{"id":3956,"date":"2007-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-03-30T08:57:50","modified_gmt":"2017-03-30T03:27:50","slug":"kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev No. 471 of 2005()\n\n\n1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS'\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVER'S\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.L. LUCKOSE, S\/O. LUCKOSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.VENKATASUBRAMONIA IYER(SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU\n\n Dated :16\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &\n\n                      K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.\n\n       ==============================\n\n                     R.C.R. NO. 471 OF 2005\n\n         ============================\n\n\n    DATED THIS THE  16TH DYA OF JANUARY 2007\n\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Udayabhanu,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         The revision petitioner is the tenant  under orders<\/p>\n
   of  eviction   as   per   the   order   of   the  appellate   authority<\/p>\n
   on     the   application   filed   under   Section   11(3)   of   the<\/p>\n
   Kerala Buildings (lease & Rent Control) Act,1965,[Act 2<\/p>\n
   of 1965] {for short ‘the Act’} and reversing the order of<\/p>\n
   the Rent Control Court.  The case set up by the landlord<\/p>\n
   in the  R.C.P. is that he wanted to re-start the business<\/p>\n
   that   he   was   conducting     earlier     in   vessels.     He   was<\/p>\n
   earlier     running   an   outlet   by   name   Pullukalayil   metal<\/p>\n
   stores   in   a   room   adjacent   to   the   petition   schedule<\/p>\n
   premises.  The above room  was owned by his younger<\/p>\n
   brother. Subsequently his sister-in-law, who owned the<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
     above   shop   room   subsequent   to   the   death   of   his<\/p>\n
     younger brother,  initiated proceedings against him vide<\/p>\n
     R.C.P.No. 2\/2002  and he  vacated  the  premises  as  per<\/p>\n
     compromise   petition   filed   on   7-3-2003.     He   is   not   in<\/p>\n
     possession of any other vacant building.<\/p>\n
            2.         The         contention         of         the         revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner\/tenant is that the surrender of possession of<\/p>\n
      the   premises   in   which   the   landlord   was   conducting<\/p>\n
      business is the  result of collusion  and that earlier  he<\/p>\n
      had   filed   R.C.P.No.2\/1997   against   the   another   tenant<\/p>\n
      and   after   contest,   obtained   vacant   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
      shop   room   from   the   above   tenant   in   October   2001.<\/p>\n
      But he did not occupy the same  and  rented it out  on<\/p>\n
      higher rent and hence there is no bona fides at all in<\/p>\n
      the     need   set   up.     The   landlord   has   also   filed<\/p>\n
      R.C.P.No.7\/2001   against   the   present   revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner\/tenant,   but   the   same   was   withdrawn   on<\/p>\n
      understanding   that   the     rent   will   be   enhanced   to<\/p>\n
      Rs.600\/- on 23-7–2002.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            3.   The   appellate   authority   got     convinced   from<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      the   explanation of the  landlord that  R.C.P.No.7\/2001<\/p>\n
      filed   against   the   present   revision   petitioner   was   not<\/p>\n
      pressed   as   his   son     for   whose   purposes   the   eviction<\/p>\n
      was sought   obtained   employment abroad   and   also<\/p>\n
      at   the   time     the   petitioner\/landlord     was   conducting<\/p>\n
      business   in   the   premises     owned  by  his   sister-in-law.<\/p>\n
      The   contention   stressed   by   the   revision   petitioner<\/p>\n
      herein is with respect to the premises that got evicted<\/p>\n
      vide   the   proceedings   in   R.C.P.No.2\/1997.     It   is   not<\/p>\n
      disputed     that   the   matter   was   compromised   and   that<\/p>\n
      the landlord got vacant possession in September 2001.<\/p>\n
      It   was   pointed   out   that   the   landlord\/petitioner   had<\/p>\n
      concealed   the   above   fact   that   he   has   got   vacant<\/p>\n
      possession   of   another   premises   after   instituting   the<\/p>\n
      proceedings  and thereafter he  entrusted the  premises<\/p>\n
      to   another   person   without   occupying   the   same   by<\/p>\n
      himself.     It   is   pointed   out   that     earlier     in<\/p>\n
      R.C.P.No.2\/1997,   he   had     sought   for   eviction   on   the<\/p>\n
      ground that he wanted to shift his business from that<\/p>\n
      shop.   The   contention   is   that   the   landlord\/petitioner<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      should   have   placed   all   these   facts   in   the   R.C.R.   filed<\/p>\n
      and the very fact that he has not mentioned the details<\/p>\n
      indicated that the need set up is not bona fide.<\/p>\n
            4. Counsel for the respondent\/landlord herein has<\/p>\n
     pointed out that the present contention was not  raised<\/p>\n
     before the courts below.   It is raised only   before this<\/p>\n
     Court.     The     revision   petitioner   has   filed     an   affidavit<\/p>\n
     and produced the judgment in R.C.P.No.2\/1997 as well<\/p>\n
     as the copy of the order in R.C.A.No.16\/2000 and   the<\/p>\n
     copy   of   the   compromise   petition   in   the   above<\/p>\n
     proceedings.     The   landlord   has   filed   a   counter<\/p>\n
     statement wherein  he has explained the reason for the<\/p>\n
     non-occupation   of   the   premises   covered   by<\/p>\n
     R.C.P.No.2\/1997.     It   is   mentioned   that   at   the   time<\/p>\n
     there was a dispute between   himself   and the sister-<\/p>\n
     in-law   Smt.Alice   Thomas   with   respect   to   the   family<\/p>\n
     settlement   as     the     premises     that   he   was   occupying<\/p>\n
     and  conducting business was allotted   to his sister-in-<\/p>\n
     law.   According   to   him,   the   premises   in   question   was<\/p>\n
     purchased   by   himself     and   he   has   paid       certain<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
     amounts to his sister-in-law.     But subsequently there<\/p>\n
     arose     some   dispute   with   respect   to   the   sale<\/p>\n
     consideration.     He   was   under   the     strong   conviction<\/p>\n
     that he is entitled to the above premises and would not<\/p>\n
     be  liable   to  vacate  the  same.   It   was at  the  time  the<\/p>\n
     present   tenant   of   the   above   room   one   Muhammed<\/p>\n
     Shafi   approached   him   for     the   premises   obtained     as<\/p>\n
