{"id":75930,"date":"2009-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-26T12:17:51","modified_gmt":"2018-10-26T06:47:51","slug":"k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 1689 of 2008()\n\n\n1. K.K.NAUSHAD, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ROYCE KIZHAKOODAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.HABEEB\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :05\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n            CRL.M.C.No.1689       OF 2008\n            ===========================\n\n     Dated this the 5th day of November,2009\n\n                        ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the<\/p>\n
complainant in C.C.332\/2007 on the file of Judicial<\/p>\n
First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Ernakulam.       This<\/p>\n
petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure  to  quash  Annexure  A1  complaint and   the<\/p>\n
cognizance taken contending that on the complaint the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offence. As petitioner    challenged  the procedure<\/p>\n
adopted by the learned Magistrate as well as the<\/p>\n
correctness of the cognizance taken,    entire records<\/p>\n
were called for from the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
    2.   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
and first respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     On  hearing  the  counsel,  I  find it  not<\/p>\n
necessary to deal with   the controversies with regard<\/p>\n
to  the  procedural  aspect  followed  by  the  learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
    4.    As per Annexure A1 complaint a cheque for<\/p>\n
Rs.1,33,536\/- without showing the date of the cheque<\/p>\n
Crll.M.C.1689\/2008               2<\/span><\/p>\n
was issued by the petitioner towards payment of the amount<\/p>\n
due to the first respondent and first respondent presented<\/p>\n
the cheque for encashment from         Thazhe Chovva branch of<\/p>\n
Elayavoor      Service   Co-operative  Bank.  The  cheque   was<\/p>\n
dishonoured. It was intimated to the first respondent by<\/p>\n
Vyttila Branch of State Bank of Travancore, where the<\/p>\n
cheque     was    presented.    On   getting intimation  dated<\/p>\n
3.9.2007, first respondent sent notice dated 6.9.2007 to<\/p>\n
petitioner      under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
Act demanding the amount.       Though petitioner received the<\/p>\n
notice, he did not pay the amount and thereby committed the<\/p>\n
offence.\n<\/p>\n
       5.   The case of the petitioner is that when the date of<\/p>\n
the cheque is not mentioned and the cheque is not produced<\/p>\n
it is not possible to find out whether the cheque was<\/p>\n
presented within the statutory period or not and on that<\/p>\n
ground alone      the complaint is to be quashed.   It is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that first respondent had originally sent a<\/p>\n
notice dated 23.7.2007 enclosing a letter received from<\/p>\n
Vyttila Branch of State Bank of Travancore dated 16.7.2007<\/p>\n
demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque       as<\/p>\n
State Bank of Travancore      informed him that the cheque was<\/p>\n
dishonoured by the Elayavoor Service Co-operative Bank on<\/p>\n
23.4.2007.      The said letter was received by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Crll.M.C.1689\/2008              3<\/span><\/p>\n
But on the failure to pay no complaint was lodged     based on<\/p>\n
the said notice, but a second        demand was made.   It is<\/p>\n
contended that as commission of offence was completed on<\/p>\n
the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the<\/p>\n
notice dated 23.7.2007, the cognizance taken based      on the<\/p>\n
subsequent notice is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
       6.   The records show that the complainant was examined<\/p>\n
as PW1 and he was cross examined also and it is at that<\/p>\n
stage petition was filed and the proceedings were stayed.<\/p>\n
The records contain Ext.D1 and D2 the letters sent by first<\/p>\n
respondent dated 23.7.2007 demanding the amount covered by<\/p>\n
the dishonoured cheque stating that by Ext.D2 intimation<\/p>\n
of Vyttila Branch of State Bank of Travancore       the cheque<\/p>\n
was reportedly dishonoured on 23.4.2007 for insufficient<\/p>\n
funds.     Therefore petitioner has asked to pay that amount<\/p>\n
immediately.      First respondent as PW1 admitted at the time<\/p>\n
of cross examination that he had sent Ext.D1 letter along<\/p>\n
with Ext.D2 copy of the       letter and Ext.P3 the subsequent<\/p>\n
notice was sent      based on a subsequent intimation from the<\/p>\n
Bank, without presentation of the cheque once again.<\/p>\n
       7. The question is whether first respondent is entitled<\/p>\n
to sent a notice demanding the amount covered by the<\/p>\n
dishonoured      cheque once  again  after completion  of  the<\/p>\n
offence and then lodge a complaint.          The position is<\/p>\n
Crll.M.C.1689\/2008             4<\/span><\/p>\n
squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in SIL<\/p>\n
Import, U.S.A v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters<\/a> (1999(2) KLT<\/p>\n
275).     Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent<\/p>\n
submitted       that  as  held   by   the   Apex   Court   in<\/p>\n
S.L.Construction & another v. Alapati Srinivasa Rao(ILR<\/p>\n
