{"id":48674,"date":"2010-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-27T15:01:13","modified_gmt":"2014-06-27T09:31:13","slug":"vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 632 of 1999(A)\n\n\n\n1. VASU SREEDHARAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. MADHAVAN RAVI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :14\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J\n                   --------------------------------------\n                        S.A No.632 OF 1999\n                      --------------------------------\n         Dated this the 14th day of September 2010\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
           The defendants in a suit for money are the appellants.<\/p>\n
The second appellant\/second defendant is the son-in-law of the<\/p>\n
first appellant\/first defendant. The second defendant promising<\/p>\n
to provide a visa to the plaintiff\/respondent which would enable<\/p>\n
him to secure an employment abroad collected from him a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/-, but, the promise was honoured only in its breach,<\/p>\n
was the case of the plaintiff to claim refund of that amount. Both<\/p>\n
the defendants filed a joint written statement contending that a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.5,000\/- alone was collected by the second defendant,<\/p>\n
admittedly, with a promise to provide a visa to the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
getting employment abroad.          The plaintiff, in association with<\/p>\n
some others, after keeping the defendants in wrongful restraint,<\/p>\n
got from them a document styled as an agreement undertaking to<\/p>\n
repay a sum of Rs.20,000\/- as if such sum had been collected<\/p>\n
from the plaintiff, was the defense raised.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The trial court, on the materials tendered by both sides,<\/p>\n
was inclined to accept the contention raised by the defendants<\/p>\n
that only a sum of Rs.5,000\/- was collected by the second<\/p>\n
defendant from the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, a decree<\/p>\n
S.A No.632 OF 1999            – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
was granted in favour of the plaintiff only for a sum of Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
of the suit claim for Rs.20,000\/-. Plaintiff preferred an appeal to<\/p>\n
the extent he was aggrieved by the declining of the sum claimed<\/p>\n
under his suit. The first appellate court, after reappreciation of<\/p>\n
the materials tendered, differed from the views taken by the trial<\/p>\n
court and granted a decree to the plaintiff as canvassed in his<\/p>\n
suit.   Impeaching the modification so made under the decree<\/p>\n
passed by the first appellate court in allowing the suit claim as<\/p>\n
prayed for by the plaintiff, the defendants have preferred this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The first appellate<\/p>\n
court has misappreciated the materials on record to differ from<\/p>\n
the conclusion reached by the trial court is the submission of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/defendants. Though<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has produced Ext.A4, a certificate from a bank to<\/p>\n
show that he had collected two Demand Drafts for sums of<\/p>\n
Rs.8,000\/- and Rs.7,000\/- respectively, no documentary evidence<\/p>\n
was tendered in the case to show that such drafts had been<\/p>\n
handed over to the second defendant, as alleged to sustain the<\/p>\n
suit claim, is the further submission of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants. When there was no convincing evidence proving the<\/p>\n
S.A No.632 OF 1999           – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff that there was a further payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- either by way of drafts or otherwise to the second<\/p>\n
defendant, and that too, where both the courts, on the materials<\/p>\n
placed, found some merit in the defence set up by the defendants<\/p>\n
that the creation of Ext.A1 agreement was under such<\/p>\n
circumstances which would indicate that the defendants were<\/p>\n
under some sort of confinement when such a document was<\/p>\n
obtained from them, the first appellate court was not at all<\/p>\n
justified in interfering and modifying the decree passed by the<\/p>\n
trial judge, who alone had the opportunity to watch the<\/p>\n
demeanour and deportment of the witnesses, is the submission of<\/p>\n
the counsel for the appellants.    The decree of the trial court<\/p>\n
granting the plaintiff the sum of Rs.5,000\/-, the liability of which<\/p>\n
alone was admitted by the defendants, alone is allowable on the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances presented and materials produced, and,<\/p>\n
so much so, the decree rendered by the first appellate court<\/p>\n
awarding the suit claim as such, according to the counsel, is liable<\/p>\n
to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
plaintiff inviting my attention to the materials tendered, more<\/p>\n
particularly Exts.A4, A5 and X1, contended that the suit claim<\/p>\n
canvassed by the plaintiffs has been proved by convincing<\/p>\n
S.A No.632 OF 1999           – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence. No error of law, leave alone any substantial question of<\/p>\n
law, has been raised in the appeal to impeach the finding arrived<\/p>\n
by the first appellate court, which is the final authority on<\/p>\n
disputed question of facts involved, is the further submission of<\/p>\n
the counsel to contend that no interference with the decree of<\/p>\n
that court is called for.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel<\/p>\n
on both sides with reference to the judgments rendered by the<\/p>\n
courts below, the only question that require to be looked into is<\/p>\n
whether the decreeing of the suit, in its entirety, by the lower<\/p>\n
appellate court modifying the decree of the trial court limiting it to<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.5,000\/- only after reappreciating the materials on<\/p>\n
record, suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by<\/p>\n
this court. In analysing that question, the admitted back drop of<\/p>\n
the case that the transaction giving raise to the suit claim was on<\/p>\n
the basis of a promise extended by the second defendant to<\/p>\n
provide an employment visa on payment of sum cannot be<\/p>\n
ignored at all.    The defendants have admitted that a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- was collected from the plaintiff by the second<\/p>\n
defendant on such promise. A further sum of Rs.15,000\/- was<\/p>\n
