{"id":58612,"date":"2009-06-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-03T05:10:43","modified_gmt":"2017-03-02T23:40:43","slug":"ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 128 of 2005()\n\n\n1. RAMESH PRASAD,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SAI PRASAD, S\/O. RAMESH PRASAD,\n3. PRASAD PRODUCTION (P) LTD.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.A. HARIES,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SIYAD KOKKER, S\/O. A.B.ABDUL KHADER,\n\n3. M\/S. PRASAD FILM LABORATORY, CHENNAI.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.EASWARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.A.AZIZ\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :15\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                     P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         F.A.O. No. 128 & 134 of 2005\n                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009.\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Bhavadasan, J,<\/p>\n
             In these appeals, the respondents in I.A. 987 of 2003 in<\/p>\n
Arbitration O.P. No.294 of 2003 before the District Court,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam calls in question the order passed whereby they were<\/p>\n
directed to suffer imprisonment for violating an order of<\/p>\n
injunction. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were<\/p>\n
available before the court below.\n<\/p>\n
             2. The issue related to the release of a film by name<\/p>\n
“Ayirathil Oruvan”. The petitioner before the court below claims to<\/p>\n
be the producer and distributor of the Malayalam film and the first<\/p>\n
respondent was alleged to be similarly situated.                                   The second<\/p>\n
respondent is the Laboratory located at Chennai. According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the petitioner and the first respondent had arrived at an<\/p>\n
agreement whereby the first respondent was to purchase the rights<\/p>\n
over the film. An agreement to that effect was entered into on<\/p>\n
22.2.2002. The schedule of payments was shown in the agreement.<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
It is alleged that the cheques issued by the first respondent bounced for<\/p>\n
want of funds.      Therefore, the petitioner moved for a prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction. The matter went for arbitration and an injunction was<\/p>\n
ordered in the arbitration proceedings whereby the respondents were<\/p>\n
restrained from releasing the film and also handing over the negative or<\/p>\n
the prints to anybody. Initial ad interim injunction granted was made<\/p>\n
absolute. The allegation is that even though a modification of the order<\/p>\n
was sought by the first respondent and that was infact granted, he had<\/p>\n
failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the said order and he<\/p>\n
could take aid of the modified order. The allegation is that in violation<\/p>\n
of the order of injunction the film was released. On the basis of these<\/p>\n
allegations it was clarified that proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A be<\/p>\n
taken.\n<\/p>\n
             3. The respondents resisted the petition. It was pointed out<\/p>\n
by them that there is no merit in the petition at all. The first respondent<\/p>\n
contended that along with the Arbitration O.P. the first respondent had<\/p>\n
filed I.A. 189 of 2002 seeking temporary injunction. It is claimed that<\/p>\n
he entered appearance and filed a petition for appointment of a<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
receiver. Processing of the film was completed and produced before<\/p>\n
the Censor Board. Thereafter he moved I.A.760 of 2003 for a direction<\/p>\n
to the second respondent, that is the Studio, to submit first copy of the<\/p>\n
film before the Kerala State Chalachithra Academy for the purpose of<\/p>\n
screening the film before the Award Committee for Kerala State<\/p>\n
awards for Malayalam films 2002. A conditional order was passed.<\/p>\n
The film was allowed to be exhibited before the Committee on<\/p>\n
condition that the first respondent furnishes security for the amount due<\/p>\n
to the petitioner. The security was produced on 5.4.2003. Bonafide<\/p>\n
believing that the security furnished is sufficient, he issued a<\/p>\n
communication to the second respondent to release copy of the film for<\/p>\n
screening before the award committee on 7.4.2003. It was in the<\/p>\n
evening of 7.4.2003 he was given to understand that the security<\/p>\n
offered by him was not accepted by the court below. It was under these<\/p>\n
circumstances that the film had been screened. It is pointed out by the<\/p>\n
respondents that there is no wilful disobedience or laches on their part<\/p>\n
and the situation arose under the circumstances mentioned above. He<\/p>\n
therefore prayed for a dismissal of the petitions.<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
            4. The second respondent maintains the stand that he had<\/p>\n
released copy of the film on getting instruction from the first<\/p>\n
respondent about the furnishing of security. He bonafide believed the<\/p>\n
communication so received by him and it was under those<\/p>\n
circumstances he had released a copy of the film to be screened before<\/p>\n
the Committee.      According to him had he known that there was<\/p>\n
infirmity in the security furnished by the first respondent or that the<\/p>\n
court had not accepted the same, he would not have released the copy<\/p>\n
of the film. According to him there is no wilful default or laches on<\/p>\n
his part and that the proceedings against him need to be dropped.<\/p>\n
            5. Court below considered the rival contentions and came<\/p>\n
