{"id":87284,"date":"2008-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-04T21:15:35","modified_gmt":"2015-06-04T15:45:35","slug":"rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 571 of 2001(A)\n\n\n\n1. REMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. M.T.JOSEPH\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :05\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                      THOMAS P JOSEPH, J\n                  ==================\n                     Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001\n                  ==================\n         Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008.\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      Revision Petitioner faced       trial in the Court of Learned<\/p>\n
Judicial 1 Class Magistrate – I, Aluva for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She was<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000\/-. In appeal,<\/p>\n
learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence. Hence this revision.\n<\/p>\n
      2. When this revision petition came up for hearing before<\/p>\n
me on 4.12.2008, there was no representation for the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent and hence the case was posted this day for hearing<\/p>\n
finally. There is no representation for the 1st respondent today<\/p>\n
also.\n<\/p>\n
      3. I heard learned counsel for revision petitioner and the<\/p>\n
public prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
      Following points arise for decision:\n<\/p>\n
            (1)  Whether revision petitioner issued the cheques in
\n      question in favour of 1st respondent for discharge of legally
\n      enforceable debts or liability.\n<\/p>\n
            (2) Whether sentence is legal.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      4. Perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
       Point 1: Case pleaded by the 1st respondent and spoken by<\/p>\n
him as PW1 is that revision petitioner approached him with an<\/p>\n
offer to arrange a job for him abroad and received Rs.25,000\/-<\/p>\n
for the said purpose. Revision petitioner was not able to arrange<\/p>\n
the job. On his demand for repayment of the amount, revision<\/p>\n
petitioner issued two cheques in his favour; Ext.P1 dated<\/p>\n
8.10.1992 for Rs.15,000\/- and Ext.P1(a) dated 10.10.1992 for<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-.    He presented those cheques for encashment on<\/p>\n
21.10.1992, but the same were returned as funds were<\/p>\n
insufficient. 1st respondent again presented the cheques on<\/p>\n
3.12.1992 through Federal Bank, Angamaly branch. Cheques<\/p>\n
were dishonourned for the second time also, about which the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent got intimation on 24.12.1992. Regarding that, notice<\/p>\n
was issued to the revision petitioner on 8.1.1993.      That was<\/p>\n
served on 9.1.1993. There was no payment as demanded in the<\/p>\n
notice and hence, the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Fact of dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds is<\/p>\n
not in dispute before me and is proved by Exts.P2 and P3.<\/p>\n
Service of notice is proved by Exts.P4 and P6. Then the question<\/p>\n
for consideration is whether revision petitioner issued the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
cheques in question for the discharge of any legally enforceable<\/p>\n
debt or liability. The plea raised by the revision petitioner is that<\/p>\n
she had no transaction with 1st respondent but her husband, Sri.<\/p>\n
Sasi Kumar had some transactions with the 1st respondent based<\/p>\n
on which she was harassed by the 1st respondent, and some<\/p>\n
other persons including the 1st respondent brought her husband<\/p>\n
from Angamaly and she was compelled to issue the cheques in<\/p>\n
question to avoid harassment revision petitioner examined DWs.<\/p>\n
1 and 2 and proved Exts.D1 to D3.       Evidence given by DWs. 1<\/p>\n
and 2 is that 1st respondent and themselves had transactions<\/p>\n
with the husband of revision petitioner who had agreed to<\/p>\n
arrange visa for job abroad, husband of the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
failed to do so and thereon they all gathered in the presence of<\/p>\n
the husband of revision petitioner who executed Ext.D1,<\/p>\n
agreement. Based on that, 1st respondent and DW2 filed suits<\/p>\n
before the Civil Courts. Ext.D1 is a copy of the plaint filed by the<\/p>\n
1st respondent against the husband of revision petitioner. Ext.D3<\/p>\n
is copy of plaint filed by DW2 against the husband of revision<\/p>\n
petitioner. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that<\/p>\n
the Courts below went wrong in holding that revision petitioner<\/p>\n
issued the cheques in question for the discharge of legally<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
enforceable debt or liability.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   It is now settled that mere admission or proof of<\/p>\n
signature in the Negotiable Instrument does not tantamount to<\/p>\n
admission or proof of its due execution though admission or<\/p>\n
proof of signature may go a long way in proving its due<\/p>\n
execution. Here, execution of Exts.P1 and P1(a) in favour of 1st<\/p>\n
respondent is not admitted by the revision petitioner. According<\/p>\n
to her, she handed over Exts.P1 and P1(a) to the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
to avoid harassment. It is important to bear in mind that though<\/p>\n
there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the<\/p>\n
cheque is issued for the discharge of debt or liability, that<\/p>\n
presumption as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court does not extend<\/p>\n
to the legality of recoverability of the debt or liability. These are<\/p>\n
the matters to be proved by the 1st respondent.<\/p>\n
      7. Going by version of the 1st respondent as PW1, it would<\/p>\n
appear that he allegedly paid Rs. 25,000\/- to the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner some time in the year 1982, pursuant to the promise<\/p>\n
made by the revision petitioner, he went to Bombay in<\/p>\n
connection with securing the job, returned, continued his<\/p>\n
business and while so revision petitioner issued Exts.P1 and<\/p>\n
P1(a) on 8.10.1992 and 10.10.1992.            Therefore, I am to<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
