{"id":95157,"date":"2009-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-22T19:34:03","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T14:04:03","slug":"u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 508 of 1995(B)\n\n\n\n1. U.GANGADHARAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SUNFLAG NYLONS LTD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI R.SANKARANARAYANA IYER,\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :27\/05\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        K.M. JOSEPH, J.\n           -----------------------------------------------\n                 S.A. NO. 508 OF 1995\n           -----------------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The defeated plaintiff in a Suit for declaration of title and<\/p>\n
possession, in both the Courts below, is the appellant in this<\/p>\n
Second Appeal. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:<\/p>\n
     The plaint schedule property belonged to deceased<\/p>\n
Ummini, the father of the plaintiff, having been obtained the<\/p>\n
same as his share in an oral partition. The father of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property.<\/p>\n
While so, he executed a deed of Otti and Kuzhikanam in favour<\/p>\n
of one Kali Parvathi and Velayudhan Krishnan as per document<\/p>\n
No.3751\/1107 M.E. After the mortgage, the said Kali Parvathi<\/p>\n
and Velayudhan Krishnan were in absolute possession and<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the schedule property and while so, in 1122 the<\/p>\n
said Kali Parvathi and Velayudhan Krishnan executed a release<\/p>\n
of the Otti kuzhikanam right in favour of the plaintiff, as per<\/p>\n
document No.691\/1122.           Ever since the release deed, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the<\/p>\n
schedule property and has been dealing with the same as<\/p>\n
absolute owner thereof. No one else has any manner of right,<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
title, interest or possession over the schedule property or any<\/p>\n
part thereof. The defendant’s agents and employees have been<\/p>\n
constantly harassing the plaintiff to execute a sale deed in their<\/p>\n
favour, to which the plaintiff refused.        On 10-1-1985, the<\/p>\n
defendants along with their agents attempted to trespass into the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property alleging that they have purchased the<\/p>\n
same. Their attempt was prevented by the timely intervention of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and his relatives. The defendant has no manner of<\/p>\n
right title, interest or possession over the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property. They have no right to trespass upon the property or to<\/p>\n
alter its boundaries or to put up any construction or to commit<\/p>\n
waste in the property. The defendant is highly influential and it<\/p>\n
may go to any extent.         The plaintiff apprehends that the<\/p>\n
defendant may commit the illegal acts unless restrained by the<\/p>\n
court. By the attempt to trespass upon the property and also<\/p>\n
claiming right over the same, the defendant has case a cloud<\/p>\n
upon the plaintiff title over the schedule property and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to have his title declared. Therefore, it was<\/p>\n
prayed that the plaintiff’s title in the schedule property may be<\/p>\n
declared and the defendant may be restrained from trespassing<\/p>\n
into the schedule property by decree or permanent injunction.<\/p>\n
      2. The respondent contested the Suit, inter alia, denying<\/p>\n
title and possession. It was the case of the respondent that the<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent is a Public Limited Company in the joint sector<\/p>\n
formed for establishing a project estimated to cost over Rs.49<\/p>\n
Crores and an area of about 16 Acres for that purpose has been<\/p>\n
purchased from the owners through the good offices and<\/p>\n
services of the Kerala Government Revenue Officers. Except<\/p>\n
for 40 cents, out of the total area, the whole property was<\/p>\n
conveyed by the several owners to the respondent in June, 1984<\/p>\n
and immediate possession over the entire area demarcated<\/p>\n
inclusive of the said 40 cents was given to and taken by the<\/p>\n
respondent. It is stated that in June, 1984, the occupier of the<\/p>\n
said 40 cents was only a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under<\/p>\n
the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appellant represented to the<\/p>\n
Minister for Industries objecting to the payment of sale<\/p>\n
consideration to the tenant on the ground that the latter had not<\/p>\n
acquired jenmom right over the said property. It is stated that<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal issued Certificate of Purchase in respect of 52<\/p>\n
cents in Survey No.2112\/3 in favour of the occupier tenant, C.<\/p>\n
Bahuleyan and that the respondent was in possession of the<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
entire 16 Acres from June, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The appellant examined Pws. 1 and 2 and marked<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is Otti kuzhikkanam deed executed by<\/p>\n
Ummini in favour of K. Parvathy and V. Krishnan<\/a> dated<\/p>\n
28.11.1107 (ME). Ext.A2 is a Release Deed executed by K.<\/p>\n
Parvathy and V. Krishnan<\/a> in favour of the appellant, dated<\/p>\n
21.2.1122 (ME).      Ext.A3 purports to be tax receipt dated<\/p>\n
22.6.1122 (ME). Ext.A4 is the Judgment in OS No.16 of 1970.<\/p>\n
The respondent examined one of its Officers and produced<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 to B7.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The Trial Court considered the entire matter and came<\/p>\n
to the conclusion, inter alia, that Exts.A1 to A3 are not<\/p>\n
conclusive proof of title. The trial court found that the evidence<\/p>\n
of Pws.1 & 2 do not inspire confidence in regard to the<\/p>\n
possession of the property by the appellant. It took note of the<\/p>\n
fact that both the appellant as also the respondent produced tax<\/p>\n
receipts.   Ext. A3, as already noted, is of the year 1947.<\/p>\n
Appellant was not in a position to produce any tax receipt after<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
the point of time. Exts.B4 to B6 are tax receipts of the years<\/p>\n
1982, 1973 and 1984 respectively, produced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondent. It is also found that Ext.B3 which is the Certificate<\/p>\n
of assignment issued by the Land Tribunal to Shri Bahuleyan,<\/p>\n
