{"id":261616,"date":"2006-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006"},"modified":"2014-10-10T11:08:22","modified_gmt":"2014-10-10T05:38:22","slug":"ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS No. 104 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. RAM BHAT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. M\/S.LEELARAM SHEVARAM (INDIA)PVT.LTD.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI A.RAMA PRABHU,R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI K.N.SIVASANKARAN,MAYANKUTTY MATHER,\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :19\/09\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                         V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                                  ..................................................\n                                       A.S. NO. 104 OF  1994\n                                  ..................................................\n                                           Dated: 19-09-2006\n\n\n                                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. 97\/91 on the file of the   Principal   Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Kochi, are the appellants in this appeal.   The said suit instituted by respondents 1<\/p>\n
and 2 herein  was for realisation  of a sum of Rs. 41,113.75 together with interest at<\/p>\n
the rate of 15% totaling altogether to Rs. 55,112.75.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                           THE PLAINT AVERMENTS IN BRIEF:\n<\/p>\n
\n
        2.      The case of the plaintiffs can be summarised  as follows:-<\/p>\n
        The first plaintiff  is a Company  by name   M\/s. Leelaram Shevaram (India)<\/p>\n
Pvt.Ltd.   represented   by   its   Manager,   the     2nd  plaintiff.     The   first   defendant<\/p>\n
represented by defendants  2 and 5, is a registered partnership firm by name Sri<\/p>\n
Ram Traders  of which defendants 2 to 5 are the partners.  On 11-7-1988 the first<\/p>\n
defendant firm purchased 145 bags of   boiled rice at the rate of Rs. 440 quintal.<\/p>\n
The total  value of the goods so purchased was Rs. 48,113.75   After the purchase<\/p>\n
of goods, the   first defendant firm issued Ext.A3 cheque for the aforesaid amount.<\/p>\n
When   the cheque was presented for encashment before the drawee bank it was<\/p>\n
dishonoured.  Even though   the defendants   were prosecuted before the Criminal<\/p>\n
Court it was not successful for the reason that the cheque issued was a post dated<\/p>\n
cheque.     The   2nd  and   5th  defendants   had   filed   a  suit   before   the   Munsiff’s   Court,<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                  -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Cochin   as   O.S.   782\/1988   seeking   a   perpetual   injunction   restraining   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
herein from initiating any police action.   While so, defendants 4 and 5 expressed a<\/p>\n
desire   to settle the matter and   clear the liability.         The defendants had  been<\/p>\n
requesting   for   time   to   discharge   the   debt.       They   had   paid   only   a   sum   of     Rs.<\/p>\n
7,000\/-. On 26-9-1988 defendants 4 and 5 executed Ext.A5 promissory note for Rs.<\/p>\n
48,113\/-   to   the   2nd  plaintiff   undertaking   to   pay   the   said   amount.     On   that   day   a<\/p>\n
scooter was entrusted to the 2nd plaintiff requesting her  to sell the same and adjust<\/p>\n
its value towards  the  outstanding  liability. On  5-7-1989 a notice  was sent  by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs calling upon defendants 2 to 5 to pay the amounts due and discharge the<\/p>\n
liability.  On receipt of notice defendants 4 and 5 have caused  a reply notice to be<\/p>\n
sent   denying their liability.   The balance amount due   is Rs. 41,113.75 which is<\/p>\n
payable with 15% interest thereon.   Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                    PLEADINGS IN DEFENCE<\/p>\n
        3.       Defendants 1, 2 and 5 did not enter appearance and they were set ex<\/p>\n
parte.     The   suit   was   resisted   by   defendants   3   and     4   who   filed   a   joint   written<\/p>\n
statement  contending inter alia  as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
        These defendants   are not partners of the first defendant firm.   The alleged<\/p>\n
purchase  of rice  is also denied.  These defendants had no connection  or business<\/p>\n
dealings with the first plaintiff.  After 9-9-1987 these defendants have no connection<\/p>\n
or dealings with the first defendant firm.  The complaint alleged by the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
investigated by  the Mattancherry police and tried by the J.F.C.M., Kochi which  had<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                  -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
acquitted these defendants  after trial.  These defendants had not met the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
settle the matter.  The execution of Ext.A5 promissory note on 26-9-1988 is denied.<\/p>\n
The   2nd  plaintiff   had   filed   a   criminal   complaint     before   the   Mattancherry   police.<\/p>\n
Pursuant   to the illegal  influence exerted by the 2nd plaintiff  the 4th defendant was<\/p>\n
taken   to   the   police   station     by     the     Divisional   \/Circle   Inspector   of   Police,<\/p>\n
Mattancherry at 12 noon on 26-9-1988.  He was detained in the police station till 7<\/p>\n