understand that the 1st respondent allegedly paid Rs.25,000\/- to<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner some time in the year 1982 before the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent allegedly went to Bombay. It is also the version of<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent that before the revision petitioner came to his<\/p>\n
shop offering to secure job for him he had no acquaintance with<\/p>\n
her.    In spite of that, without taking a document from the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner, at least somebody witnessing the alleged<\/p>\n
payment, 1st respondent is said to have paid Rs.25,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner for the mere offering to secure a job abroad.<\/p>\n
That case of 1st respondent is quite difficult to believe. It is also<\/p>\n
difficult to think that though 1st respondent went to Bombay<\/p>\n
sometime in the year 1982 and returned without being able to<\/p>\n
get the job as offered by the revision petitioner and thereafter he<\/p>\n
has been demanding payment of the amount and the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner who did not oblige that demand of the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
for about 10 years, on a fine morning on 8.10.1992 and<\/p>\n
10.10.1992 issued the cheques in favour of the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
notwithstanding that not even a scrap of paper was with the first<\/p>\n
respondent to evidence payment of money to the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner. There is no evidence to show that between 1982 and<\/p>\n
1992, any demand was made by the 1st respondent to the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petitioner to pay the amount.\n<\/p>\n
      8. That there was transactions for the first respondent with<\/p>\n
Sasi Kumar, husband of the revision petitioner is admitted when<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent was examined as PW1.          Sasi Kumar had<\/p>\n
offered to procure job for his close relative and received money<\/p>\n
from him, did not procure job and that culminated in Ext.D2.<\/p>\n
Ext.D1 refers to the payment made by the 1st respondent and<\/p>\n
others. Based on Ext.D1, it is admitted and proved by Ext.D2<\/p>\n
that 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 787 of 1995 for recovery of<\/p>\n
money from the husband of the revision petitioner. Similarly,<\/p>\n
DW2 also filed a suit against the husband of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner as O.S. No. 791 of 1995 as seen from Ext.D3. It is<\/p>\n
admitted by the 1st respondent and spoke by DWs.1 and 2 also<\/p>\n
that for the purpose of executing Ext.D2, agreement they had<\/p>\n
met together and wanted Sasi Kumar to execute the agreement.<\/p>\n
DW1 stated that Sasi Kumar was taken by them for the purpose<\/p>\n
of executing the agreement. It is difficult to believe that the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent had paid money to Sasi Kumar as well as his wife,<\/p>\n
revision petitioner for procuring job. Evidence on record justify<\/p>\n
the contention of the revision petitioner that she had no<\/p>\n
transaction with 1st respondent, and that she happened to give<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.571 of 2001           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
the cheques to avoid harassment. I also bear in mind that the<\/p>\n
responsibility of the revision petitioner is not to disprove the<\/p>\n
case set up by the 1st respondent. She need only probabilise her<\/p>\n
version. It is not shown that there was any legally recoverable<\/p>\n
debt or other liability in favour of the 1st respondent. Courts<\/p>\n
below have not properly appreciated the evidence. Materials in<\/p>\n
the case do not justify conviction of the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
Conviction and sentence are only to be set aside. It follows the<\/p>\n
sentence imposed on revision petitioner is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
      9.   It is submitted by the learned counsel for revision<\/p>\n
petitioner that a sum of Rs.5,000\/- has been deposited in the trial<\/p>\n
court. It is made clear that if there is no other encumbrance on<\/p>\n
that deposit, revision petitioner can withdraw the same.<\/p>\n
      This revision petition succeeds. Conviction and sentence on<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner are set aside and she is acquitted of the<\/p>\n
charge against her.         Bail bond is canceled.        Criminal<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous Petition No. 2743 of 2001 shall stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
rhs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 571 of 2001(A) 1. REMA … Petitioner Vs 1. M.T.JOSEPH … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :05\/12\/2008 O R D E R THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ================== […]<\/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-87284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 - 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\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-04T15:45:35+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\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-04T15:45:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1446,\"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\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-04T15:45:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 - 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\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-04T15:45:35+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\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-04T15:45:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008"},"wordCount":1446,"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\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008","name":"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-04T15:45:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rema-vs-m-t-joseph-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rema vs M.T.Joseph on 5 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/87284","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=87284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}