{"id":269258,"date":"2010-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-19T17:23:31","modified_gmt":"2014-06-19T11:53:31","slug":"jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 831 of 2010()\n\n\n1. JAGADISH K.N., S\/O.K.K.N.NAMBIAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. HMT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,\n\n3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :25\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.\n                  ------------------------------------------\n                          W.A.No.831 of 2010\n                  ------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
J.Chelameswar, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
           The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.159 of 2010<\/p>\n
which was dismissed by the judgment dated 1st February, 2010 is the<\/p>\n
appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
           2.   For the purpose of this judgment the full factual<\/p>\n
details of this appeal are not necessary. So we state only the bare<\/p>\n
essential facts.\n<\/p>\n
           3.    The appellant joined the service of the second<\/p>\n
respondent some time in the year 1981. The second respondent is a<\/p>\n
subsidiary of the first respondent company which is a declared sick<\/p>\n
industry within the meaning of the said expression under the Sick<\/p>\n
Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act<\/a>, 1985.<\/p>\n
           4. For the various reasons stated in Ext.P1, the second<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
respondent formulated a Scheme by which certain classes of<\/p>\n
employees of the second respondent company were entitled to<\/p>\n
seek employment elsewhere with lien on their post and subject<\/p>\n
to the various conditions specified in the said Scheme.<\/p>\n
            5.     The appellant availed the benefit of the<\/p>\n
abovementioned Scheme and joined employment of a company<\/p>\n
called Electronic Controls and Discharge Systems Private<\/p>\n
Limited on 11.1.2007. The second respondent permitted the<\/p>\n
appellant to avail the benefit of the abovementioned Scheme for<\/p>\n
a period of three years though the Scheme itself contains a<\/p>\n
clause that such a benefit is available for a period ranging<\/p>\n
between 3 and 5 years.\n<\/p>\n
            6.    The appellant secured employment with the<\/p>\n
abovementioned private limited company. One of the terms of<\/p>\n
the contract between the appellant and the abovementioned<\/p>\n
private limited company is that the appellant is required to serve<\/p>\n
the abovementioned private limited company for a period of five<\/p>\n
years and in the event of failure on the part of the appellant in so<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
serving for a period of five years, the appellant would be liable<\/p>\n
to pay to the said company an amount of Rupees five lakhs apart<\/p>\n
from various other consequences, details of which may not be<\/p>\n
necessary.\n<\/p>\n
            7. On the expiry of the period of three years tenure<\/p>\n
of service with the abovementioned private limited company, the<\/p>\n
appellant herein applied to the second respondent seeking an<\/p>\n
extension of the benefit of the abovementioned Scheme by two<\/p>\n
more years. The request of the appellant was rejected by the<\/p>\n
second respondent company by the order impugned in the writ<\/p>\n
petition, i.e. Ext.P8 dated 9.12.2009.<\/p>\n
            8. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge<\/p>\n
of this Court declined to interfere with Ext.P8 and hence the<\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            9. Apart from the various other reasons recorded by<\/p>\n
the learned Judge, one specific reason recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
Judge is that a person identically situated as the appellant herein<\/p>\n
had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.22839<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
of 2009 seeking substantially the same relief as the one sought<\/p>\n
in the instant writ petition, but the said writ petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 12th November,<\/p>\n
2009 and, therefore, for the same reasons, the instant writ<\/p>\n
petition also is to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
            10.    We have heard Sri.Antony M.Ambat, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Saji Varghese,<\/p>\n
learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
            11. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously<\/p>\n
argued that the appellant was encouraged by the second<\/p>\n
respondent to take up employment elsewhere by propounding<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 Scheme. Though the second respondent initially granted<\/p>\n
lien for a period of three years only in favour of the appellant to<\/p>\n
join the service of the abovementioned private limited company,<\/p>\n
the appellant was having a legitimate expectation that the lien<\/p>\n
would be extended for a further period of two more years in<\/p>\n
view of the fact that the Scheme itself enables the second<\/p>\n
respondent company to grant lien for a maximum period of five<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
years and, therefore, the decision of the second respondent not<\/p>\n
to grant such extension of the lien is wholly illegal.<\/p>\n
            12. We regret our inability to accept the submission<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that<\/p>\n
the reliance placed upon the doctrine of legitimate expectation<\/p>\n
by the appellant is wholly misconceived. We are of the opinion<\/p>\n
that the doctrine has no application to the case such as the one<\/p>\n
on hand. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax<\/p>\n
Officer and others<\/a> [(2005) 1 SCC 625] the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
stated the contours of the doctrine of legitimate expectation thus:<\/p>\n
                 “8.  A   person   may    have    a   “legitimate<\/p>\n
          expectation” of being treated in a certain way by an<\/p>\n
          administrative authority even though he has no legal<\/p>\n
          right in private law to receive such treatment. The<\/p>\n
          expectation may arise either from a representation or<\/p>\n
          promise made by the authority, including an implied<\/p>\n
          representation, or from consistent past practice. The<\/p>\n
          doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important<\/p>\n
          place in the developing law of judicial review. It is,<\/p>\n
