{"id":260383,"date":"2007-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-29T11:02:18","modified_gmt":"2019-03-29T05:32:18","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST Rev No. 410 of 2004()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.ST.ANTONY'S RUBBER ESTATE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :15\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     H.L.DATTU, C.J. &amp; K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n                            ------------------------------------------\n                            S.T.Rev.Nos.410 &amp; 452 of 2004\n                            ------------------------------------------\n                      Dated, this the 15th day of October, 2007\n\n                                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">H.L.Dattu, C.J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">       These revision petitions would arise under the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n<p>Agricultural Income Tax Act.      The assessment years in question in these<\/p>\n<p>revisions are 1991-92 and 1992-93 and the accounting years for the<\/p>\n<p>assessment years are 1990-91 and 1991-92.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">       2. The assessee owns agricultural lands and grows rubber trees. For<\/p>\n<p>the aforesaid assessment years he had filed the return of income.          The<\/p>\n<p>assessing authority being of the opinion that the income so returned is too low<\/p>\n<p>when compared        to the previous assessment years, had issued a pre-<\/p>\n<p>assessment notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the returns<\/p>\n<p>filed by him should not be rejected and the best judgment assessment should<\/p>\n<p>not be passed. The pre-assessment notice issued by the assessing authority is<\/p>\n<p>as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>               &#8220;The return of agrl. Income for the accounting years<br \/>\n       1990-91 and 1991-92 showing a net income of Rs.19,500-50<br \/>\n       and Rs.17,500\/- for the respective years were examined with<br \/>\n       the books of accounts produced. Verification of the return and<br \/>\n       books of accounts revealed the following:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>               1. The yield returned for both years are too low to be<br \/>\n       accepted when the yield is compared to that of the previous<br \/>\n       years and also considering the plot inspections report. It will be<br \/>\n       estimated as 31,550 kg. for 1991-92 and 28,550 kg. for 1992-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>       93. &#8220;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\n<p id=\"p_4\">       3. After receipt of the pre-assessment notice, the assessee had filed<\/p>\n<p>his detailed reply. In that he had stated as under:<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">               &#8220;The yield of rubber as per account is the actual yield<br \/>\n        received. Due to natural calamity, disease and old age a large<\/p>\n<p>S.T.Rev.Nos.410 &amp; 452\/2004<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       number of trees perished. There were only 4000 tapping trees<br \/>\n       in 43.64 acres including 8 acres sold to Sebastian as on 26.2.96<br \/>\n       as evidenced by the Inspection report.           In 35.64 acres<br \/>\n       possessed by the from (firm &#8211; sic.) there were only 3000 trees.<br \/>\n       In 19.14 acres there were only 1790 trees before they were cut<br \/>\n       and removed in 1992. Likewise there were only 3000 trees in<br \/>\n       53 acres given in 1994 for stampliter tapping and felling.     So<br \/>\n       there would not be more than 10000 trees at the most in the<br \/>\n       whole    estate   during   relevant   accounting     years   under<br \/>\n       assessment. The yield of 22766.64 and 21936.95 kgs. rubber<br \/>\n       received from the estate during the relevant accounting years<br \/>\n       under assessment as per accounts is the maximum yield that<br \/>\n       can be derived from the estate. The yield of rubber additionally<br \/>\n       estimated is highly arbitrary and without any basis.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">       4. Rejecting the objections so filed, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer<\/p>\n<p>has passed the best judgment assessment and has quantified the tax liability<\/p>\n<p>under the provisions of the <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_1\">Agricultural Income Tax Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">       5. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the assessing authority, the<\/p>\n<p>assessee was before the first appellate authority in Appeal Nos.10 and 11 of<\/p>\n<p>1997. The first appellate authority has granted the relief to the assessee.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">       6. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the first appellate authority,<\/p>\n<p>the State had carried the matter in appeal before the Agricultural Income Tax<\/p>\n<p>Appellate Tribunal in T.A.Nos.105 and 106 of 1998. The Tribunal by its order<\/p>\n<p>dated 24th August, 2002 has rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. While<\/p>\n<p>doing so, the Tribunal has concluded as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>                 &#8220;5. We have considered the merit of the contentions<br \/>\n        of both sides and perused the connected records. The only<br \/>\n        defect pointed out by the assessing authority in the pre-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\n<p id=\"p_10\">        assessment notice for estimating the yield and income from<br \/>\n        rubber is that the yield returned for both the years are too low<br \/>\n        to be accepted when the yield is compared to that of the<br \/>\n        previous years and also considering the plot inspection<br \/>\n        report. In reply to the pre-assessment notice, the assessee<br \/>\n        filed objection in detail and one of the Partner Shri.P.H.Paul<br \/>\n        Tharakan was personally heard.        The assessing authority<br \/>\n        examined the books of accounts again.           Along with the<br \/>\n        objection, the assessee filed copy of an agreement<\/p>\n<p>S.T.Rev.Nos.410 &amp; 452\/2004<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        dtd.2.4.1992 entered into between the assessee and one<br \/>\n        Pius, Peter and Mani was also filed. On that agreement, it is<br \/>\n        stipulated that 1790 number of rubber trees in the estate are<br \/>\n        sold to them by the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,68,000\/-.<br \/>\n        According to the assessing authority the natural presumption<br \/>\n        that followed is that at least by 1991 the old trees standing in<br \/>\n        19.14 acres would have been slaughtered and the assessee<br \/>\n        had obtained that yield and if that is so the yield returned<br \/>\n        should have been not the yield that returned.         He further<br \/>\n        observed in the assessment order that no ordinary prudent<br \/>\n        man would all on a sudden cut and remove the yielding<br \/>\n        rubber trees without slaughter tapping it. So he arrived at a<br \/>\n        conclusion that the assessee has got the trees slaughter<br \/>\n        tapped and the yield from slaughter tapping was not<br \/>\n        accounted for both the years. It is worth-mentioning that the<br \/>\n        issue regarding the slaughter tapping was not pointed out to<br \/>\n        the assessee in the pre-assessment notice. It can be seen<br \/>\n        that the first appellate authority had pointed out valid and<br \/>\n        cogent reason to interfere with the order of the assessing<br \/>\n        authority.   