     per   court orders   in proceedings of   R.C.P.No.2\/1997.<\/p>\n
     But subsequently his sister-in-law initiated proceedings<\/p>\n
     against   him   vide   R.C.P.No.2\/2002.   The   matter   was<\/p>\n
     compromised   due   to   the   interventions   of   the   other<\/p>\n
     family members and   he was persuaded  to vacate  the<\/p>\n
     premises   wherein   he   was   conducting     Pullukalayil<\/p>\n
     metal   stores   and   the   premises   was   vacated.     Therein<\/p>\n
     his sister-in-law is conducting   the business under the<\/p>\n
     name and style City Centre dealing with  sale of clothes<\/p>\n
     and   other   textiles.   It   is   also   pointed   out   that   CPW1<\/p>\n
     herein   in the present proceedings who is the Manager<\/p>\n
     of   the   revision   petitioner,Society   was     PW3     in<\/p>\n
     R.C.P.No.2\/1997.     It   is   also   pertinent   to   note   that   in<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   counter   statement   filed   by   the   revision<\/p>\n
     petitioner\/respondent   in   the   R.C.P.   no   contention   has<\/p>\n
     been raised with respect to the alleged deliberate non-<\/p>\n
     occupation   of   the   premises   got   evicted   as   per   the<\/p>\n
     proceedings in R.C.P.No.2\/1997 and the allegation that<\/p>\n
     it  was  given      on higher rate  of  rent.   It  is also   seen<\/p>\n
     from   the    cross   examination   of   PW1  that   the  revision<\/p>\n
     petitioner\/respondent   has   not   questioned  PW1   on   this<\/p>\n
     aspect in detail   at all.   Only the statement   of PW1 in<\/p>\n
     the cross examination   is that the above room has not<\/p>\n
     been occupied by the landlord himself.<\/p>\n
            5.   In   the   circumstances,   we   find   that   the<\/p>\n
      landlord\/petitioner     cannot   be     faulted   for   non-<\/p>\n
      disclosure   of   the   details   which   were     within   the   full<\/p>\n
      knowledge   of the Manager of the   counter petitioner.<\/p>\n
      Evidently in the instant case, there is  no basis  for the<\/p>\n
      allegation of concealment  as CPW1 was fully aware of<\/p>\n
      the details of   earlier litigations as he had   testified in<\/p>\n
      favour of the landlord in R.C.P.No.2\/1997.<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
             6. It is also evident from the proceedings that the<\/p>\n
      petitioner\/landlord   was   a   person   who   was   conducting<\/p>\n
      the   same   type   of   business   for   a   number   of   years<\/p>\n
      earlier.     Hence,   there   can   be   no   dispute   as   to   his<\/p>\n
      experience in the field. There is no dispute about   his<\/p>\n
      financial   ability   to   invest   in   the   business.     It   is   also<\/p>\n
      evident that he  has  no  other  business   right now.    In<\/p>\n
      the circumstances, we find no reason  at all to interfere<\/p>\n
      in the findings of the  Rent Control Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
             7.   Counsel  for   the   revision   petitioner\/tenant   has<\/p>\n
      sought   for   time   for   one   year   to   vacate   the   premises<\/p>\n
      which   was   strongly   opposed   by   the   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
      respondent\/landlord.       In   the   circumstances   and<\/p>\n
      considering the fact that the revision petitioner\/tenant<\/p>\n
      is a society, we are inclined to grant six  months time<\/p>\n
      from   today   onwards   to   vacate   the   premises   on<\/p>\n
      condition   that   the   revision   petitioner\/tenant   shall   pay<\/p>\n
      the entire arrears of rent, if any, and also to continue<\/p>\n
      to pay the rent due in future and also  file an affidavit<\/p>\n
      before   the   execution   court   undertaking     that     the<\/p>\n
R.C.R.NO.471\/2005                      -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
       revision   petitioner     shall   vacate   the   premises   on   or<\/p>\n
       before   16-7-2007.     The   Rent     control   revision   is<\/p>\n
       disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\n                                              K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR<\/p>\n
                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\n\n                                              K.R.UDAYABHANU,\n\n                                                    JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nks.                              TRUE COPY\n\n\n                                 P.S.TO JUDGE\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev No. 471 of 2005() 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS’ … Petitioner 2. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVER’S Vs 1. P.L. LUCKOSE, S\/O. LUCKOSE, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS For Respondent :SRI.S.VENKATASUBRAMONIA IYER(SR.) […]<\/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-3956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKerala State Handloom Weavers' vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 - 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\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kerala State Handloom Weavers' vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-30T03:27:50+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\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T03:27:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1255,\"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\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Kerala State Handloom Weavers' vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T03:27:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 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":"Kerala State Handloom Weavers' vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 - 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\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kerala State Handloom Weavers' vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-30T03:27:50+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\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T03:27:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007"},"wordCount":1255,"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\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007","name":"Kerala State Handloom Weavers' vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T03:27:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kerala-state-handloom-weavers-vs-p-l-luckose-on-16-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kerala State Handloom Weavers’ vs P.L. Luckose on 16 January, 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\/3956","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=3956"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3956\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}