to the conclusion that there was no bonafides in the stand taken by the<\/p>\n
respondents and accordingly passed the impugned order.<\/p>\n
            6. The question that arose for consideration is whether any<\/p>\n
interference is called for with the order of the court below.<\/p>\n
            7. Point: Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
pointed out that there was no justification for the court below in<\/p>\n
passing the impugned order. It is pointed out that the first respondent<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
before the court below had moved for a modification of the order of<\/p>\n
absolute injunction on 3.4.2003.       That modification petition was<\/p>\n
allowed and the first respondent was asked to furnish security.<\/p>\n
             8. The first respondent furnished the necessary security<\/p>\n
and informed the matter to the second respondent. Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellant in FAO.134 f 2005 pointed out that he had no clue<\/p>\n
that the court would reject the security furnished by him nor was there<\/p>\n
any reason to believe that the security furnished by him was<\/p>\n
insufficient. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in FAO. 128<\/p>\n
of 2005 pointed out that it was believing the communication given by<\/p>\n
the first respondent before the court below that the copy of the film had<\/p>\n
been released.     Appellants had no reason to believe that the<\/p>\n
communication was a false one in the circumstances of the case. It<\/p>\n
could not therefore be said that the appellants in FAO.128 of 2005 had<\/p>\n
wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction.\n<\/p>\n
             9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the<\/p>\n
other hand submits that there is no bonafides in the claim made by the<\/p>\n
appellants. There was an order of injunction against them and they had<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
flouted the same. True that there was modification of the order of<\/p>\n
injunction, by which the film could be screened before the Award<\/p>\n
Committee, but that was subject to conditions. Those conditions had<\/p>\n
not been complied with, and therefore the appellants could not be under<\/p>\n
the bonafide impression that their acts are justified.<\/p>\n
            10. Even though it may appear that the contention taken by<\/p>\n
the respondents in these appeals is justified, on a closer scrutiny it can<\/p>\n
be found that there is not much substance in the same. It is not in<\/p>\n
dispute that there was an order of injunction restraining the respondents<\/p>\n
before the court below from releasing copy of the film or screening the<\/p>\n
same. It is also not in dispute that there was subsequent modification<\/p>\n
of the order, whereby the film could be screened before the Award<\/p>\n
Committee subject to the condition that the appellant in FAO. 134 of<\/p>\n
2005 furnishing sufficient security for the amount due to the petitioner<\/p>\n
before the court below. The conditional order was passed on 3.4.2003.<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that the security was furnished on 5.4.2003. It is<\/p>\n
seen from the records that the Award Committee was to meet on<\/p>\n
7.4.2003.    Normally there were no reasons for the appellant in<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
F.A.O.134 of 2005 to believe that the security furnished by him will<\/p>\n
not be accepted and that it would be held that he had not complied with<\/p>\n
the condition.    So far as the appellants in FAO. 128 of 2003 is<\/p>\n
concerned, there were no reasons for them to doubt the communication<\/p>\n
received by them and they had acted on that basis. It is accepted by the<\/p>\n
first respondent before the court below that he had sent a<\/p>\n
communication to the second respondent before the court below<\/p>\n
pointing out the modified order and requesting that the film be<\/p>\n
screened before the Award Committee.\n<\/p>\n
            11.   It may be true that later the court found that the<\/p>\n
security offered by the first respondent before the court below was not<\/p>\n
sufficient and it was rejected. That order seems to have been passed on<\/p>\n
7.4.2003. It may be that the claim of the appellants is true.<\/p>\n
            12. In order to invoke Order 39 Rule 2A, it has to be found<\/p>\n
that there was wilful disobedience of the order of the court. It is<\/p>\n
significant to notice that there is no finding by the court below that the<\/p>\n
act of the first respondent before it in furnishing security which was<\/p>\n
later found to be not acceptable was deliberate or that he knew that it<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
would not be accepted.      There is nothing to show that there was<\/p>\n
malafides on his part. The reason for rejecting the security offered by<\/p>\n
the first respondent by the court below is not discernible from the<\/p>\n
records made available to this court. The fact remains that the modified<\/p>\n
order was passed on 3.4.2003 and the security was furnished on<\/p>\n
5.4.2003. As per the records the Award Committee was to meet on<\/p>\n
7.4.2003.\n<\/p>\n
            13. The observation of the court below that the second<\/p>\n
respondent before that court ought to have verified that the<\/p>\n
communication received by them from the first respondent was proper<\/p>\n
and genuine and whether it was in consonance with the modified order<\/p>\n
does not appear to be very correct. As already noticed, security was<\/p>\n
furnished on 5.4.2003, which according to the first respondent before<\/p>\n
the court below was in accordance with the order. There were no<\/p>\n
reasons for the first respondent to believe that the security would be<\/p>\n