‘0’ clock in the night.  During the said detention the 5th defendant was also brought<\/p>\n
into   the   police   station.     The   signatures   of   defendants     4   and     5     were     forcibly<\/p>\n
obtained under threat,  coercion, intimidation, criminal force and all sorts of unlawful<\/p>\n
means by the Divisional Inspector who   thus got Ext.A5 promissory note executed<\/p>\n
under   duress.     A   scooter   belonging   to   a   relative   of   the   4th    defendant   was   also<\/p>\n
forcibly taken   and handed over to the 2nd  plaintiff.   On the next day itself these<\/p>\n
defendants had issued a lawyer notice to the  Divisional Inspector of Police and the<\/p>\n
2nd plaintiff.  To the lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff before the  institution of the<\/p>\n
suit these defendants had sent a proper reply.   Defendants 2 and 5 who are the<\/p>\n
partners of the first defendant firm had filed an  insolvency petition before  this court<\/p>\n
and the plaintiff is aware of the said proceedings.  It was suppressing its knowledge<\/p>\n
about the insolvency proceedings that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit with<\/p>\n
the   only   purpose   of   harassing   these   defendants.         These   defendants   are<\/p>\n
unnecessary    parties   to the suit which is  not  maintainable.    The 2nd  respondent<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not competent to represent the first plaintiff company.  The   suit is liable<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                  -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                              THE TRIAL<\/p>\n
          4.     The   court   below   framed   seven   issues   for   trial.     On   the   side   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs the 2nd plaintiff was examined as  P.W.1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked.<\/p>\n
On the side of the defendants the 4th defendant was examined as D.W.1.  An officer<\/p>\n
of the Union Bank of  Cochin  and a peon  employed in Naveen Agencies,  Cochin,<\/p>\n
were  examined as DWs2 and 3 respectively to prove the forcible  execution of the<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 promissory note from the police station under duress.  Exts. B1 to B17 were<\/p>\n
also got marked.\n<\/p>\n
\n
          5.     The learned Subordinate Judge after trial, as per judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated   29-6-1993   decreed   the   suit   as   prayed   for   on   the   original   cause   of   action<\/p>\n
although  she  found  that   Ext.A5   promissory note  was  vitiated  by  coercion,  undue<\/p>\n
influence etc.  It is the said decree which is assailed in this appeal by defendants 3<\/p>\n
and 4.\n<\/p>\n
\n
          6.     I heard the respective counsel appearing on either side.<\/p>\n
                       ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL<\/p>\n
          7.     Assailing the decree passed by the court below Advocate Smt. Ranjini<\/p>\n
made the following submissions before me:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
          Ext.B10   is   the   partnership   deed   dated   9-9-1987   whereunder   the   first<\/p>\n
defendant firm then consisting  of  four partners was re-constituted consequent on<\/p>\n
defendants 3 and 4 retiring from the firm and defendants 2 and 5 continued   as<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
partners in the firm.   Along with Ext.B10     there   is also the certified copy of the<\/p>\n
notice issued under Sec. 63 (1) of the Partnership Act<\/a>,   1932 which indicates the<\/p>\n
retirement of   defendants 3 and 4 from the firm with effect from 9-9-1987.       Even<\/p>\n
according to the plaintiff, the transaction in question namely, the purchase of rice<\/p>\n
took place of 11-7-1988 which is 10 months after the retirement   of defendants 3<\/p>\n
and 4.  Ext.A3 cheque and Ext.A5 promissory note are all on dates still subsequent<\/p>\n
to 11-7-1988.  In para 8 of Ext.B1 counter affidavit filed by the 2nd  plaintiff  herein in<\/p>\n
O.S.782\/1988  instituted by defendants 2 and 5  herein before the Munsiff’s Court,<\/p>\n
Kochi,  she has admitted  that she was aware of the retirement of the two partners<\/p>\n
on 9-9-1987.   In Ext.B14 interlocutory application in the above suit as well   as in<\/p>\n
Ext.B8 indigent petition defendants 2 and 5 have unequivocally asserted that from<\/p>\n
9-9-1987   onwards   they   are   the   surviving   partners       of   the   firm.     Similarly,   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 5 of   Ext.B5 judgment in C.C. 70\/89 on the file of JFCM-I, Cochin it is<\/p>\n
mentioned that the present 4th defendant who was  the 4th accused in the case had<\/p>\n
stated that he and his father Ram Bhat are not partners in the firm since 9-9-1987.<\/p>\n
The 2nd plaintiff was a party to all the above proceedings  and was aware about the<\/p>\n
above assertion made by defendants 2, 4 and 5.  Ext.B7 is the deposition of the 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff  herein in C.C  70\/1989  wherein a  specific suggestion  was put  to her  that<\/p>\n
present defendants 3 and 4 who were accused  Nos.  1 and 4  in that case were not<\/p>\n
partners of the firm since 9-9-1987.  Her   answer to the said suggestion   was that<\/p>\n
she does not know about that.   Even in the present plaint the specific averment in<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                  -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