who is cited as the predecessor in interest of the respondent, has<\/p>\n
not been impugned by the appellant. It was noted that unless the<\/p>\n
Purchase Certificate is set aside, the title would stand in favour<\/p>\n
of the assignee under Section 72F of the Land Reforms Act.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the appellant has admitted in Exts.B1 Petition and B7<\/p>\n
Suit Notice that the defendant had intended to purchase the land<\/p>\n
including the plaint schedule property.      The First Appellate<\/p>\n
Court has confirmed the findings.\n<\/p>\n
      5. I heard Shri S. Syam, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The appellant has purported to raise the following as<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
             “(i)  Whether a purchase certificate like<\/p>\n
        Ext.B3 granted by the Land Tribunal in a suo motu<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
        proceeding is binding on a person who is not a<\/p>\n
        party to it ? Is it obligatory on the affected party to<\/p>\n
        move for setting it aside ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) Is not ancient documents like Exts.A1 to<\/p>\n
        A3 sufficient and satisfactory proof for title and<\/p>\n
        possession pleaded on their basis ?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (iii) When the dispute regarding title is in<\/p>\n
        respect of a portion of a larger extent comprised in<\/p>\n
        a particular survey number, is it not obligatory to<\/p>\n
        locate and identify the property by issuing a<\/p>\n
        Commission ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iv) Are not the findings of the Courts below<\/p>\n
        perverse ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7. I would think that there is no merit in the Second<\/p>\n
Appeal. As far as possession goes, apart from Ext.A3 and the<\/p>\n
testimony of Pws.1 and 2, there is no evidence. It was for the<\/p>\n
appellant to take steps to get a Commission issued. He has no<\/p>\n
case that despite applying for appointing a Commission, that<\/p>\n
was refused by the Court. In this context, it is also worthy to<\/p>\n
reiterate, as noted in the Judgments under attack, that Ext.A3<\/p>\n
purporting to be a tax receipt produced in support of the alleged<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the appellant, is of the year 1947. Absolutely, no<\/p>\n
evidence is forthcoming to show that the appellant was in<\/p>\n
possession of the said property.        Furthermore, when the<\/p>\n
appellant was examined as PW1, he has admitted that the<\/p>\n
property on the western side belonged to Shri Bahuleyan. He<\/p>\n
would submit that he does not know whether it is in the same<\/p>\n
survey number. He has also stated that Shri Bahuleyan has<\/p>\n
constructed a building in the property about ten to twelve years<\/p>\n
back and the appellant did not obstruct him. By no stretch of<\/p>\n
imagination, can it be said that the finding that the appellant<\/p>\n
could not prove his possession, is a perverse one. Essentially,<\/p>\n
the findings are findings of facts and they certainly do not<\/p>\n
warrant any interference in the limited jurisdiction contemplated<\/p>\n
by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Be it a suo motu<\/p>\n
proceedings, Ext.B3 Certificate of assignment has the effect<\/p>\n
which Section 72F of the Land Reforms Act declares. The<\/p>\n
suggestion that identity of the property was not proved is<\/p>\n
meritless. The appellant himself in Ext.B1 has stated that one<\/p>\n
S.A.508\/95 B                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
Bahuleyan is understood to have created a fraudulent and false<\/p>\n
document and that he is attempting to snatch away the price of<\/p>\n
the property of the appellant. I would think that the findings as<\/p>\n
regards title and possession rendered by both the courts below<\/p>\n
concurrently do not call for interference. I see no merit in the<\/p>\n
Second Appeal and it is dismissed.      I.A. No.516\/07 is also<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                           Sd\/=
\n                                      K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
\nkbk.<\/p>\n
\n                     \/\/ True Copy \/\/\n\n                                           PS to Judge\n\nS.A.508\/95 B    9\n\n\n\n\n                   S.A.NO. 508 OF 1995 B\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n                        27th May, 2009\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 508 of 1995(B) 1. U.GANGADHARAN … Petitioner Vs 1. SUNFLAG NYLONS LTD … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI R.SANKARANARAYANA IYER, For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH Dated :27\/05\/2009 O R D E R […]<\/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-95157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nU.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 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\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-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=\"2009-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-22T14:04:03+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\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T14:04:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1442,\"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\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009\",\"name\":\"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T14:04:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 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":"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 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\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-22T14:04:03+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\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T14:04:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009"},"wordCount":1442,"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\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009","name":"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T14:04:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-gangadharan-vs-sunflag-nylons-ltd-on-27-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.Gangadharan vs Sunflag Nylons Ltd on 27 May, 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\/95157","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=95157"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95157\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}