{"id":45218,"date":"2010-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-10T18:24:35","modified_gmt":"2015-03-10T12:54:35","slug":"h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 805 of 2002()\n\n\n1. H.G.GEEVARUGHENE MAR IVANIOSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. K.V.S.PANICKER, PRINCIPAL, MATHEWS\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SKARIAH P.S., KUDAKASSERIL HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJEEV.P.NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :04\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                        ------------------------\n                         S.A.No.805 Of 2002\n                         ----------------------\n                Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010.\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The defendants in O.S.No.517 of 1996 on the file of the Sub<\/p>\n<p>Court, Kottayam are the appellants.           The suit was filed for<\/p>\n<p>damages. The trial court decreed the suit in part allowing the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs.42,676\/- with interest at the<\/p>\n<p>rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment and also<\/p>\n<p>proportionate costs from the defendants.         The appellate court<\/p>\n<p>with modification confirmed the decree and judgment. Parties<\/p>\n<p>are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as<\/p>\n<p>arrayed in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.     The plaintiff filed the suit on account of termination of<\/p>\n<p>his service by the defendants.         Plaintiff was working as an<\/p>\n<p>instructor in the first defendant ITC with effect from1.12.1981.<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiff&#8217;s service was terminated on account of his unauthorized<\/p>\n<p>absence from 4.10.1993. The suit was filed contending that the<\/p>\n<p>termination of service is illegal and claimed damages.           The<\/p>\n<p>appellants\/defendants contended that the plaintiff by absenting<\/p>\n<p>S.A.No.805 Of 2002<\/p>\n<p>                                ::2::\n<\/p>\n<p>himself without any sufficient reasons deserted employment and<\/p>\n<p>hence his service was terminated and therefore he is not entitled<\/p>\n<p>to the relief sought for in the suit. The trial court after framing<\/p>\n<p>necessary issues considered the question as to whether the<\/p>\n<p>termination of the service of the plaintiff is illegal and whether<\/p>\n<p>the damages claimed is allowable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.    Both sides adduced evidence in support of their<\/p>\n<p>respective contentions.     The defendants contended that the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff was absent from 19.8.1983 onwards. Therefore show<\/p>\n<p>cause notice was issued to him with a direction to present within<\/p>\n<p>three days.      Plaintiff sent a reply with medical certificate<\/p>\n<p>informing the defendants that he is unable to attend the work.<\/p>\n<p>Defendants again issued show cause notice to the plaintiff stating<\/p>\n<p>that he is not reporting for duty in spite of notice and therefore<\/p>\n<p>his absence will be treated as desertion of employment. In spite<\/p>\n<p>of show cause notice, plaintiff did not join duty and therefore his<\/p>\n<p>name was removed from the roll with effect from 4.10.1993 for<\/p>\n<p>unauthorized absence.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.A.No.805 Of 2002<\/p>\n<p>                                 ::3::\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.   Plaintiff examined PWs 1 and 2 and produced Exts.A1<\/p>\n<p>to A8. Admittedly, plaintiff submitted leave application with a<\/p>\n<p>medical certificate for the period from 19.8.1993. Defendants did<\/p>\n<p>not accept the leave application and the service of the plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>was terminated. The trial court observed that the defendant has<\/p>\n<p>not made enquiry about the genuineness of the plaintiff&#8217;s leave<\/p>\n<p>application and medical certificate submitted along with the<\/p>\n<p>application. In the leave application the plaintiff informed the<\/p>\n<p>defendants that he was laid up and not in a position to move and<\/p>\n<p>his expression of willingness to work after recovery from the<\/p>\n<p>illness was not properly responded to by the defendants. In spite<\/p>\n<p>of the fact that the leave application was filed and further<\/p>\n<p>expressing willingness to join duty after recovery, according to<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiff, the defendant directed the plaintiff to be present<\/p>\n<p>within two days. The conduct of the parties is appreciated by the<\/p>\n<p>trial court and the trial court held that the conduct of the<\/p>\n<p>defendant is highly arbitrary and improper.       The trial court<\/p>\n<p>observed that the defendant should have made further enquiry<\/p>\n<p>regarding the genuineness of the medical certificate. The trial<\/p>\n<p>S.A.No.805 Of 2002<\/p>\n<p>                                  ::4::\n<\/p>\n<p>court also relied on the evidence of PW2, the doctor who issued<\/p>\n<p>the medical certificate and held that the evidence of PW2 clearly<\/p>\n<p>establish that the plaintiff was laid up due to Rheumatic<\/p>\n<p>complaints and therefore he was not in a position even to move.