{"id":79749,"date":"2009-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-13T01:04:30","modified_gmt":"2016-09-12T19:34:30","slug":"remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 28918 of 2001(P)\n\n\n\n1. REMADEVI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :11\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            S. Siri Jagan, J.\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                       O.P. No. 28918 of 2001\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                Dated this, the 11th February, 2009.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Petitioner’s husband was the owner of a cashew factory.<\/p>\n
Disheartened by mounting       debts, her husband committed suicide.<\/p>\n
Thereupon, the factory devolved upon the petitioner and her children.<\/p>\n
The petitioner leased the factory to the 4th respondent by Ext. P1<\/p>\n
dated 14-1-1997. Such transfer was endorsed in the factory licence<\/p>\n
and the transfer was duly recognised by the authorities under the<\/p>\n
Factories Act. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was running the factory.<\/p>\n
The 4th respondent    defaulted payment of dues under the Employees<\/p>\n
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.       On the ground<\/p>\n
that the petitioner, being the owner of the factory, is also liable for<\/p>\n
payment of the amounts due under the Act,          proceedings     were<\/p>\n
initiated against the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent.       It<\/p>\n
resulted in Ext. P3 series of criminal complaints before the criminal<\/p>\n
court in which both the petitioner and the 4th respondent were made<\/p>\n
accused. Ext. P4 demand notice was also issued to the petitioner for<\/p>\n
an amount of Rs. 3,55,285\/- being contributions payable under the<\/p>\n
Act for the period during which the 4th respondent was conducting the<\/p>\n
factory pursuant to the lease executed by the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
transfer of factory licence in favour of the 4th respondent. Since no<\/p>\n
payment was made, Ext. P5 notice for arrest and detention of the<\/p>\n
petitioner was issued by the 3rd respondent.         Ext. P6 order of<\/p>\n
attachment of movable properties of the petitioner was also issued.<\/p>\n
The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 series as well as Exts.P.4, P5 and<\/p>\n
P6.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not<\/p>\n
liable for the amounts demanded as contributions for the period<\/p>\n
during which the 4th respondent was conducting the factory in so far<\/p>\n
as the petitioner was not the ’employer’ as defined under the Act for<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 28918\/2001.                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the period in question. The petitioner also refers to clause 9 of Ext.<\/p>\n
P1, by which       the 4th respondent had undertaken to pay off the<\/p>\n
provident fund dues during the period of lease. According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, going by the definition of ’employer’ in Section 2(e), the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not the employer of the factory in question.<\/p>\n
      3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents who<\/p>\n
opposes the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, going<\/p>\n
by the definition in Section 2(e), the owner is also liable along with<\/p>\n
the occupier of the factory and by virtue of Section 17B also, the<\/p>\n
petitioner is liable.\n<\/p>\n
      4. I have heard counsel on both sides and considered the<\/p>\n
arguments advanced before me.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Neither the lease in favour of the 4th respondent executed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner nor the knowledge of that lease by the respondents are<\/p>\n
denied by the respondents.          It is also not denied before me that<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext. P1 lease, the factory licence had also been<\/p>\n
transferred in the name of the 4th respondent. In clause 9 of Ext. P1<\/p>\n
executed between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, it is<\/p>\n
specifically stated thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “9. The licensee shall be liable to meet all labour liabilities
\n      like wages, contribution to the E.S.I., Provident Fund, Welfare
\n      Fund and all other benefits to which the workers of the factory are
\n      entitled and shall periodically convince the licensor that all such
\n      payment are made in time during the currency of the licence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 2(e) defines the expression ’employer’ thus:<\/p>\n
      “(e)   “employer” means:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (i)    in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the
\n      owner    or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such
\n      owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 28918\/2001.                 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or
\n      occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the
\n      factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the
\n      Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (ii)   in relation to any other establishment, the person
\n      who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the
\n      affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are
\n      entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 2(k) defines the expression “occupier of the factory” thus:<\/p>\n
             “(k)  “occupier of a factory” means the person who has
\n      ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, and, where the said
\n      affairs are entrusted to a managing agent, such agent shall be
\n      deemed to be the occupier of the factory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Going by the said definition, the owner or occupier of the factory is<\/p>\n
the employer. Here, admittedly, the factory has been transferred by<\/p>\n
way of lease by the petitioner to the 4th respondent. The factory<\/p>\n
licence has also been transferred in the name of the 4th respondent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the 4th respondent is the occupier of the factory and as a<\/p>\n
result the employer.       He had also specifically contracted with the<\/p>\n
petitioner to pay off the provident fund amounts due for the period<\/p>\n
during which he holds the lease.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Section 17B of the Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “17B. Liability in case of transfer of establishment:- Where
