{"id":67596,"date":"2007-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"},"modified":"2014-05-12T16:03:30","modified_gmt":"2014-05-12T10:33:30","slug":"babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 26673 of 1999(A)\n\n\n\n1. BABU KURIAKOSE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :11\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                   ===============\n                   O.P NO. 26673 OF 1999\n               ====================\n\n        Dated this the 11th day of September, 2007\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P6 order<\/p>\n
passed by the respondents and to direct that the deposit of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- made by the petitioner be returned to him or to<\/p>\n
require the respondents to deliver 548.8 metric tons of<\/p>\n
firewood on payment of the auction amount.<\/p>\n
     2.   On 7\/9\/88, the respondents have conducted an<\/p>\n
auction of firewood, having a quantity of 548.8 metric tons<\/p>\n
and the petitioner was the successful bidder. According to<\/p>\n
him, he had paid Rs.20,000\/- and the department was to<\/p>\n
confirm the auction in his favour. The confirmation of the<\/p>\n
auction in his favour was conveyed to the petitioner only on<\/p>\n
26\/12\/88.    Petitioner submits that confirmation ought to<\/p>\n
have been made within one month from the date of auction<\/p>\n
and that by delaying the same, the respondents have<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                              : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
violated the terms and conditions of the sale. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that after confirmation of sale, when he went for taking<\/p>\n
delivery of the firewood, it was found that the quantity<\/p>\n
available was much less than what was tendered. According<\/p>\n
to him, the Panchayat had also blocked the road through<\/p>\n
which the material had to be transported. Despite<\/p>\n
inaccessibility of the place, the petitioner represented to the<\/p>\n
respondents for delivering the quantity sold in his favour. It<\/p>\n
is also submitted that there was failure on the part of the<\/p>\n
respondents, which made the petitioner approach this court<\/p>\n
on two occasions and Ext.P4 is the judgment that was<\/p>\n
rendered by this Court in the second original petition. In<\/p>\n
that  original   petition,  this   Court   had   directed   the<\/p>\n
respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
pass fresh orders thereon. Accordingly, the petitioner was<\/p>\n
given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter Ext.P6 order<\/p>\n
was passed. In Ext.P6 order, it has been found that the<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                              : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Government       sustained   loss   of   Rs.1,25,049\/-     plus<\/p>\n
advertisement charges and therefore the request of the<\/p>\n
petitioner for refunding the deposit made by him of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- was turned down. It is submitted that following<\/p>\n
Ext.P6, revenue recovery action was proposed to be initiated<\/p>\n
for recovery of the alleged loss and that made the petitioner<\/p>\n
file this original petition. The prayer in this writ petition is<\/p>\n
to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the respondents and to<\/p>\n
direct that the deposit of Rs.20,000\/- made by the petitioner<\/p>\n
be returned to him or to require the respondents to deliver<\/p>\n
548.8 metric tons of firewood on payment of the auction<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents contending that in terms of the conditions of<\/p>\n
sale, if the auction purchaser committed default, re-auction<\/p>\n
is to be held at the risk and loss of the auction purchaser.<\/p>\n
According to the respondents, in this case, on account of the<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                             : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
default committed by the petitioner, re-auction had to be<\/p>\n
conducted and in that process the Government suffered a<\/p>\n
loss, which has been quantified at Rs.1,25,049\/-.<\/p>\n
     4.   Respondents would contend that in terms of the<\/p>\n
agreement, the loss sustained by the Government is liable<\/p>\n
to be recovered from the petitioner and that they are<\/p>\n
entitled to quantify the same. It is their contention that<\/p>\n
once it is quantified and payment demanded, if there is<\/p>\n
failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount,<\/p>\n
revenue recovery action is liable to be initiated.<\/p>\n
     5.   The main submission made by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that the respondents cannot unilaterally<\/p>\n
quantify the loss alleged to have been suffered by them. He<\/p>\n
would submit that if the loss is to be quantified in a case<\/p>\n
where breach of contract is not admitted, they have to<\/p>\n
approach the Civil Court and only on the strength of a<\/p>\n
decree of a Competent Civil Court can the respondents seek<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                            : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
to realise the amount. Counsel, also submit that there has<\/p>\n
been failure on the part of the respondents to deliver the<\/p>\n
firewood sold and it was on account of the breach of<\/p>\n
contract committed by the respondents that he could not<\/p>\n
take delivery of the fire wood. Thus, according to him, this<\/p>\n
