{"id":8892,"date":"2011-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-03-24T19:59:35","modified_gmt":"2016-03-24T14:29:35","slug":"meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19 of 2011(B)\n\n\n1. MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. CHAIRMAN, MEENACHIL EAST URBAN\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.J.JOSE, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CO-OPERATIVE ARITRATION COURT,\n\n3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.DEEPAK\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :12\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n                        ---------------------------\n                      W.P.(C) No. 19 OF 2011\n                         --------------------------\n             Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Ext.P9 interim order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration<\/p>\n
Court, Thiruvananthapuram on an application filed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of<\/p>\n
the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       2.  The first respondent was the Branch Manager\/Chief<\/p>\n
Accountant of the Erattupetta branch of the first petitioner bank.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Joint Manager of the<\/p>\n
bank on 22.3.2008 which resulted in Ext.R1(c) report, the first<\/p>\n
respondent and Sri. S.Dilip Kumar, Cashier of the said branch were<\/p>\n
placed under suspension pending enquiry.            Ext.P1 proceedings<\/p>\n
dated 22.3.2008 is the order passed by the Chairman of the bank<\/p>\n
placing the first respondent under suspension. Disciplinary action<\/p>\n
was initiated against the first respondent as well as the Cashier.<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 is the memo of charges dated 19.5.2008 issued to the first<\/p>\n
respondent. An enquiry into the charges levelled against the first<\/p>\n
respondent in Ext.P2 memo was held by an enquiry officer.           In<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 enquiry report dated 24.2.2009, the enquiry officer found the<\/p>\n
first respondent guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
sub-committee of the bank thereupon issued notice to the first<\/p>\n
respondent, considered his objections and decided to dismiss him<\/p>\n
from service with effect from 16.3.2009. Ext.P4 communication was<\/p>\n
thereupon issued on 18.3.2009 by the convenor of the sub-<\/p>\n
committee.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The first respondent challenged the order dismissing him<\/p>\n
from service in appeal before the Board of Directors of the bank. The<\/p>\n
Board that met on 15.6.2009 considered the appeal and resolved to<\/p>\n
reject it by Ext.P5 resolution. The decision was communicated to the<\/p>\n
first respondent by Ext.P6 letter dated 24.6.2009.           The first<\/p>\n
respondent thereupon filed ARC No.99 of 2009 in the Co-operative<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 10.7.2009. Though in that<\/p>\n
appeal he had filed an application for interim relief, the application<\/p>\n
was not numbered for sometime. Later, it was numbered as I.A.<\/p>\n
No.159 of 2010. The first respondent later filed W.P.(C) No.33445 of<\/p>\n
2010 in this Court wherein he prayed for a direction to the Co-<\/p>\n
operative Arbitration Court to pass expeditious orders on the<\/p>\n
interlocutory application and in the arbitration case.      By Ext.P8<\/p>\n
judgment delivered on 15.11.2010, more than one year after the<\/p>\n
arbitration case was filed, a learned single Judge of this Court<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
directed the Co-operative Arbitration Court to pass orders on the<\/p>\n
interlocutory application within 10 days from the date of receipt of a<\/p>\n
copy of the judgment and in the arbitration case within a period of<\/p>\n
three months thereafter.          The Co-operative Arbitration Court<\/p>\n
thereupon considered the interlocutory application with notice to the<\/p>\n
first respondent herein and passed Ext.P9 order staying the<\/p>\n
operation of Ext.P4 order dismissing the first respondent from service<\/p>\n
till the disposal of the arbitration case. Ext.P9 is under challenge in<\/p>\n
this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   The petitioners contend that though the Co-operative<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court has the power to pass interim orders, it erred in<\/p>\n
passing an order staying the order of dismissal passed on 18.3.2009,<\/p>\n
which had taken effect that day and was affirmed in appeal by the<\/p>\n
Board of Directors on 15.6.2009. Relying on the decision of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Om Prakash Dadhich & Anr.<\/a><\/p>\n
(2009 (16) SCC 242) it is contended that the Arbitration Court should<\/p>\n
not have passed an interim order which has the effect of reinstating<\/p>\n
the first respondent in service at the preliminary stage and that the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court could have granted reinstatement in service only in<\/p>\n
the main case and not by way of interim relief. The petitioners also<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that Ext.P4 order of dismissal has merged with Ext.P5<\/p>\n
appeal order of the Board and as the appellate order has not been<\/p>\n
challenged in the arbitration case, the Arbitration Court erred in<\/p>\n
passing an order staying the operation of Ext.P4, which has no<\/p>\n
independent existence after Ext.P5 appellate order.<\/p>\n
      5. I heard Sri. O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Sri.P.M.Manoj,<\/p>\n
learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. the<\/p>\n
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first respondent<\/p>\n
contended with reference to the findings in Ext.R1(c) report<\/p>\n
submitted by the General Manager of the bank, who was examined<\/p>\n
as MW1 in the enquiry, that the findings and observations in<\/p>\n
paragraph 35 and 36 of Ext.P3 enquiry report are perverse. The<\/p>\n
learned Senior Advocate contended that as the Cashier (Sri.S.Dilip<\/p>\n
Kumar) had admitted that he had misappropriated the money, the<\/p>\n