2009(2)      the complaint  based on a subsequent demand and<\/p>\n
its failure is legal.     I cannot agree with the submission.<\/p>\n
When the payee gets intimation from the Bank that the<\/p>\n
cheque was dishonoured, as provided under section 138(b) of<\/p>\n
the Negotiable Instruments Act, he has to demand the amount<\/p>\n
covered by the cheque in writing from the drawer of the<\/p>\n
cheque. Ext.D1 is the said demand made on 23.7.2007.<\/p>\n
       8.   As   provided under section  138(c)of  Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act, the drawer of the cheque has to make the<\/p>\n
payment as demanded, within fifteen days of    receipt of the<\/p>\n
notice.       As provided under section 142(b),no complaint<\/p>\n
shall be made after the expiry of one month from the date<\/p>\n
on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the<\/p>\n
proviso to Section 138. After the expiry of thirty days<\/p>\n
from the date of failure of the petitioner to pay the<\/p>\n
amount as demanded under Ext.D1 , the offence is completed.<\/p>\n
Thereafter a complaint cannot be filed.<\/p>\n
       9. The law is settled in SIL Import’s ase (supra) as<\/p>\n
Crll.M.C.1689\/2008              5<\/span><\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
           “The upshot of the discussion<\/p>\n
           is, on the date when the notice<\/p>\n
           sent by Fax reached the drawer<\/p>\n
           of the cheque the period of 15<\/p>\n
           days (within which he has to<\/p>\n
           make the payment) has started<\/p>\n
           running and on the expiry of<\/p>\n
           that    period   the   offences<\/p>\n
           completed unless the amount has<\/p>\n
           been paid in the meanwhile.  If<\/p>\n
           no complaint was filed within<\/p>\n
           one month therefrom the payee<\/p>\n
           would   stand   forbidden  from<\/p>\n
           launching     a     prosecution<\/p>\n
           thereafter, due to the clear<\/p>\n
           interdict contained in S.142 of<\/p>\n
           the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Though    learned   counsel  appearing for  first  respondent<\/p>\n
relying on S.L.Constructions case (supra) argued that a<\/p>\n
complaint filed on the third notice was held valid, facts<\/p>\n
are different.     It is clear that in that case first notice<\/p>\n
was not produced and it was not proved that it was served on<\/p>\n
Crll.M.C.1689\/2008               6<\/span><\/p>\n
the drawer.       The second notice was proved to be not served<\/p>\n
on the drawer.       Hence on the failure to pay the amount as<\/p>\n
demanded on the third notice, cause of action has arisen.<\/p>\n
That is not the case herein.       Ext.D1 notice was served on<\/p>\n
petitioner       and   on   his   failure   the   offence    was<\/p>\n
completed.Ext.P3 notice was sent later after the expiry of<\/p>\n
the period even for filing a complaint under section 138 and<\/p>\n
142 of Negotiable Instruments Act on Ext.D1 notice. Hence<\/p>\n
even if the trial is to be held in C.C.332\/2007, petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted for the offence.      In such circumstances,<\/p>\n
the complaint can only be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
       Petition is allowed.       C.C.332\/2007 on the file of<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Ernakulam is<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                                   JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     ———————\n<\/p>\n
      W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
     ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1689 of 2008() 1. K.K.NAUSHAD, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. ROYCE KIZHAKOODAN, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB For Respondent :SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-75930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 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\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-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=\"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-26T06:47:51+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T06:47:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1105,\"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\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009\",\"name\":\"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T06:47:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 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":"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 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\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-26T06:47:51+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T06:47:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009"},"wordCount":1105,"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\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009","name":"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T06:47:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-naushad-vs-royce-kizhakoodan-on-5-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.K.Naushad vs Royce Kizhakoodan on 5 November, 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\/75930","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=75930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}