fund amount.        Therefore<\/p>\n
the Court deducted those two amounts and granted<\/p>\n
a decree for realisation of Rs.44,362.26.<\/p>\n
      6.     Now   the  learned   counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
appellant would submit before me for perusal,<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 invoice to convince the Court that the<\/p>\n
amount has been duly paid and he would refer to<\/p>\n
the voucher of 26.5.89 where it relates to these<\/p>\n
bills of 1985-90 for an amount of Rs.45,950\/-<\/p>\n
and had made some allowance in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff       and  an  amount  of  Rs.35508.48 is<\/p>\n
passed.        The next voucher is dated 9.11.89 and<\/p>\n
an amount of Rs.9295.990 is paid after deduction<\/p>\n
of the statutory dues as well as the advance.<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
The voucher dated 18.11.89 represents Rs.3,921\/-<\/p>\n
which is paid after deduction.      The last voucher<\/p>\n
dated      15.1.90   represents  Rs.6822.09  as the<\/p>\n
amount disbursed.       Now as stated by me earlier<\/p>\n
if it is calculated at the rate of Rs.12,650\/-<\/p>\n
for     six    months  the  amount  would   come to<\/p>\n
Rs.75,900\/-.       The  deductions  as   per  Ext.A1<\/p>\n
agreement is permissible only when there is a<\/p>\n
deficiency of work committed by the contractor.<\/p>\n
The methodology adopted in Ext.A1 agreement is<\/p>\n
that a log book is maintained and reports are<\/p>\n
received regarding the satisfactory nature of<\/p>\n
the work done and thereafter the bills are<\/p>\n
passed.        So unless and until the establishment<\/p>\n
is able to show that the work has not been done<\/p>\n
properly the contractor is entitled to get the<\/p>\n
entire amount.         So it is the duty of the<\/p>\n
establishment to convince the Court that he has<\/p>\n
not     done    the  work  in  accordance  with the<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
prescription. Though an amount is claimed by the<\/p>\n
contractor       there  was  no  necessity  for   the<\/p>\n
defendant to plead in the          written statement<\/p>\n
with respect to their entitlement to reduce the<\/p>\n
amount to be paid.        Therefore it appears from<\/p>\n
the     materials    available  that  the   defendant<\/p>\n
wanted to raise a contention of reduction of the<\/p>\n
amount for non performance of the contract.<\/p>\n
      7.     The trial court correctly found that the<\/p>\n
material        point   which   would    convincingly<\/p>\n
establish about the nature of the work is the<\/p>\n
log book which is kept in the possession of the<\/p>\n
establishment. It is not coming to the lime<\/p>\n
light and no satisfactory answer is tendered for<\/p>\n
the non-production of the log book.         Therefore<\/p>\n
when     one   calculates  the  amount  as  per   the<\/p>\n
contract and the amount due is found out and<\/p>\n
after deduction of the amount the balance is<\/p>\n
found out the entitlement is Rs.44,262.26. Since<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
no materials are forthcoming to deduct for non<\/p>\n
performance nothing can be deducted.<\/p>\n
        8. The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
wanted to rely upon Ext.A2 which would show that<\/p>\n
amounts have been paid as per Ext.A2 voucher.<\/p>\n
As stated by me earlier it does not specify the<\/p>\n
date or event for which it is paid and therefore<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 as such does not prove the case of the<\/p>\n
defendant that the amount has been paid as<\/p>\n
claimed       by  the  plaintiff. Unless   the  full<\/p>\n
picture is properly explained it cannot help the<\/p>\n
defendant to prove the payment.        Therefore the<\/p>\n
appeal cannot be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     Now coming to the cross-objection. The<\/p>\n
cross-objection       is   with   respect   to  the<\/p>\n
diallowance of the amount which the plaintiff<\/p>\n
claimed as the amount not due towards Provident<\/p>\n
Fund etc.        It can be seen from the materials<\/p>\n
available that the outstanding amount was only<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                              -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.13,500\/- whereas the department has collected<\/p>\n
Rs.21,000\/-. They had promptly reimbursed the<\/p>\n
amount which was collected in excess that what<\/p>\n
has    been     due.   So  there  is   no   question of<\/p>\n
unnecessary         collection   for    the    statutory<\/p>\n
liability and therefore the plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to get any amount for the collection<\/p>\n
with     respect     to  the  same.     So   the  cross-<\/p>\n
objection also does not merit consideration.<\/p>\n
Therefore it is also dismissed.<\/p>\n
      From these discussions the Appeal as well as<\/p>\n
the Cross Objection fail and both are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                   Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                          M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ul\/-\n<\/p>\n
             [true copy]<\/p>\n
                               P.A. To Judge.\n<\/p>\n
A.S. 963 OF 1996 &
\nCross Objection
\n                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                          M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                         = = = = = = = = = =
\n                          A.S. No.963 OF 1996
\n                        = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                           J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                         9th December, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 963 of 1996() 1. FACT UDYOGAMANDAL … Petitioner Vs 1. T.M.SASI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC,A.M.SHAFFIQUE For Respondent :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER,P.B.KRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :09\/12\/2010 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, […]<\/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-2571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 - 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\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-30T22:57:51+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\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-30T22:57:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1194,\"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\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-30T22:57:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 - 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\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-30T22:57:51+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\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-30T22:57:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010"},"wordCount":1194,"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\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010","name":"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-30T22:57:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fact-udyogamandal-vs-t-m-sasi-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fact Udyogamandal vs T.M.Sasi on 9 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/2571","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=2571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}