          however, not necessary to explore the doctrine in this<\/p>\n
          case, it is enough merely to note that a legitimate<\/p>\n
          expectation can provide a sufficient interest to enable<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
          one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive<\/p>\n
          right to obtain the leave of the court to apply for<\/p>\n
          judicial review. It is generally agreed that “legitimate<\/p>\n
          expectation” gives the applicant sufficient locus standi<\/p>\n
          for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate<\/p>\n
          expectation to be confined mostly to right of a fair<\/p>\n
          hearing before a decision which results in negativing a<\/p>\n
          promise or withdrawing an undertaking is given. The<\/p>\n
          doctrine does not give scope to claim relief<\/p>\n
          straightaway from the administrative authorities as no<\/p>\n
          crystallised right as such is involved. The protection<\/p>\n
          of such legitimate expectation does not require the<\/p>\n
          fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding<\/p>\n
          public interest requires otherwise.         In other words,<\/p>\n
          where a person’s legitimate expectation is not fulfilled<\/p>\n
          by taking a particular decision then the decision-maker<\/p>\n
          should justify the denial of such expectation by<\/p>\n
          showing some overriding public interest. (See Union<\/p>\n
          of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn<\/a>. [(1993) 3<\/p>\n
          SCC 499].”\n<\/p>\n
In State of W.B. and others v. Niranjan Singha<\/a> [(2001) 2 SCC<\/p>\n
326] at paragraph 4, the Supreme Court held as follows:<\/p>\n
            ”   ………………….. The   doctrine of “legitimate<\/p>\n
            expectation” is only an aspect of Article 14<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
            Constitution in dealing with the citizens in a non-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            arbitrary manner and thus, by itself, does not give<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
            rise to an enforceable right but in testing the action<\/p>\n
            taken by the government authority whether arbitrary<\/p>\n
            or otherwise it would be relevant.    The decision in<\/p>\n
            Food Corpn. of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed<\/p>\n
            Industries<\/a> [(1993) 1 SCC 71] does not lay down any<\/p>\n
            principle which detracts from what we have stated<\/p>\n
            now.    In a case where the agency is granted for<\/p>\n
            collection of toll or taxes, as in the present case, it<\/p>\n
            can be easily discerned that the claim of the<\/p>\n
            respondent for extension of the period of the agency<\/p>\n
            would not come in the way of the Government if it is<\/p>\n
            economically more beneficial to have a fresh<\/p>\n
            agreement by enhancing the consideration payable to<\/p>\n
            the Government. In such an event, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
            that the action of the Government inviting fresh bids<\/p>\n
            is arbitrary.”\n<\/p>\n
            13. No such practice is either pleaded or established.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, similarly situated employees who made<\/p>\n
similar requests to secure extension of lien were denied<\/p>\n
extension and whose claims have already been rejected by this<\/p>\n
Court as noticed earlier.       In the circumstances, we do not see<\/p>\n
any merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed at the admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
W.A. No.831 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
            14. Sri.Antony M.Ambat, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant prayed in view of the conclusion of this Court that the<\/p>\n
second respondent may, atleast, be directed to give the appellant<\/p>\n
some reasonable time to report to the service of the second<\/p>\n
respondent. Heard learned standing counsel for respondents 1<\/p>\n
and 2. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the<\/p>\n
respondents to permit the appellant to join the service of the<\/p>\n
second respondent within a period of four weeks from today and<\/p>\n
on such joining, the period from the date of expiry of the lien to<\/p>\n
the date of joining referred to above shall be regularised subject<\/p>\n
to the principle of no work no pay.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                              J.Chelameswar,
\n                                               Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                               P.N.Ravindran,
\n                                                  Judge
\nvns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 831 of 2010() 1. JAGADISH K.N., S\/O.K.K.N.NAMBIAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. HMT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT […]<\/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-269258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 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\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-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=\"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-19T11:53:31+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-19T11:53:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1388,\"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\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-19T11:53:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 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":"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 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\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-19T11:53:31+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-19T11:53:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010"},"wordCount":1388,"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\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010","name":"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-19T11:53:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagadish-k-n-vs-hmt-ltd-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagadish K.N. vs Hmt Ltd. on 25 May, 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\/269258","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=269258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}