\n      an employer, in relation to an establishment, transfers that
\n      establishment in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease or licence or
\n      in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to
\n      whom the establishment is so transferred shall jointly and
\n      severally be liable to pay the contribution and other sums due
\n      from the employer under any provision of this Act or the Scheme
\n      or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may
\n      be, in respect of the period up to the date of such transfer:<\/p>\n
             Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited
\n      to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.”<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 28918\/2001.              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Going by Section 17B, a transferor is liable only in respect of the<\/p>\n
period up to the date of such transfer. For the period up to the date<\/p>\n
of transfer, the transferee also would be liable, but limited to the<\/p>\n
value of the assets obtained by the transferee by such transfer. That<\/p>\n
essentially means that after the date of transfer by way of lease, the<\/p>\n
transferee alone would be liable for the dues under the Act and not<\/p>\n
the transferor.     A conjoint reading of Sections 2(e), 2(k) and 17B, I<\/p>\n
have no doubt in my mind that after the date of transfer, the<\/p>\n
transferor would cease to be the employer as defined under the Act.<\/p>\n
      7. Of course, the learned standing counsel for the Provident<\/p>\n
Fund Organisation would raise a contention that subsequently the<\/p>\n
lease period expired and the factory reverted to the petitioner, which<\/p>\n
would be a transfer coming within Section 17B and therefore the<\/p>\n
petitioner would be liable as a transferee. I am not satisfied       that<\/p>\n
such an interpretation is contemplated under Section 17B. On expiry<\/p>\n
of a lease, there is no transfer of the properties back to the transferor<\/p>\n
because the property all along continued to be that of the transferor.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no requirement of the lessee transferring the<\/p>\n
property back to the owner. The law relating to property or the law of<\/p>\n
contract in India does not envisage a transfer on the expiry of the<\/p>\n
period of lease. On expiry of the lease period, the contract of lease is<\/p>\n
terminated and the property automatically reverts to the lessee for<\/p>\n
which a transfer by the lessee to the transferor is necessary.<\/p>\n
Further, under the proviso to Section 17B,         the liability  of the<\/p>\n
transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him<\/p>\n
by such transfer.     Here, even assuming that the reversion of the<\/p>\n
property to the lessor after the expiry of the lease amounts to        a<\/p>\n
transfer, no assets of the lessee are obtained by the transferor from<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 28918\/2001.              -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the lessee on such transfer, in so far as the assets belonged to him all<\/p>\n
along notwithstanding the lease. In the above circumstances, I am<\/p>\n
not inclined to accept the contention of the 4th respondent that as the<\/p>\n
owner of the factory in question, the petitioner would also be liable for<\/p>\n
amounts due from the 4th respondent under the Act.<\/p>\n
      The result of the above discussion is that all proceedings<\/p>\n
initiated against the petitioner for non-compliance with the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Act as an employer during the period when the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
was running the factory as a lessee are unsustainable. Consequently,<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 series and Exts. P5 and P6 are also unsustainable to the extent<\/p>\n
it makes the petitioner liable under the Act. Accordingly, they are<\/p>\n
quashed. However, I make it clear that the respondents would be free<\/p>\n
to continue proceedings already initiated against the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
for the amounts due from him. The original petition is allowed as<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Tds\/<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 28918\/2001.        -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   S. Siri Jagan, J.\n<\/p>\n
                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\n                             O.P. No. 28918 of 2001
\n                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<\/p>\n
                                   J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                                11th February, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 28918 of 2001(P) 1. REMADEVI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS For Respondent :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :11\/02\/2009 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-79749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRemadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 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\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-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=\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-12T19:34:30+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-12T19:34:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1533,\"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\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-12T19:34:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 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":"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 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\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-12T19:34:30+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-12T19:34:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009"},"wordCount":1533,"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\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009","name":"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-12T19:34:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-amma-vs-the-commissioner-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Remadevi Amma vs The Commissioner on 11 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\/79749","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=79749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}