{"id":49967,"date":"2009-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-21T10:14:17","modified_gmt":"2016-12-21T04:44:17","slug":"m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 21158 of 2000(R)\n\n\n\n1. M.O.SEBASTIAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. M\/S.TRANSFORMERS ELECTRICALS KERALA LTD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :25\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n            P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n            ======================\n                  O.P. No. 21158 of 2000\n            ======================\n         Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2009\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Sustainability of Exhibit P14 order passed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent company imposing the punishment of removal<\/p>\n
from service with effect from 15-9-1999 i.e., from the date<\/p>\n
of unauthorised absence of the petitioner stated as proved<\/p>\n
vide Exhibits P12 and P13 is under challenge in this writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.  The case of the petitioner is that he joined the<\/p>\n
service of the first respondent company as Foreman,<\/p>\n
Production & Planning, on 12-6-1980. On completion of 9<\/p>\n
years, he got an opportunity to go abroad securing an<\/p>\n
employment there, which made him to apply for leave<\/p>\n
without allowance for five years, which was sanctioned by<\/p>\n
the first respondent as per Exhibit P1 with effect from<\/p>\n
15.9.1989; subject to the condition that the petitioner<\/p>\n
reported for duty immediately on expiry of the leave on<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000        -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
14.9.1994, failing which, it would be presumed that<\/p>\n
petitioner had abandoned the service in the company. By<\/p>\n
Exhibit P1 it was also made clear that the leave would not<\/p>\n
be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and for other<\/p>\n
service benefits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.   The petitioner sought for extension of leave by<\/p>\n
another period of five years with effect from 15-9-1994,<\/p>\n
which, however, was rejected by the first respondent<\/p>\n
company as per Exhibit P2, stating that, as per rules of the<\/p>\n
company,     the maximum       eligible leave   to take   up<\/p>\n
employment abroad was only for a period of five years,<\/p>\n
simultaneously instructing the petitioner to report for duty<\/p>\n
on 14-9-1994, lest it should be treated as abandonment of<\/p>\n
service. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter was<\/p>\n
referred   by    the  first  respondent    company    to  the<\/p>\n
Government\/second respondent and pursuant to the<\/p>\n
instructions given by the second respondent, the first<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000       -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent company, in supersession of Exhibit P2 memo<\/p>\n
issued Exhibit P3, granting extension of leave by five years<\/p>\n
from 15-9-1994, subject to the condition that the petitioner<\/p>\n
had to report back for duty immediately on expiry of leave<\/p>\n
on 14-9-1999 and such other terms as specified therein.<\/p>\n
Almost by the end of the second spell of leave granted by<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 application<\/p>\n
seeking five years’ leave more, placing reliance on the leave<\/p>\n
rules formulated by the Government.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4.   While so, taking note of the fact that petitioner<\/p>\n
had not reported for duty on expiry of the leave granted<\/p>\n
vide Exhibit P3, the first respondent issued Exhibit P11<\/p>\n
charge sheet ,citing violation of Clause No.12(i) & (viii) of<\/p>\n
the Standing Orders of the company and asking for the<\/p>\n
explanation on the misconduct. The explanation submitted<\/p>\n
by the petitioner was found not satisfactory, which led to<\/p>\n
issuance of Exhibit P7 deciding to hold a domestic enquiry<\/p>\n
and appointing an Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000       -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.   In the course of events, Exhibit P8 representation<\/p>\n
was filed by the petitioner before the General Manager<\/p>\n
(Production) of the first respondent company pointing out<\/p>\n
that his personal inconvenience to attend the enquiry<\/p>\n
incurring a cost of more than Rs.30,000\/- and thus, seeking<\/p>\n
either to drop or to adjourn the enquiry to a later date so as<\/p>\n
to suit to his requirements. This was followed by Exhibit<\/p>\n
P10 representation sent by the petitioner directly to the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer. The fact remains that, despite the<\/p>\n
adjournment of the enquiry by two or three times, the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not take part in the enquiry and chose to<\/p>\n
remain abroad, which led to finalisation of the domestic<\/p>\n
enquiry after declaring him ex-parte.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.   On submission of the enquiry report (Exhibit P12),<\/p>\n
copy of the same was forwarded by the first respondent to<\/p>\n
the petitioner asking for his explanation, if any, particularly<\/p>\n
with regard to the finding of guilt arrived at. In response to<\/p>\n
this, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P13 reply which was<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000      -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
considered by the first respondent and after analysing the<\/p>\n
facts,  circumstances   and     evidence,  the   disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority came to the conclusion that conduct of the<\/p>\n
enquiry was very much valid and proper and that the<\/p>\n
charge levelled against the delinquent employee was<\/p>\n
proved. It was observed by the disciplinary authority that<\/p>\n
the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer was<\/p>\n
very much serious, particularly when the company was<\/p>\n
facing grave financial difficulties and facing adverse<\/p>\n
proceedings pending before the BIFR with shortage of<\/p>\n
manpower; whereas the petitioner was continuing on<\/p>\n
unauthorised absence, reaping his virtues abroad and hence<\/p>\n
that the petitioner was very much liable to be dismissed<\/p>\n
from the service on the basis of the proven misconduct.<\/p>\n
However, as stated in Exhibit P14 order, instead of<\/p>\n
dismissal, the punishment of removal from the service alone<\/p>\n
was imposed on the petitioner, taking a lenient view.<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000        -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.    The case of the petitioner, placing reliance on<\/p>\n
Exhibit P4 is that the leave without allowance, which can be<\/p>\n
sanctioned as provided under Appendix XIIA , part I, KSR,<\/p>\n
has been enhanced from 15 years to 20 years and hence<\/p>\n
that the application preferred by the petitioner seeking for<\/p>\n
further extension of the leave (after the second extension<\/p>\n
granted vide Exhibit P3) was perfectly in accordance with<\/p>\n
the provisions of law. It is also contended by the petitioner<\/p>\n
that the first respondent being a Government company,<\/p>\n
provisions of the KSR are very much applicable to the said<\/p>\n
company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.   The first respondent company has filed counter<\/p>\n
affidavit vehemently disputing the above averments,<\/p>\n
asserting that the leave rules stipulated by the Government<\/p>\n
are not at all applicable to the first respondent company. It<\/p>\n
is also pointed out that the company is having its own rules<\/p>\n
and norms to govern the service conditions and that the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000       -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
provisions of KSR are totally alien with respect to the<\/p>\n
service in the company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  It is trite law that the first respondent which<\/p>\n
admittedly is a company incorporated under the relevant<\/p>\n
provisions of the Companies Act, is a separate legal entity<\/p>\n
and hence provisions of the KSR are not applicable, though<\/p>\n
it is a Government company; unless adopted by the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors. There is no case for the petitioner that the Board<\/p>\n
of Directors of the first respondent company has adopted<\/p>\n
the KSR and no reference is made to any such resolution or<\/p>\n
other relevant proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10. The contention of the petitioner that the first<\/p>\n
respondent, if at all having any doubt, ought to have<\/p>\n
referred the matter for decision of the Government as done<\/p>\n
earlier is also stated as not correct. The first respondent<\/p>\n
has asserted in the counter affidavit that there was no such<\/p>\n
instance making the respondent company to refer any<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000       -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
application for leave for consideration of the Government<\/p>\n
and it was the petitioner who, while remaining abroad even<\/p>\n
after rejection of the second spell of leave vide Exhibit P2,<\/p>\n
moved the Government. The Government requested the first<\/p>\n
respondent company to consider the petitioner’s application<\/p>\n
as “a special case”, which in turn, led to Exhibit P3,<\/p>\n
extending the leave by another five years from 15-9-1994,<\/p>\n
though, as per the rules of the company, the permissible<\/p>\n
period of leave for taking up employment abroad was only<\/p>\n
five years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     11. It is settled law that leave cannot be claimed, as a<\/p>\n
matter of right, and as such the petitioner could not have<\/p>\n
continued abroad, even after expiry of the leave granted to<\/p>\n
him. Over staying beyond the sanctioned extent of leave is a<\/p>\n
a clear instance of misconduct. The Apex Court has made it<\/p>\n
clear that the scope of domestic enquiry in such<\/p>\n
circumstances     will  stand     rather confined   to    the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000        -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted\/undisputed facts as no detailed fact adjudication<\/p>\n
process is necessitated as held in CHAIRMAN &<\/p>\n
MANAGING         DIRECTOR,         V.S.P. &   OTHERS      v.\n<\/p>\n
GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU [(2008) 5<\/p>\n
SCC 569].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     12. In the instant case, the respondent company after<\/p>\n
issuing Exhibit P6 charge sheet and on finding that the<\/p>\n
explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory, proceeded<\/p>\n
to hold a domestic enquiry as borne by Exhibit P7 memo,<\/p>\n
which led to Exhibit P10 enquiry report. It is true that the<\/p>\n
enquiry happened to be finalised ex-parte; but the<\/p>\n
allegation of the petitioner that there was violation of the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice cannot be held as correct or<\/p>\n
sustainable in the light of the admitted\/undisputed factual<\/p>\n
position as to a specific circumstances and conditions under<\/p>\n
which the leave was granted; the admission made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner that he was continuing abroad even after the<\/p>\n
expiry of leave granted vide Exhibit P3 and that he would<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000        -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
have to incur huge expenses for participating in the<\/p>\n
enquiry. Equally wrong and unsustainable is the contention<\/p>\n
of the petitioner as to the alleged violation of natural justice<\/p>\n
for not supplying copies of the deposition of the witnesses<\/p>\n
and documents, which in fact, has been controverted by the<\/p>\n
first respondent in paragraph 7 of their counter affidavit,<\/p>\n
asserting that copies of the deposition of witnesses and<\/p>\n
documents were very much furnished to the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
said assertion in the counter affidavit stands intact, in so far<\/p>\n
as the petitioner has not chosen to file any reply affidavit, to<\/p>\n
rebut the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     13. As observed already, the petitioner being an<\/p>\n
employee of the first respondent company, is not governed<\/p>\n
by the provisions of KSR and the leave Rules as contained in<\/p>\n
Appendix XII A, Part I, KSR. For the very same reason,<\/p>\n
Exhibit P5 Government Order is not at all applicable to him.<\/p>\n
The petitioner admittedly having not chosen to report for<\/p>\n
duty on expiry of the leave sanctioned vide Exhibit P3 and<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 21158 of 2000       -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
was     admittedly    remaining     abroad    without   even<\/p>\n
participating in the enquiry, the finding and reasoning given<\/p>\n
by the Enquiry Officer in Exhibit P12 report is not liable to<\/p>\n
be intercepted in any manner. There is absolutely no<\/p>\n
violation of any known principles of natural justice. The<\/p>\n
petitioner, without any regard to the organisational interest,<\/p>\n
was more eager to stay abroad in pursuit of his fortunes.<\/p>\n
The punishment of removal from the service ordered by the<\/p>\n
first   respondent     can    never    be    considered    as<\/p>\n
disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct<\/p>\n
and hence, no interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed<\/p>\n
accordingly. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
skr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 21158 of 2000(R) 1. M.O.SEBASTIAN … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.TRANSFORMERS ELECTRICALS KERALA LTD … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :25\/02\/2009 O R […]<\/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-49967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals ... on 25 February, 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\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals ... on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-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=\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-21T04:44:17+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\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.O.Sebastian vs M\\\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-21T04:44:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1743,\"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\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009\",\"name\":\"M.O.Sebastian vs M\\\/S.Transformers Electricals ... on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-21T04:44:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.O.Sebastian vs M\\\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 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.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals ... on 25 February, 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\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals ... on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-21T04:44:17+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\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-21T04:44:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009"},"wordCount":1743,"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\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009","name":"M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals ... on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-21T04:44:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-o-sebastian-vs-ms-transformers-electricals-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.O.Sebastian vs M\/S.Transformers Electricals … on 25 February, 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\/49967","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=49967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}