paragraph   2   is   that   the   first   defendant   is   a   partnership     firm   represented   by   its<\/p>\n
partners defendants 2 and 5.  This means that defendants 3 and 4 are not partners<\/p>\n
of the said firm.   The 2nd  plaintiff examined as DW1 in this case does not say that<\/p>\n
defendants 3 and 4 are partners of the firm.  In order to rope in defendants 3 and 4,<\/p>\n
DW1     would   have   it   that   defendants   3   and   4   had   called   her   over   the   phone<\/p>\n
regarding the transaction in question.  As against this the 4th defendant examined as<\/p>\n
D.W.1 has categorically stated that defendants 3 and 4 retired from the firm on 9-9-<\/p>\n
1987   on   which   day   the   firm   was   re-constituted.       Ext.A5   promissory   note   was<\/p>\n
executed by defendants 4 and 5 under duress from the police station and this case<\/p>\n
of the defendants has been upheld by the court below.   Hence the decree granted<\/p>\n
on   the   basis   of   the   original   cause   of   action   as   against   the   appellants   is   clearly<\/p>\n
unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                     JUDICIAL EVALUATION<\/p>\n
        8.       I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions.   Ext.B10<\/p>\n
re-constituted   partnership   deed   dated   9-9-1987   itself   recites   that   the   original<\/p>\n
partnership deed with the four partners was registered with the  Registrar of Firms in<\/p>\n
the year 1985.   The name of the firm is Sri. Ram Traders.   The   original partners<\/p>\n
were Suresh Chandra Bhat (D2), Ram Bhat (D3), Naveen Chandra Bhat (D4) and<\/p>\n
Dinesh Bhat (D5). The     3rd  defendant Ram   Bhat is   admittedly   the father of the<\/p>\n
other defendants namely defendants 2, 4 and 5.   Ext.B10 further recites that Ram<\/p>\n
Bhat   and   Naveen   Chandra   Bhat     (D3   and   D4   respectively)   expressed   their<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
willingness   to   retire   from   the   firm   with   effect   from   9-9-1987   and   therefore   the<\/p>\n
remaining two partners have decided  to  continue the business as a going concern<\/p>\n
under the  same name and style.  The certified copy of the acknowledgment issued<\/p>\n
by the Registrar   of Firms and appended   to Ext. B10 shows that a notice under<\/p>\n
Section 63<\/a> (1) of the Indian Partnership Act<\/a>, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act<\/p>\n
for short)has been issued to the Registrar of  firms.   But then there is nothing  to<\/p>\n
indicate that the plaintiff was aware of the retirement of defendants 3 and 4 on 11-7-<\/p>\n
1988 when the   first defendant firm purchased 145 bags of rice from the plaintiff<\/p>\n
company.  In Ext.B1 counter-affidavit, there is no admission by the 2nd plaintiff that<\/p>\n
she was  aware of the  retirement of defendants 3 and 4 from the firm on 9-9-1987.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, in Ext.B1  counter affidavit sworn to by her on 9-9-1998 what   she<\/p>\n
has stated is that the Ist petitioner therein (D2 herein) by signing in the cheque on<\/p>\n
11-7-1988 as a partner of the firm was being dishonest   since he was thereafter<\/p>\n
contending that he retired from the firm on 9-9-1987.   Merely because in  Exts. B8,<\/p>\n
B11  and  B14  which  were  long  after  the   transaction    in  question,  the  defendants<\/p>\n
asserted that defendants 3 and 4 had retired  from the firm with effect from 9-9-87 it<\/p>\n
does not mean that the plaintiffs was aware of such retirement on 11-7-1988 when<\/p>\n
the transaction in question   was entered into or any day prior to that.   On their own<\/p>\n
admission , defendants 3 and 4 were partners of the firm from 1985 till 9-9-1987.<\/p>\n
There is absolutely no acceptable evidence adduced in the case to show that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was aware of the retirement of  defendants 3 and 4 when the first defendant<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
firm   purchased   145   bags   of   rice     from   the   plaintiff   company   on   11-7-1988.     As<\/p>\n
against defendants 1, 2 and 5 who remained ex parte there   is already a decree.<\/p>\n
The  only  question  which  survives  for  consideration    is as  to  whether   the  decree<\/p>\n
passed as against the appellants who are  defendants 3 and 4 is unsustainable  for<\/p>\n
the   reason  that   the  transaction   in  question  was  entered   into  subsequent  to   their<\/p>\n
retirement from the first defendant firm.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        9.      The   mode   of   retirement   and   the   consequences   of   retirement     of   a<\/p>\n
partner are to be found in Sec. 32 of the Act which reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
       “Retirement of a partner:-  (1) A partner may retire, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                a)  with the consent of all the other partners,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                b)  in accordance with an express agreement by the partners,
\n                or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                c)  where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to
\n       all the other partners of  his intention to retire.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  2)   A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to
