{"id":44279,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-14T14:12:37","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T08:42:37","slug":"ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 736 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. M\/S.KERALA SHIPPING & INLAND NAVIGATION\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. T.R.BROWLIYOOSE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN,SC,KS & INC LTD.\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :27\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                              P.N.Ravindran, J.\n                              ===============\n                             A.S.No.736 of 1999\n                       =====================\n\n                Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The first defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1994 on the file of the Court of<\/p>\n
the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam is the appellant in this appeal.<\/p>\n
Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondents 3 and 4 are<\/p>\n
defendants 2 and 3 respectively therein.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The first plaintiff, who is a businessman dealing in coconut fibre<\/p>\n
had hired for his business purposes a licenced country craft owned by<\/p>\n
the second plaintiff for a period of one month from 1.6.1993 on a daily<\/p>\n
rent of Rs.160\/-.   According to the plaintiffS, at about 2.00 A.M. on<\/p>\n
27.6.1993 while the country craft belonging to the second plaintiff,<\/p>\n
loaded with coconut husks purchased by the first plaintiff was on its way<\/p>\n
from Eroor to Vaduthala, it was hit by the barge belonging to the first<\/p>\n
defendant as a result of which, the country craft was damaged and sunk<\/p>\n
and the goods carried in it were lost. The plaintiff claimed a total sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/- as damages.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The first defendant resisted the suit contending inter alia that<\/p>\n
the barge belonging to it was not involved in the accident. The country<\/p>\n
craft belonging to the second plaintiff was insured with defendants 2 and<\/p>\n
3. They disputed the plaint claim relating to the loss of goods and the<\/p>\n
AS 736\/99                            -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
extent of damage caused to the country craft.          The first plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
brother’s son was examined as PW1, one Sri. Kunjumon as PW2 and a<\/p>\n
worker engaged by the first plaintiff as PW3 and Exts.A1 to A14 were<\/p>\n
marked on the plaintiffs’ side. The driver of the barge belonging to the<\/p>\n
first defendant was examined as DW1 and another employee of the first<\/p>\n
defendant was examined as DW2. Exts.B1 to B11 were marked on the<\/p>\n
side of the defendants. The court below on an analysis of the evidence<\/p>\n
oral and documentary available in the case held that the collision<\/p>\n
between the barge and the country craft was as a result of the negligence<\/p>\n
on the part of the employees of the first defendant. The court below also<\/p>\n
held that the first plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Rs.6,000\/- towards<\/p>\n
the value of coconut husks, Rs.31,152\/- towards expenses incurred for<\/p>\n
repairing the country craft and Rs.4,800\/- towards the rent paid by him<\/p>\n
to the second plaintiff. The suit was decreed in part, allowing the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff to realise from the defendants the sum of Rs.41,952\/- together<\/p>\n
with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of suit till<\/p>\n
realisation. The first defendant has filed this appeal assailing the<\/p>\n
correctness of the findings of the court below.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    I have heard Sri.V.J.Mathew, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, Sri.Shiju Varghese, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
2 and Sri.Mathew George Vadakkel, the learned Government Pleader<\/p>\n
appearing for respondents 3 and 4. The collision between the country<\/p>\n
craft owned by the second plaintiff and the barge owned by the first<\/p>\n
AS 736\/99                           -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant took place, according to the plaintiffs, at about 2.00 A.M. on<\/p>\n
27.6.1993. In respect of the said accident, a crime was also registered by<\/p>\n
the Hill Palace Police Station at 5.30 P.M. on the very same day. The<\/p>\n
alleged collision took place near Kaniyampuzha bridge at about 2.00<\/p>\n
A.M. on 27.6.1993. It has come out in evidence that the journey from<\/p>\n
Willington Island to the Cochin Division of the F.A.C.T. takes 5 = to 6<\/p>\n
hours. The first defendant has no case that its barge did not ply along<\/p>\n
the Kaniyampuzha river on 27.6.1993. Ext.B2 trip sheet proves beyond<\/p>\n
doubt that the first defendant’s barge left Willington Island at 10 P.M. on<\/p>\n
26.6.1993 and reached Ambalamughal at 3.40 A.M. on 27.6.1993.<\/p>\n
According to the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants, the<\/p>\n
distance from Willington Island to Kaniyampuzha bridge can be navigated<\/p>\n
in 3 = to 4 hours and from Kaniyampuzha bridge to Ambalamughal in 2<\/p>\n
to 2 = hours. Therefore, going by the materials on record, it can be<\/p>\n
safely assumed that the barge belonging to the first defendant would<\/p>\n
have reached Kaniyampuzha bridge between 2 A.M. and 2.30 A.M. on<\/p>\n
27.6.1993. PW3, a worker of the first plaintiff, who has more than 40<\/p>\n
years of experience, had spoken to the fact that no barge other than the<\/p>\n
barge belonging to the first defendant plies along the Kaniyampuzha<\/p>\n
river.  His version is supported by DW1, an employee of the first<\/p>\n
defendant.   In the light of this finding, the court below came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the country craft belonging to the second plaintiff was<\/p>\n
involved in the collision with the barge owned by the first defendant. The<\/p>\n
AS 736\/99                           -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
court below also held that there was no negligence on the part of the<\/p>\n
crew of the country craft. In my opinion, the said findings cannot be said<\/p>\n
to be perverse or not warranted by evidence on record. I accordingly<\/p>\n
confirm the said findings.\n<\/p>\n
      5. In support of his claim for compensation towards the value of<\/p>\n
the goods lost, no evidence was adduced by the first plaintiff. However,<\/p>\n
on the short ground that the defendants have not disputed the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s claim that the goods belonging to him were lost in the<\/p>\n
incident, the entire amount of Rs.6,000\/- which according to the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff was the value of the husks carried in the country craft, was<\/p>\n
awarded to him. Besides the said amount, the sum of Rs.31,152\/- stated<\/p>\n
to be the expenses incurred by the first plaintiff to repair the country<\/p>\n