later collected and it was paid by bank drafts to the 2nd defendant<\/p>\n
S.A No.632 OF 1999            – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
is the case of the plaintiff, which, however, was denied by the<\/p>\n
defendants. Ext.A1 agreement was produced by the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
prove that there was such collection by the second defendant and<\/p>\n
also undertaking of both the defendants to repay such sum.<\/p>\n
Creation of that document was impeached by defendants<\/p>\n
contending that it was obtained by keeping them under wrongful<\/p>\n
restraint. Both the courts, it is seen, were inclined to hold that the<\/p>\n
contention so canvassed by the defendants cannot be brushed<\/p>\n
aside as totally meritless. However, no definite finding is entered<\/p>\n
by the lower appellate court as to whether Ext.A1 agreement<\/p>\n
cannot be acted upon as having been the product arising from<\/p>\n
illegal and vitiated circumstances. Irrespective of the validity of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, whether it was obtained from the defendants under a<\/p>\n
vitiating circumstance or not, on the materials placed, it is seen<\/p>\n
that the case canvassed by the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.20,000\/-<\/p>\n
had been collected from him on the promise to provide him an<\/p>\n
employment visa by the second defendant is more probable and<\/p>\n
acceptable. Plaintiff promised with such an employment visa, it<\/p>\n
has come out , went to Bombay, stayed there for quite sometime<\/p>\n
and, later, returned when the promise was honoured only in its<\/p>\n
breach by the second defendant. It is ridiculous to imagine that<\/p>\n
S.A No.632 OF 1999             – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the second defendant promised to provide an employment visa to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff on getting a paltry sum of Rs.5,000\/-. The case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff as deposed by him that when he went over to Bombay,<\/p>\n
the demand drafts for Rs.15,000\/- handed over to the second<\/p>\n
defendant had been found trust worthy deserving acceptance, by<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court.      The letter sent by first defendant,<\/p>\n
(Ext.X1) to PW3, wherein the liability for such sum collected is<\/p>\n
admitted corroborates the case of the plaintiff. Though the first<\/p>\n
defendant had disputed the letter Ext.X1, in the light of the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW3, to whom it was sent and also that of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
as well, its genuineness need not be doubted. In Ext.A5 letter<\/p>\n
sent by the second defendant to the plaintiff, the liability towards<\/p>\n
the sum collected for providing the visa is specifically adverted<\/p>\n
though the sum was not mentioned. A reading of Ext.A5 would<\/p>\n
indicate that the second defendant at the point of time when he<\/p>\n
sent the letter was carrying on a business or activity of sending<\/p>\n
people abroad providing them employment visas. The expenses<\/p>\n
incurred by him in connection with the hospital treatments, flight<\/p>\n
expenses etc. of the persons who approached him for visa, stated<\/p>\n
in his letter (Ext.A50 is a tell tale circumstance indicating that he<\/p>\n
was not doing such activity as charity, but, only after collecting<\/p>\n
S.A No.632 OF 1999             – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
substantial sum from such persons who desired to go abroad<\/p>\n
getting employment visa from him. The case of the defendants<\/p>\n
that the second defendant had collected only a sum of Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
from the plaintiff, in the light of the materials produced by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, especially Exts.A4, A5 and X1, is found to be unworthy of<\/p>\n
any merit. The lower appellate court has rightly and correctly<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion, after reappreciating the evidence, that a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.20,000\/-, as alleged by the plaintiff, had been collected<\/p>\n
by the second defendant, and entire sum thereof is liable to be<\/p>\n
refunded. There is no error or infirmity in the finding so arrived<\/p>\n
by that court for granting the decree for such sum in modification<\/p>\n
of the decree passed by the trial court. The appeal is devoid of<\/p>\n
any merit, and, it is dismissed with costs of the respondent.<\/p>\n
                                                Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\n\n                                    S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n                                              JUDGE\n\n                  \/\/True Copy\/\/\n\nvdv                                         P.A to Judge\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 632 of 1999(A) 1. VASU SREEDHARAN … Petitioner Vs 1. MADHAVAN RAVI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :14\/09\/2010 O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J […]<\/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-48674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 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\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-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=\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-27T09:31:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-27T09:31:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1528,\"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\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-27T09:31:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 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":"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 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\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-27T09:31:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-27T09:31:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010"},"wordCount":1528,"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\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010","name":"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-27T09:31:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasu-sreedharan-vs-madhavan-ravi-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasu Sreedharan vs Madhavan Ravi on 14 September, 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\/48674","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=48674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}