<\/p>\n<p>The trial court believed the evidence of PW2. After examining the<\/p>\n<p>attending circumstances, the trial court held that the defendant<\/p>\n<p>has terminated the service of the plaintiff without any enquiry<\/p>\n<p>and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>Admittedly, the plaintiff is a permanent employee of the first<\/p>\n<p>defendant institution. The matter was taken up before the lower<\/p>\n<p>appellate court. The appellate court also confirmed the decree<\/p>\n<p>and judgment with a slight modification regarding the quantum of<\/p>\n<p>damages.      The trial court as well as the appellate court<\/p>\n<p>appreciated the evidence on record and held that the termination<\/p>\n<p>of service of the plaintiff is arbitrary and illegal. The findings are<\/p>\n<p>purely based on facts. This Court is unable to interfere with the<\/p>\n<p>findings of fact in an appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1395912\/\">Sitaram Kashiram Konda v. Pigment Cakes and Chemicals<\/p>\n<p>S.A.No.805 Of<\/a> 2002<\/p>\n<p>                                  ::5::\n<\/p>\n<p>Mfg. Co. (AIR 1980 SC 16). The Apex Court in the said decision<\/p>\n<p>held that if an employee was wrongly dismissed from service<\/p>\n<p>court can order reinstatement and also in the alternate order<\/p>\n<p>compensation.      The Apex Court held that such a suit is<\/p>\n<p>maintainable. According to the counsel for the appellant, on a<\/p>\n<p>reading of facts in Ext.B2 plaint and Ext.A6 judgment in the<\/p>\n<p>earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, there is no alternate prayer for<\/p>\n<p>compensation and therefore the present suit claiming damages is<\/p>\n<p>not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to<\/p>\n<p>the notice of this Court, the circumstances under which the<\/p>\n<p>earlier suit was filed.      The earlier suit was based on the<\/p>\n<p>appointment of an instructor in the place of the plaintiff since the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff did not report for duty on 14.9.1993. During that time<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiff was in service of the first defendant, the second suit<\/p>\n<p>was filed challenging the termination order dated 4.10.1993.<\/p>\n<p>According to the learned counsel the scope and ambit of both<\/p>\n<p>suits are different and therefore the dictum laid down by the<\/p>\n<p>Apex Court has no application at all. On an examination of the<\/p>\n<p>facts of this case, I find that the earlier suit was filed challenging<\/p>\n<p>S.A.No.805 Of 2002<\/p>\n<p>                                ::6::\n<\/p>\n<p>the notice issued by the first defendant calling upon the plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>to rejoin duty and the present suit was filed after the termination<\/p>\n<p>of service claiming damages. It is very clear that the facts of the<\/p>\n<p>said case has no application to the case in hand.        It is also<\/p>\n<p>pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that the second<\/p>\n<p>suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC was not raised either<\/p>\n<p>before the trial court or before the appellate court. No question<\/p>\n<p>of law much less any substantial question of law arises for<\/p>\n<p>consideration in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             HARUN-UL-RASHID,<br \/>\n                                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 805 of 2002() 1. H.G.GEEVARUGHENE MAR IVANIOSE, &#8230; Petitioner 2. K.V.S.PANICKER, PRINCIPAL, MATHEWS Vs 1. SKARIAH P.S., KUDAKASSERIL HOUSE, &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN For Respondent :SRI.RAJEEV.P.NAIR The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-10T12:54:35+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-10T12:54:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1078,\"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\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\",\"name\":\"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-10T12:54:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 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":"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-10T12:54:35+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-10T12:54:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010"},"wordCount":1078,"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\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010","name":"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-10T12:54:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-geevarughene-mar-ivaniose-vs-skariah-p-s-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H.G.Geevarughene Mar Ivaniose vs Skariah P.S. on 4 June, 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\/45218","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=45218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}