\n          any third party for acts   of the firm done before his retirement  by an
\n          agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of
\n          the reconstituted firm, and such   agreement may be implied by a
\n          course   of   dealing   between   such   third   party   and   the   reconstituted
\n          firm after he had knowledge of the retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  3)     Notwithstanding the  retirement of a partner from a firm,
\n          he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties
\n          for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of
\n          the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of
\n          the retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Provided that a retired partner is not liable to any third party
\n          who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a partner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  4)  Notices under sub-section (3) may be given by the retired
\n          partner or by any partner of the reconstituted firm”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                 -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
        10.     Thus,   even after retirement from the firm, the quondam   partner will<\/p>\n
continue to be liable to a  third party by virtue of Sec. 32 (2) of the Act   for any pre-<\/p>\n
retirement transaction   or liability unless he is discharged from such liability by an<\/p>\n
agreement (either express or implied) made by him  with such  third party  and the<\/p>\n
surviving partners of the   re-constituted firm.   With regard to any post-retirement<\/p>\n
transaction or liability also such quondam     partner will continue to be liable until<\/p>\n
public   notice   in   the   manner   provided   under   Sec.   72   of   the   Act   is   given   of   his<\/p>\n
retirement, in view of Sec. 32 (3) of the Act which is enacted on the well known<\/p>\n
principle   of holding out.   A person   who has held himself out as a partner will be<\/p>\n
presumed to hold the said status until he informs all concerned that he has ceased<\/p>\n
to be so.   In the case of a registered firm (the first defendant  in this   case is a<\/p>\n
registered firm) the mode of  giving a public notice is laid down under Sec. 72 (a)  of<\/p>\n
the Act.  As per the said provision there should be a notice of change given to the<\/p>\n
Registrar of Firms under Sec. 63 (1) of the Act and a notice   by publication in the<\/p>\n
official   Gazette  and  a   notice     in   at   least   one     vernacular   newspaper   having<\/p>\n
circulation in the  district where the firm has its place or principal place of business.<\/p>\n
See also C. Assiamma v. State Bank of Mysore<\/a> –  AIR 1990 Kerala 157.   But  if<\/p>\n
any third party  has dealt with the firm without knowing that the retired  partner was<\/p>\n
a partner of the firm, then the retired  partner would not be liable to  such  third party<\/p>\n
and in  such a  case there is no need for a public notice so as to absolve the retired<\/p>\n
partner from his liability   qua  such third party.  The burden in such a case  will be<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                 -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
on the retired partner (who wants to avoid the liability) to show that such  third  had<\/p>\n
dealt  with the firm without knowing that such  retired partner was a partner of the<\/p>\n
firm.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         11.     Coming to the facts of this case,  as indicated earlier the appellants or<\/p>\n
any of the other defendants have not been able to show that on 11-7-1988  when<\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   entered   into   the   transaction   in   question   the   plaintiff   was   aware   that<\/p>\n
defendants 3 and 4   had   retired from the firm on 9-9-1987.   At page   6 of the<\/p>\n
deposition of the 4th defendant  examined as DW1 he has admitted that  no notice<\/p>\n
of   retirement   was  given     either   in  the   Gazette  or  in  the  newspaper  and  that   no<\/p>\n
public notice was also given.  If so, by virtue of Sec. 32(3) of the Act defendants 3<\/p>\n
and 4  will continue to be  liable for the transaction in question until public notice in<\/p>\n
the manner provided under Sec. 72 (a) of the Act has  been given notwithstanding<\/p>\n
the fact that   the transaction in question is a post- retirement transaction.     Even<\/p>\n
assuming that a notice of change under sec.63(1) of the Act has been given to the<\/p>\n
Registrar   of   Firms,   that   by   itself   will   not   be   sufficient   public   notice   within   the<\/p>\n
meaning of sec.72(a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         12.      It is true that Ext.A5 promissory note has been found to be  vitiated by<\/p>\n
coercion, intimidation  etc. since the same was found to have been executed  from<\/p>\n
the police station under duress and attracting the ratio decided in K.C. Thomas v.<\/p>\n
Supt. of Police – 1980 KLT 151 and   Mathew v. Kuruvila<\/a>   – 1983 KLT 104.   But<\/p>\n
then   the   suit   is   not   based   on   Ext.A5   promissory   note   alone     but   based   on   the<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                                 -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
original cause of action as well.  In paragraph 8  of the plaint it has been specifically<\/p>\n
