{"id":50028,"date":"2009-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-31T12:34:37","modified_gmt":"2018-12-31T07:04:37","slug":"ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 204 of 2007()\n\n\n1. M\/S.JCR TRADING PVT.LTD., A COMPANY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MR.S.SUSEELAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF\n3. MR.JOHN JOSEPH, DIRECTOR OF\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. A.J.VARGHESE, S\/O. A.V.JOSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. A.J.PAUL, S\/O. A.V.JOSE, ALAUKKA HOUSE,\n\n3. A.J.JOHN, S\/O. A.V.JOSE, ALUKKAS HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :19\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JJ.\n               -----------------------------------------------\n                 R.C.R.Nos. 204 of 2007 & 35 of 2008\n               -----------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      RCR. No. 204 of 2007 is instituted by the tenants and RCR. Nos.<\/p>\n
35 of 2008 is instituted by the landlords. Both these revision petitions<\/p>\n
are directed against the common judgment of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals filed by the tenants and the<\/p>\n
landlords. The landlords filed the rent control petition invoking the<\/p>\n
grounds of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) (arrears of rent), 11(3)<\/p>\n
(bona fide need for own occupation) and 11(8) (requirement for<\/p>\n
additional accommodation for personal use).\n<\/p>\n
      2. The landlords’ case in the context of the ground for eviction<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2)(b) was that the contract rent was Rs.4840\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem and that the same is in arrears since January 2002 and that<\/p>\n
despite the statutory demand notice issued under Section 11(2)(b) the<\/p>\n
tenant did not pay the arrears of rent within the period of 15 days of<\/p>\n
receipt of the notice or even thereafter. The Rent Control Court on<\/p>\n
appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties became inclined to<\/p>\n
accept the landlords’ case that the tenant did not pay the arrears of<\/p>\n
rent payable since January, 2002.        However, that court found hat<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
there was no evidence to hold that the contract amount of Rs.4400\/-<\/p>\n
payable as per Ext.A5 lease agreement was increased to Rs.4840\/-<\/p>\n
and accordingly concluded that rent is in arrears only at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.4400\/- per mensem. Considering the grounds for eviction under<\/p>\n
Sections 11(3) and 11(8) the Rent Control Court noticed that the<\/p>\n
evidence given by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner who<\/p>\n
was examined as PW1 was only hearsay evidence regarding the<\/p>\n
requirement of the petitioners to expand their jewellery business which<\/p>\n
was being conducted by them in the adjacent northern rooms of the<\/p>\n
petition schedule building. That court also found that no acceptable<\/p>\n
evidence was let in for proving that the rooms available in the upstair<\/p>\n
portion already in the possession of the landlords was not sufficient for<\/p>\n
meeting the projected need of expansion of the landlords’ business.<\/p>\n
That court relied on the evidence of CPW-2, a retired Chief Engineer of<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to find that the area of the upstair<\/p>\n
portion possessed by the landlords was equal to the corresponding<\/p>\n
area in the first floor. More importantly that court noticed that none of<\/p>\n
the landlords who are three in number have chosen to enter the<\/p>\n
witness box to testify regarding the bona fides of their need for<\/p>\n
additional accommodation. Rent Control Court relied on the judgment<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
of this Court in 2005(2) KLJ 46, the judgment of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
2005(2) SCC 217 and also the judgment of this Court in 1994(2) KLT<\/p>\n
571 and held that the failure on the part of anyone of the petitioners<\/p>\n
to speak about their own bona fides was fatal and accordingly declined<\/p>\n
order of eviction sought for under Sections 11(3) and 11(8).        The<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence<\/p>\n
would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeals preferred by the landlords and the tenants. In<\/p>\n
the context of a contention seriously raised by the tenants that the<\/p>\n
previous owners of the building had agreed to sell the building to them<\/p>\n
and that they are possessing the building on the strength of that<\/p>\n
agreement for sale and that there is no landlord tenant relationship<\/p>\n
between them and the petitioners in the RCP, the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
and the Appellate Authority concurrently held against the tenants that<\/p>\n
the   jural status of the respondents in RCP who were admittedly<\/p>\n
tenants under the predecessors in interest of the present landlords was<\/p>\n
that of tenants in view of the conceded position that the ownership<\/p>\n
had not been conveyed to them and that the suit filed by them for<\/p>\n
specific performance was only pending.\n<\/p>\n
      3. As already indicated RCR No. 204 of 2007 has been filed by<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the tenants impugning the order of eviction passed against them under<\/p>\n
Section 11(2)(b) and in RCR No. 35 of 2008 the landlords challenge<\/p>\n
the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the contract rent<\/p>\n
payable by the tenants as well as rejection of their petition for eviction<\/p>\n
on the grounds of bona fide own occupation and for requirement of<\/p>\n
additional accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