is not a case where breach is admitted by the petitioner and<\/p>\n
in which event, no unilateral quantification is permissible.<\/p>\n
     6.    From the facts as narrated above, it is evident<\/p>\n
that the petitioner is contenting for the position that it was<\/p>\n
on account of the breach of contract committed by the<\/p>\n
respondents that he could not take delivery of the firewood<\/p>\n
sold in his favour. Thus this is not a case where breach of<\/p>\n
contract has been admitted by the petitioner. The question<\/p>\n
in such a case is whether the department is entitled to<\/p>\n
unilaterally quantify the damages alleged to have been<\/p>\n
sustained by them and recover the same. This question has<\/p>\n
come up before this court on various decisions and a Full<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                             : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Bench in the case of Abdul Rahiman v. Divisional Forest<\/p>\n
Officer<\/a> (1988(2) KLT 290) considered this issue. After<\/p>\n
analysing the precedents, the Full Bench has held that<\/p>\n
adjudication regarding the breach of contract has to be left<\/p>\n
to an independent person or body and cannot be done by<\/p>\n
one of the parties to the contract. In this case, by Ext.P6,<\/p>\n
the respondents have taken upon themselves the right to<\/p>\n
adjudicate the breach of the contract and also the<\/p>\n
quantification of the damages. This is impermissible. Once<\/p>\n
breach of contract is admitted by a party to the contract, if<\/p>\n
the contract enables the other party to quantify the<\/p>\n
damages sustained by it on account of the breach, the other<\/p>\n
party is entitled to quantify the same. But that principle is<\/p>\n
inapplicable to the facts of this case, in as much as the<\/p>\n
breach is not admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
respondents cannot take any coercive action against the<\/p>\n
petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6. If they want to realise the<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                             : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
damages alleged to have been sustained by them, they<\/p>\n
have to take recourse to Civil Court. Therefore, I hold that<\/p>\n
the respondents are not entitled to take any coercive action<\/p>\n
for recovery against the petitioner, on the strength of<\/p>\n
Ext.P6.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   It is the admitted case that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
deposited an amount of Rs.20,000\/- with the respondents.<\/p>\n
Even as on date, since the question whether the petitioner<\/p>\n
has committed breach of contract has not been adjudicated<\/p>\n
in the manner known to law, respondents are not justified in<\/p>\n
withholding the amount. They are liable to refund the said<\/p>\n
amount, which they shall do within a period of two months<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the<\/p>\n
peculiar facts of this case, I am not making them liable for<\/p>\n
interest thereof.    If the respondents file a suit at this<\/p>\n
distance of time, certainly a question of limitation is likely to<\/p>\n
be pleaded, in which case, they will be entitled to claim the<\/p>\n
OP 26673\/99
\n                             : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
benefit for the period during which this original petition was<\/p>\n
pending before this Court.       However, I am not finally<\/p>\n
pronouncing on this aspect, as it will be open to the<\/p>\n
respondents to claim the benefit, in which case, the Court<\/p>\n
will take this also into account and pass appropriate orders<\/p>\n
thereon.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   In the result, the original petition will stand<\/p>\n
disposed of with a declaration that the respondents are not<\/p>\n
entitled to take any coercive action for the recovery of the<\/p>\n
alleged loss on the strength of Ext.P6. They shall refund an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.20,000\/- deposited by the petitioner within a<\/p>\n
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Rp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 26673 of 1999(A) 1. BABU KURIAKOSE … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :11\/09\/2007 O […]<\/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-67596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBabu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - 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\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-12T10:33:30+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-12T10:33:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1283,\"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\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-12T10:33:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - 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\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-12T10:33:30+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-12T10:33:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"},"wordCount":1283,"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\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","name":"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-12T10:33:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-kuriakose-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babu Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/67596","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=67596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}