averred as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                      “Cause of action in the suit arose on 11-7-1988  when
\n               the goods were purchased and cheque was issued, on 26-9-
\n               1988 when the demand promissory note was executed  for the
\n               balance   amount   due   and   thereafter   in   Mattancherry   Village
\n               within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The suit  was filed on 5-4-1991 which is well within  three years  of the transaction<\/p>\n
in question.     Hence the court below   was perfectly justified in granting a decree<\/p>\n
against all the defendants as  prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        13.       Equally   misconceived   is   the   contention   that   the   plaint   shows<\/p>\n
defendants 2  and 5 alone as the partners representing the firm.  Defendants 3 and<\/p>\n
4 are also described as partners of the Ist defendant firm.  Even if the plaint filed on<\/p>\n
5-4-1991 did not show  defendants 3 and 4 as partners, that will not in any manner<\/p>\n
affect   their   liability   since   despite   their   retirement   with   effect   from   9-9-1987,   they<\/p>\n
continued to be liable for want of public notice of their retirement.  By virtue of Sec.<\/p>\n
25 of the Act, the liability of the partners is joint and several.   Each   partner is a<\/p>\n
representative  of the  other partners and is an agent  as well as principal.   Every<\/p>\n
partner is liable for “an act of the firm” which expression has been defined to mean<\/p>\n
any act or omission by all or any of the partners or any agent of the firm which gives<\/p>\n
rise to a right enforceable by or against the firm.   (Vide Sham Sunder v. State of<\/p>\n
Haryana – AIR 1989 SC 1982 Mymoonath Beevi v. State of Kerala<\/a> – 2005 (4).<\/p>\n
KLT 174).   Here the purchase of rice was by the 2nd defendant on behalf of and in<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94                           -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the name of the Ist defendant firm of which defendants 2 to 5 were partners from<\/p>\n
1985     onwards       and   notwithstanding   the   retirement   of   defendants   3   and   4<\/p>\n
therefrom with effect from 9-9-1987, they also continued to be liable since no public<\/p>\n
notice  was admittedly given.   Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached<\/p>\n
by the Court below  cannot be faulted.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
passed by the court below.   However, in the circumstances     in the case, parties<\/p>\n
shall  hear their respective costs in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                    V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
ani.\n<\/p>\n
\nA.S. NO. 104\/94    -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                             V.RAMKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                             ==============<\/p>\n
                             A.S. NO. 104 OF 1994<\/p>\n
                                  JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                             ==============<\/p>\n
                             DATED: 19-09-2006<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 104\/94    -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS No. 104 of 1994() 1. RAM BHAT … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.LEELARAM SHEVARAM (INDIA)PVT.LTD. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI A.RAMA PRABHU,R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN For Respondent :SRI K.N.SIVASANKARAN,MAYANKUTTY MATHER, The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated […]<\/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-261616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram ... on 19 September, 2006 - 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\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram ... on 19 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-10T05:38:22+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Bhat vs M\\\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-10T05:38:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3194,\"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\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\",\"name\":\"Ram Bhat vs M\\\/S.Leelaram Shevaram ... on 19 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-10T05:38:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Bhat vs M\\\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram ... on 19 September, 2006 - 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\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram ... on 19 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-10T05:38:22+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-10T05:38:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006"},"wordCount":3194,"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\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006","name":"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram ... on 19 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-10T05:38:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bhat-vs-ms-leelaram-shevaram-on-19-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Bhat vs M\/S.Leelaram Shevaram … on 19 September, 2006"}]},{"@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\/261616","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=261616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}