      4. We have heard the submissions of Mr.V.Chitambaresh, senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the tenant petitioners in RCR. No. 204 of 2007 and also<\/p>\n
those of Mr.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, senior counsel for the landlords<\/p>\n
petitioners in RCR. No. 35 of 2008. Defending the order of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the Appellate Authority declining the eviction on the<\/p>\n
grounds under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) Mr.Chitambaresh would cite a<\/p>\n
catena of decisions before us including the judgment of a Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy,<\/a> 2006(3)<\/p>\n
KLT 129, the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
K.T.Thomas v. P.Sreedhara Varma,<\/a> 2008(1) K.L.J. 125, judgment of a<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this court in Ratheesh Kumar v. Jithendra Kumar,<\/a><\/p>\n
2005(2) KLT 669, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
Subramaniyan Pillai and others v. M.Shamsar Jihan and others<\/a>, 2009<\/p>\n
(1) KHC 384, the judgment of this Court in Sivadasa Panicker v.<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Travancore Mats and Mattings Co., 2009(1) KHC 472, the judgment of<\/p>\n
a Division Bench of this Court in Aboobacker v. Sahithya P.S.Sangham<\/p>\n
Ltd.,<\/a> 2004(2) KLT 947, Janki Vashdeo . Indusind Bank, 2005(2) KLT<\/p>\n
265 (SC), the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joseph Mathew v.<\/p>\n
Jose Thomas,<\/a> 2005 (4) KLT 764 (SC), the judgment of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Davis v. Sebastian,<\/a> (1999) 6 SCC 604, the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in S.R. Babu v. T.K.Vasudevan and others<\/a>, (2001) 8<\/p>\n
SC 110 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ubaiba v.<\/p>\n
Damodaran,<\/a> (1999) 5 SCC 645 were some of them. Mr.Chitambaresh<\/p>\n
would argue that at any rate, in the light of the principles of law laid<\/p>\n
down by      the decisions cited by him there was no warrant for<\/p>\n
interfering with the orders concurrently passed by the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court and the Appellate Authority and that the maximum relief which<\/p>\n
could be aspired for by the landlords was leave to institute a fresh rent<\/p>\n
control petition on the same cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Resisting the submissions of Mr.Chitambaresh Sri.Balakrishna<\/p>\n
Iyer would argue that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the<\/p>\n
contract rent payable by the tenants was Rs.4400\/- only per month<\/p>\n
and not the sum of Rs.4840\/- per month as averred by the landlords<\/p>\n
was faulty being contrary to the pleadings and the evidence. Learned<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
senior counsel submitted in this context that there was no specific<\/p>\n
denial of the landlords’ pleadings regarding rate of rent and at any<\/p>\n
rate, CPW-1 had admitted in his evidence that the tenants used to pay<\/p>\n
rent to the previous landlord at the rate of Rs.4840\/-.        Trying to<\/p>\n
distinguish the decisions cited by Mr.Chitambaresh taking the view that<\/p>\n
the non-examination of any one of the landlords is fatal when the need<\/p>\n
is for bona fide own occupation Mr.Balakrishna Iyer would submit that<\/p>\n
all these decisions have been rendered following the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo v. Indusind Bank,<\/a> 2005(2) KLT 265<\/p>\n
(SC) wherein the Supreme Court was concerned with the powers<\/p>\n
conferred on the holder of a power of attorney in terms of Order III<\/p>\n
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to act on behalf of the<\/p>\n
principal. The ratio of that decision, according to the learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel was only to the effect that an agent is not capable of deposing<\/p>\n
for the principal in respect of matters on which only principal can have<\/p>\n
personal knowledge.      In the instant case the person examined on<\/p>\n
behalf of the landlords was the manager and actual conductor of the<\/p>\n
business.   The landlords are youngsters and it is this PW1 who is<\/p>\n
actually conducting the business and hence he is aware of the ground<\/p>\n
realities including the extent of space required for conducting the<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
business in a more profitable way. Mr.Balakrishna Iyer argued that at<\/p>\n
any rate, all the decisions cited by Mr.Chitambaresh were decisions<\/p>\n
rendered in the context of a claim under Section 11(3) and not under<\/p>\n
Section 11(8).   Mr.Balakrishna Iyer conceded that though in the<\/p>\n
instant RCP both 11(3) and 11(8) were quoted in view of the ratio of<\/p>\n
the judgment of this Court in Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy,<\/a><\/p>\n
2006(3) KLT 129 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.R.Babu<\/p>\n
v. T.K.Vasudevan and others<\/a>, (2001) 8 SCC 110 the rent control<\/p>\n
petition can be maintained only under section 11(8). Counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the standards of bonafides required for establishing a<\/p>\n
ground under Section 11(8) were not so rigorous as in a case under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) and hence the bonafides of the petitioners for additional<\/p>\n
accommodation has been established by the oral evidence of PW1,<\/p>\n
their manager who is in the know of things. When the attention of the<\/p>\n
senior counsel was drawn to the situation that in the instant case<\/p>\n
neither the Rent Control Court nor the Appellate Authority appears to<\/p>\n
have considered the question of comparative advantages and<\/p>\n