finding of the enquiry officer that the statements made by MW1 and<\/p>\n
MW3 that the first respondent would not have purposefully<\/p>\n
misappropriated the funds cannot be relied on unless the Cashier<\/p>\n
admits the liability, is a perverse finding.     The learned Senior<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
Advocate also contended that the very enquiry held against the first<\/p>\n
respondent is bad for the reason that even before the written<\/p>\n
statement of defence was submitted to Ext.P2 memo of charges and<\/p>\n
it was considered by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority had delegated its power to the enquiry authority.        The<\/p>\n
learned counsel also contend that further proceedings pursuant to<\/p>\n
the submission of the enquiry report were held without affording the<\/p>\n
first respondent an opportunity to object to the findings in the enquiry<\/p>\n
and therefore, the Co-operative Arbitration Court was perfectly right<\/p>\n
in passing an interim order staying the operation of the order<\/p>\n
dismissing the first respondent from service.\n<\/p>\n
       6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel on either side. It is not in dispute that Ext.P4 order<\/p>\n
dismissing the first respondent from service took effect on 18.3.2009<\/p>\n
when a copy thereof was served on him. Ext.P4 order was upheld by<\/p>\n
the Managing Committee of the first petitioner bank by Ext.P5 order<\/p>\n
dated 15.6.2009.      Though the first respondent moved the Co-<\/p>\n
operative Arbitration Court by filing ARC No.99 of 2009 on 10.7.2009,<\/p>\n
he did not move for interim reliefs immediately thereafter. He did not<\/p>\n
also move this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the arbitration<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
case or the application for interim relief filed by him in the arbitration<\/p>\n
case.    He moved this Court seeking such a direction only in<\/p>\n
November, 2010, more than one year and three months after the<\/p>\n
arbitration case was filed. It was thereafter that the Arbitration Court<\/p>\n
passed Ext.P9 order on 4.12.2010 staying the operation of Ext.P4<\/p>\n
order dismissing the first respondent from service. In my opinion, in<\/p>\n
view of the fact that more than one year and three months had<\/p>\n
passed after the dismissal of the first respondent, by the time the<\/p>\n
application for interim relief was considered, the Arbitration Court<\/p>\n
ought to have declined to stay the operation of Ext.P4 order. Ex.P9<\/p>\n
order passed by the Arbitration Court staying the operation of Ext.P4<\/p>\n
order, more than one year and three months after it was passed and<\/p>\n
it had taken effect, cannot in my opinion be sustained.              The<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court could not have by an interim order granted a relief<\/p>\n
which could have been granted only in the main case. By Ext.P8<\/p>\n
judgment this Court had also directed that the arbitration case itself<\/p>\n
should be disposed of within three months from the date on which<\/p>\n
orders are passed on the application for interim relief.       The said<\/p>\n
period of three months will expire on 4.3.2011.          Therefore, the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court will have to necessarily hear and dispose of the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
arbitration case by that date.\n<\/p>\n
      In such circumstances, I allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P9<\/p>\n
and direct the Co-operative Arbitration Court to dispose of the<\/p>\n
arbitration case, untrammelled by the observations in this judgment<\/p>\n
and in Ext.P9 order, within the time limit fixed by this Court in Ext.P8<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               P.N.RAVINDRAN,
\n                                                     (JUDGE)
\nvps<\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011    8<\/span><\/p>\n
WPC No.19\/2011    9<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19 of 2011(B) 1. MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK … Petitioner 2. CHAIRMAN, MEENACHIL EAST URBAN Vs 1. P.J.JOSE, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, … Respondent 2. CO-OPERATIVE ARITRATION COURT, 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE For […]<\/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-8892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeenachil East Urban ... vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 - 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\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meenachil East Urban ... vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-24T14:29:35+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=\"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\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T14:29:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1322,\"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\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Meenachil East Urban ... vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T14:29:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Meenachil East Urban ... vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 - 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\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meenachil East Urban ... vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-24T14:29:35+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T14:29:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011"},"wordCount":1322,"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\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011","name":"Meenachil East Urban ... vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T14:29:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenachil-east-urban-vs-p-j-jose-on-12-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meenachil East Urban … vs P.J.Jose on 12 January, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/8892","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=8892"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}