According to the first appellate authority it had<br \/>\n        been stipulated in the agreement dated 2.4.1992 that the<br \/>\n        purchaser have no right to extract any latex from the trees.<br \/>\n        Shri.P.H.Paul Tharakan, one of the partners of the assessee-<br \/>\n        firm had filed Affidavit in his personal capacity and on behalf<br \/>\n        of the firm that all the rubber trees sold as per the agreement<br \/>\n        dated 2.4.1992 had not been slaughter tapped either at the<br \/>\n        time of transfer or before. The assessee had also produced a<br \/>\n        certificate dated 5.12.1997 obtained from the Village Officer,<br \/>\n        Kothamangalam in support of the contentions raised in the<br \/>\n        grounds of appeal before the Appellate Asst. Commissioner.<br \/>\n        It can be seen that the assessing authority had not<br \/>\n        established that the assessee had effected slaughter tapping<br \/>\n        during the years in question. He had only presumed that the<br \/>\n        assessee had got the trees slaughter tapped and the yield<br \/>\n        had not been accounted. The assessing authority has no<br \/>\n        case that the Certificate issued by the Village Officer is a<br \/>\n        false one. Considering all the above aspects of the case, we<br \/>\n        are of the view that the common order passed by the<br \/>\n        Appellate Asst. Commissioner is legal and no interference is<br \/>\n        called for.     Regarding the contentions raised by the<br \/>\n        Respondent     in    the   cross   objections,  in  respect   of<br \/>\n        disallowance of a portion of expenses, it is seen that the<br \/>\n        Appellate Asst. Commissioner has granted all allowable<br \/>\n        expenses.     Hence we find no reason to allow any further<br \/>\n        expense.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">       7. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is<\/p>\n<p>before us in these sales tax revisions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">S.T.Rev.Nos.410 &amp; 452\/2004<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        8.    The assessee has income from the             rubber trees.   For the<\/p>\n<p>assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, he has filed the return of income<\/p>\n<p>showing a net income of Rs.19,500.50 and Rs.17,500\/- for the accounting<\/p>\n<p>years 1990-91 and 1991-92.          The income so returned, according to the<\/p>\n<p>assessing authority, is low income when compared to the previous accounting<\/p>\n<p>years.    Therefore, had issued pre-assessment notice.         In reply to the pre-<\/p>\n<p>assessment notice, it was the specific case of the assessee that he had cut<\/p>\n<p>and removed the rubber trees by entering into an agreement with a third<\/p>\n<p>person. The assessing authority has not believed the explanation offered by<\/p>\n<p>the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">        9. The assessing authority has proceeded to complete the assessments<\/p>\n<p>by way of best judgment assessment. That &#8216;judgement&#8217; is without any basis. It<\/p>\n<p>is true, in a best judgment assessment there could be a little bit of guess work.<\/p>\n<p>But that guess work must be reasonably made and not on surmises. In our<\/p>\n<p>further opinion even while doing the guess work, the assessing authority is<\/p>\n<p>expected to follow certain principles. The best judgment assessment cannot be<\/p>\n<p>on mere whims and fancies of the assessing authority. In the instant case, it is<\/p>\n<p>the specific case of the assessee that rubber trees during the relevant<\/p>\n<p>assessment years had been destroyed because of various reasons and further<\/p>\n<p>explanation is that part of the trees in large extent of land had been sold as they<\/p>\n<p>were very old.       This explanation of the assessee filed in reply to the<\/p>\n<p>pre-assessment notice, though noticed by the assessing authority, the same is<\/p>\n<p>rejected without assigning any reasons, whatsoever. Keeping all these aspects<\/p>\n<p>of the matter in view, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have<\/p>\n<p>set aside the orders passed by the assessing authority and             directed the<\/p>\n<p>S.T.Rev.Nos.410 &amp; 452\/2004<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>assessing authority to accept the return of income filed by the assessee and<\/p>\n<p>then quantify the tax liability under the provisions of the <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_1\">Agricultural Income Tax<\/p>\n<p>Act<\/a>.    In our opinion, the findings and conclusions reached by the Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>cannot be said either arbitrary or capricious. Further, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal has failed to decide or decided a question of law erroneously. In that<\/p>\n<p>view of the matter the revision petitions filed by the Revenue require to be<\/p>\n<p>rejected and they are accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">       Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\n<p id=\"p_17\">                                                            (H.L.DATTU)<br \/>\n                                                         CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (K.T.SANKARAN)<br \/>\n                                                             JUDGE<br \/>\nvns\/DK.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST Rev No. 410 of 2004() 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.ST.ANTONY&#8217;S RUBBER ESTATE, &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER For Respondent :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR The Hon&#8217;ble the Chief Justice [&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-260383","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#039;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 - 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#039;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-29T05:32:18+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs M\\\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-29T05:32:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1525,\"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\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs M\\\/S.St.Antony'S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-29T05:32:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs M\\\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony'S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 - 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony'S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-29T05:32:18+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-29T05:32:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007"},"wordCount":1525,"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\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007","name":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony'S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-29T05:32:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-st-antonys-rubber-estate-on-15-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S.St.Antony&#8217;S Rubber Estate on 15 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/260383","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=260383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}