hardships as is necessary in the case of petitions under Section 11(8)<\/p>\n
in view of the second proviso to section 11(10) the senior counsel<\/p>\n
would draw our attention to Sections 18(3) and 23(1) of the Rent<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Control Act and also to Rule 16(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease &<\/p>\n
Rent Control) Rules and argue that if it becomes necessary the issue<\/p>\n
be remanded to the Rent Control Court.\n<\/p>\n
       6. In reply Sri.V.Chitambaresh, senior counsel would oppose<\/p>\n
Mr.Balakrishna Iyer’s request for a remand of the matter and that too<\/p>\n
to the Rent Control Appellate Authority.       According to him by<\/p>\n
remanding the matter to the Rent Control Appellate Authority the<\/p>\n
tenants are being deprived of the statutory right of appeal guaranteed<\/p>\n
under Section 18 against the order of the Rent Control Court. Counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that on facts the case of Joseph Mathew v. Jose Thomas,<\/a><\/p>\n
2005(4) KLT 764 (SC) was much stronger for the landlord and that in<\/p>\n
that case the Supreme Court had set aside orders of eviction<\/p>\n
concurrently passed in favour of the landlords on the sole ground of<\/p>\n
non-examination of the landlords.    Yet the Supreme Court became<\/p>\n
inclined not to remand the matter, but only to permit the landlord to<\/p>\n
file a fresh petition.\n<\/p>\n
       7. We have considered the rival submissions addressed by the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel.     In the light of the     relevant statutory<\/p>\n
provisions and the ratio emerging from the various decisions cited at<\/p>\n
the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
      The above discussions will lead these revision petitions to the<\/p>\n
following result.\n<\/p>\n
      The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under<\/p>\n
section 11(2)(b) is confirmed.     However, the finding of that court<\/p>\n
regarding the contract rent payable by the tenant is modified and it is<\/p>\n
found that the contract rent payable by the tenant is Rs.4840\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem. The arrears of rent to be deposited by the tenant for getting<\/p>\n
the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) set aside under<\/p>\n
Section 11(2)(c) will be quantified on that basis. It is found that R.C.P.<\/p>\n
No. 31 of 2004 is not maintainable under Section 11(3) and that it is<\/p>\n
maintainable under Section 11(8).      The orders passed by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the Appellate Authority dismissing the R.C.P. are<\/p>\n
set aside and the R.C.P. is remanded to the Rent Control Court,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram for further enquiry and fresh decision. The Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court will permit the landlords to adduce further evidence by<\/p>\n
examining any one of the landlords and by producing any item of<\/p>\n
documentary evidence. In case further evidence as permitted above is<\/p>\n
adduced by the landlords the Rent Control Court will allow the tenants<\/p>\n
to adduce counter evidence. That court will pass fresh orders in the<\/p>\n
WP(C)N0.\n<\/p>\n
                                    -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
RCP on the basis of the entire evidence on record. The necessary<\/p>\n
finding in the context of the first proviso to Section 11(10) will also be<\/p>\n
entered by the Rent Control Court.           R.C.R. No.204 of 2007 is<\/p>\n
dismissed and R.C.R. No. 34 of 2008 is allowed to the above extent.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances the parties will suffer their respective costs in the<\/p>\n
revisions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
ksv\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 204 of 2007() 1. M\/S.JCR TRADING PVT.LTD., A COMPANY … Petitioner 2. MR.S.SUSEELAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF 3. MR.JOHN JOSEPH, DIRECTOR OF Vs 1. A.J.VARGHESE, S\/O. A.V.JOSE, … Respondent 2. A.J.PAUL, S\/O. A.V.JOSE, ALAUKKA HOUSE, […]<\/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-50028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 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\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-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=\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-31T07:04:37+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=\"11 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-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-31T07:04:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2060,\"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-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-31T07:04:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 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\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 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\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-31T07:04:37+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-31T07:04:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009"},"wordCount":2060,"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-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009","name":"M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-31T07:04:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jcr-trading-pvt-ltd-vs-a-j-varghese-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Jcr Trading Pvt.Ltd. vs A.J.Varghese on 19 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\/50028","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=50028"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50028\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}