craft was also awarded to him. The first plaintiff had also claimed the<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.4,800\/- towards the rent paid by him to the second plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Relying on Ext.A9 letter sent by the second plaintiff, the court below<\/p>\n
awarded to him the sum in full. The learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellants     and   the  learned   Government    Pleader  appearing    for<\/p>\n
respondents 3 and 4 canvass the correctness of the said findings.<\/p>\n
According to them, as the first plaintiff has not proved that the value of<\/p>\n
the husks carried in the country craft was Rs.6,000\/-, he is not entitled to<\/p>\n
claim the said amount from the defendants. They also contend that the<\/p>\n
first plaintiff has not proved that he has paid Rs.4,800\/- as demanded by<\/p>\n
the second plaintiff in Ext.A9 letter. The appellant and respondents 2<\/p>\n
AS 736\/99                            -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and 4 also seriously dispute the quantification of expenses incurred by<\/p>\n
the first plaintiff to repair the country craft.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The court below has awarded to the first plaintiff the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- towards the value of the coconut husks though no evidence is<\/p>\n
available to prove that 26000 coconut husks had been purchased by him<\/p>\n
and loaded in the country craft. A perusal of the written statement filed<\/p>\n
by defendants 3 and 4 discloses that they had seriously disputed the said<\/p>\n
fact. In my opinion, the burden was on the first plaintiff to show that he<\/p>\n
had purchased 26000 coconut husks and loaded it in the country craft<\/p>\n
which met with the accident on 27.6.1993. There is no cogent evidence<\/p>\n
in support of the said plea. Therefore, the court below was not right in<\/p>\n
holding that the first plaintiff is entitled to get the sum of Rs.6,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards the value of the husks. Likewise, there is also no evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the first plaintiff had paid to the second plaintiff, the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,800\/- as rent for one month. Even according to the first plaintiff, he<\/p>\n
had taken the country craft belonging to the second plaintiff for a period<\/p>\n
of one month from 1.6.1993 on a daily rent of Rs.160\/-. The accident in<\/p>\n
the instant case took place on 27.6.1993. The period of one month<\/p>\n
would have come to an end on 30.6.1993. As a result of the accident,<\/p>\n
the first plaintiff was thus disabled from using the country craft only for<\/p>\n
three days, namely, 28.6.1993, 29.6.1993 and 30.6.1993. Therefore, he<\/p>\n
can claim only Rs.480\/- towards rental charges. The finding of the court<\/p>\n
below that he is entitled to get the sum of Rs.4800\/- from the first<\/p>\n
AS 736\/99                          -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant cannot therefore be sustained. Though the appellant and<\/p>\n
respondents 3 and 4 seriously dispute the award of the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.31,152\/- towards expenses incurred for repairing the country craft,<\/p>\n
on the evidence available, particularly Ext.A11, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
said sum is exorbitant. It is not in dispute that serious damage was<\/p>\n
caused to the country craft owned by the second plaintiff.       The first<\/p>\n
plaintiff has also proved that he had to meet the expenses to repair the<\/p>\n
country craft. I Therefore find no ground to interfere with the award of<\/p>\n
the sum of Rs.31,152\/- towards expenses incurred by the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
for repairing the country craft belonging to the second plaintiff.        I<\/p>\n
accordingly confirm the said finding. It is not in dispute that the barge<\/p>\n
belonging to the first defendant was insured with defendants 2 and 3.<\/p>\n
Therefore, they are liable to indemnify the first defendant. The court<\/p>\n
below has not considered this aspect of the matter.        Instead, it has<\/p>\n
passed a decree allowing the first plaintiff to recover from the<\/p>\n
defendants the amounts awarded by it.        As the barge is admittedly<\/p>\n
insured with defendants 2 and 3, it is for defendants 2 and 3 to pay the<\/p>\n
amount that the plaintiffs are entitled to.\n<\/p>\n
      7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the decree and<\/p>\n
the judgment passed by the court below are modified and the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff is granted a decree allowing him to realise from the defendants<\/p>\n
jointly and severally the sum of Rs.31,632\/- (Rs.31,152\/- + Rs.480\/-)<\/p>\n
together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date<\/p>\n
AS 736\/99                            -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
of suit till realisation. The plaintiffs will also be entitled to the costs of<\/p>\n
the suit. The costs in the appeal shall be borne by the respective parties.<\/p>\n
                                                    P.N.Ravindran,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ess 28\/1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 736 of 1999() 1. M\/S.KERALA SHIPPING & INLAND NAVIGATION … Petitioner Vs 1. T.R.BROWLIYOOSE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN,SC,KS & INC LTD. For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN […]<\/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-44279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland ... vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 - 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\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland ... vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-14T08:42:37+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T08:42:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1653,\"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\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland ... vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T08:42:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland ... vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 - 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\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland ... vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-14T08:42:37+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T08:42:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":1653,"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\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009","name":"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland ... vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T08:42:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kerala-shipping-inland-vs-t-r-browliyoose-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Kerala Shipping & Inland … vs T.R.Browliyoose on 27 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/44279","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=44279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}