{"id":106103,"date":"2004-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004"},"modified":"2019-03-21T17:05:34","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T11:35:34","slug":"k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 22\/04\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.V. MASILAMANI\n\nAppeal Suit No.54 of 1998\n\nK. Kannan Chettiar                             ..      Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Commissioner, HR &amp; CE\n   Administration Department\n   Madras 34.\n\n2. Deputy Commissioner\n   HR &amp; CE Admn, Trichy 6.                      ..      Respondents\n\nAppeal against the judgment dated 27.8.1996 made in O.S.No.118 of 19 89 on the\nfile of the learned Sub Judge, Tindivanam.\n\n!For Appellant          :       Mr.V.  Raghavachari\n\n^For Respondents        :       Mr.G.  Sukumaran, Spl.G.P.\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made by<br \/>\nP.D.  DINAKARAN, J.)<\/p>\n<p>        By consent, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.8.1996<br \/>\nmade in O.S.No.118 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Tindivanam.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The plaintiff filed the  above  suit  against  the  order  of  the<br \/>\nCommissioner  made  under  Section  69  of  the Hindu Religious and Charitable<br \/>\nEndowment Act (in short &#8220;Act&#8221;) refusing to condone the delay  of  4  years  10<br \/>\nmonths  and  7  days  in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner on 25.1.1989 made under Section 63(a) of the Act, refusing<br \/>\nto permit the plaintiff to grant exemption from the purview of the Act.  As  a<br \/>\nresult of  the  order  of the appellate authority, viz.  the Commissioner, the<br \/>\nappeal itself stands dismissed on account  of  the  delay  in  preferring  the<br \/>\nappeal, against which the plaintiff has preferred the suit under Section 70 of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The  learned  Sub Judge, Tindivanam, by judgment dated 27.8.1996,<br \/>\nholding that Section 70 of the Act provides only an appeal against  the  final<br \/>\norder, dismissed the suit.  Hence the above appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Mr.V.      Raghavachari,   learned   counsel   appearing  for  the<br \/>\nappellant\/plaintiff, inviting our attention to Section 70 of the Act, contends<br \/>\nthat the learned Sub Judge erred to exercise the  power  conferred  under  the<br \/>\nsaid  Section,  which  is  applicable  even  against  any  order passed by the<br \/>\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader submits that  under<br \/>\nSection  70  of  the  Act, the appellant\/plaintiff is permitted to file a suit<br \/>\nonly against the final decree of the order.    Therefore,  the  scope  of  the<br \/>\nappeal  is very limited, with respect to the power of the learned Sub Judge to<br \/>\nentertain the suit against the order made in an  application  to  condone  the<br \/>\ndelay in preferring the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.1.   In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 70 of the Act, which<br \/>\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 70:\n<\/p>\n<p>Suits and appeals.- (1)  Any  party  aggrieved  by  an  order  passed  by  the<br \/>\nCommissioner &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)  under  sub-section  (1)  or  sub-section  (2)  of  section 60 and<br \/>\nrelating to any of the matters specified in section 63, section 64 or  section<br \/>\n67; or\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii)  under  section 63, section 64 or section 67 read with subsection<br \/>\n(1)(a), 2 or (4)(a) of section 22 or under section 65 may, within ninety  days<br \/>\nfrom  the  date  of  the receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the<br \/>\nCourt against such order, and the Court may modify or cancel such  order,  but<br \/>\nit  shall  have  no  power  to  stay the order of the Commissioner pending the<br \/>\ndisposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2) Any party aggrieved by a decree of  the  Court  under  sub-section<br \/>\n(1),  may,  within ninety days from the date of the decree, appeal to the High<br \/>\nCourt.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.2.  A bare reading of Section 70 of the Act makes it clear that  any<br \/>\nparty  aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner is permitted to file a<br \/>\nsuit.  It is not in dispute that any order passed by the  Commissioner  is  an<br \/>\norder appealable  under  Section 70 of the Act.  Since the order passed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner refusing to condone the delay of 4 years 10 months  and  7<br \/>\ndays  in preferring the appeal gets merged with the final relief sought for in<br \/>\nthe appeal, applying the doctrine of merger, we are of the considered  opinion<br \/>\nthat  the party aggrieved is entitled to prefer a suit under Section 70 of the<br \/>\nAct.  Failure to exercise the power conferred under Section 70 of the  Act  by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner, therefore, requires our interference in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.1.   