rejected. If he claims that with bonafides he informed the second<\/p>\n
respondent for screening the film before the Award Committee, it could<\/p>\n
not be said that he had any ill motive. Merely, because on 7.4.2003 the<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
court took up the matter and found that the security furnished was<\/p>\n
insufficient by itself is not a ground to doubt the bonafides of the first<\/p>\n
respondent before the court below. It is interesting to note that the<\/p>\n
court below does not find that there was a deliberate attempt on the part<\/p>\n
of the first respondent to take the court for a ride. There is nothing to<\/p>\n
indicate that he had ill motive while furnishing the security on<\/p>\n
5.4.2003. May be that later on when the court took up the matter the<\/p>\n
security was found to be insufficient. But there is no finding by the<\/p>\n
court below that the act committed by the first respondent was<\/p>\n
deliberate or wilful. One has to remember that the Award Committee<\/p>\n
was to meet on 7.4.2003 and the first respondent had obtained a<\/p>\n
modified order enabling him to have the film screened before the<\/p>\n
Award Committee subject to furnishing of security. There is no doubt<\/p>\n
that he had furnished security. It is not stated by the court below and it<\/p>\n
is also not found from the available records that the first respondent<\/p>\n
had any intention to wilfully disobey the modified order. Merely<\/p>\n
because at a later point of time the security furnished by the first<\/p>\n
respondent was found to be insufficient cannot be relied on to come to<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
the conclusion that it was a deliberate act.\n<\/p>\n
            14. The observation of the court below that the second<\/p>\n
respondent ought to have verified the communication given by the first<\/p>\n
respondent and having not done so, they are liable, cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
The second respondent is a Studio in which the film was kept. They<\/p>\n
have clearly stated that it was on the basis of the communication<\/p>\n
received by them that the film was released. The first respondent<\/p>\n
accepted the said statement of the second respondent. One fails to<\/p>\n
understand how the second respondent could be held to have disobeyed<\/p>\n
the order of injunction passed by the court below.<\/p>\n
            15. In short, there is nothing to show that there was any<\/p>\n
wilful laches, default or disobeyance on the part of the first respondent<\/p>\n
or the second respondent warranting action under Order 39 Rule 2A of<\/p>\n
the Code of Civil Procedure. May be that there was some laches on the<\/p>\n
part of the first respondent, but that by itself is not a ground to come to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that there was deliberate and wilful disobedience of the<\/p>\n
order of injunction passed by the court below. One must recollect that<\/p>\n
the film was screened on 7.4.2003 and the security had been furnished<\/p>\n
FAO.128 & 134\/05.                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
on 5.4.2003. In the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept the<\/p>\n
finding of the court below that the appellants are guilty of violating the<\/p>\n
order of injunction.\n<\/p>\n
            In the result, these appeals are allowed , the impugned order<\/p>\n
is set aside and I.A. 987 of 2003 before the court below shall stand<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   P.R. Raman,
\n                                                        Judge<\/p>\n
                                                   P. Bhavadasan,
\n                                                         Judge<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 128 of 2005() 1. RAMESH PRASAD, … Petitioner 2. SAI PRASAD, S\/O. RAMESH PRASAD, 3. PRASAD PRODUCTION (P) LTD. Vs 1. P.A. HARIES, … Respondent 2. SIYAD KOKKER, S\/O. A.B.ABDUL KHADER, 3. M\/S. PRASAD […]<\/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-58612","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 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\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-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=\"2009-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-02T23:40:43+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\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T23:40:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2065,\"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\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T23:40:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 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":"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 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\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-02T23:40:43+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\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T23:40:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009"},"wordCount":2065,"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\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009","name":"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T23:40:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-vs-p-a-haries-on-15-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Prasad vs P.A. Haries on 15 June, 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\/58612","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=58612"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58612\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58612"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58612"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58612"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}