Then  the next question arises for our consideration is whether<br \/>\nthis Court can exercise the power under Order 41, Rule 23, CPC,  and  go  into<br \/>\nthe  merits of the reasons for condoning the delay of 4 years 1 0 months and 7<br \/>\ndays in preferring the appeal, against the order of the Deputy Commissioner?\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.2.  In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to Order  41,  Rule<br \/>\n33, CPC, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Order 41, Rule 33, CPC<br \/>\nPower  of  Court  of Appeal.- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any<br \/>\ndecree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to  pass<br \/>\nor  make  such  further  or other decree or order as the case may require, and<br \/>\nthis power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as<br \/>\nto part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the<br \/>\nrespondents or parties, although such respondents  or  parties  may  not  have<br \/>\nfiled  any  appeal  or  objection  and  may,  where there have been decrees in<br \/>\ncross-suits or where two or more decrees are, passed in one suit, be exercised<br \/>\nin respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have  been<br \/>\nfiled against such decrees:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that  the  Appellate  Court  shall  not make any order under<br \/>\nSection 35A, in pursuance of any objection  on  which  the  Court  from  whose<br \/>\ndecree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.3.  A perusal of the Order 41, Rule 33, CPC, makes it clear that the<br \/>\nsweep  of the power under Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not<br \/>\nonly between the appellant and respondent, but  also  between  respondent  and<br \/>\nco-respondents.   The appellate court can pass any decree or order which ought<br \/>\nto have been passed in the circumstances of the case.  The appellate Court can<br \/>\nalso pass such other decree or order as the case may require.  The  words  &#8220;as<br \/>\nthe  case  may  require&#8221; used in Rule 33 have been put in wide terms to enable<br \/>\nthe appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends  of  justice.<br \/>\nThe  appellate  Court  can  consider  any  objection  against  any part of the<br \/>\njudgment or decree of the lower Court.  The power of the appellate Court under<br \/>\nRule 33 is discretionary.  But it is a proper exercise of judicial  discretion<br \/>\nto  determine  all questions urged in order to render complete justice between<br \/>\nthe parties.  The Court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on  mere<br \/>\ntechnicalities.   The only constraint on the power are that the parties before<br \/>\nthe lower Court should be there  before  the  appellate  Court  and  that  the<br \/>\nquestion  raised  must  properly arise out of the judgment of the lower Court.<br \/>\nIf these two requirements are there, the appellate Court  could  consider  any<br \/>\nobjection against  any part of the judgment or decree of the lower Court.  The<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;which ought to have been passed&#8221; means &#8220;what ought in law to  have<br \/>\nbeen  passed&#8221;  and  if an appellate Court is of the view that any decree which<br \/>\nought in law to have been passed was not in fact passed by the Court below, it<br \/>\nmay pass or make such further or other decree or order as the justice  of  the<br \/>\ncase may requi re.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.4.  In the instant case, the appellant seeks to condone the delay of<br \/>\n4  years  10 months and 7 days on the ground that he was unwell, which appears<br \/>\nto  be  genuine  and  bona  fide  and  in  any  event,  the   claim   of   the<br \/>\nappellant\/plaintiff  to  seek  exemption from the purview of the Act cannot be<br \/>\nset at  naught  by  refusing  to  disbelieve  the  reason  put  forth  by  the<br \/>\nappellant\/plaintiff  for  condoning the delay in preferring the appeal against<br \/>\nthe order of the Deputy Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.5.  Satisfied with  the  reason  that  the  appellant\/plaintiff  was<br \/>\nunwell  and considering the claim of the appellant\/plaintiff before the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner and also the reasons alleged for condoning the delay of  4  years<br \/>\n10  months  and  7  days  in  preferring  the  appeal, by exercising the power<br \/>\nconferred under Order 41, Rule 33, CPC, we are inclined to  condone  the  said<br \/>\ndelay  and  as a result, decree the suit as prayed for and consequently, remit<br \/>\nthe matter to the Commissioner to entertain the appeal against  the  order  of<br \/>\nthe  Deputy Commissioner and to dispose of the same on merits, within a period<br \/>\nof six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The appeal is allowed.  No costs.  CMP No.2010 of 1998 is closed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nIndex   :  Yes\nInternet        :  Yes\n\nkpl\n\n\nTo\n\n1.  The Sub Judge\nTindivanam.\n\n2.  The Record Keeper\nVR Section\nHigh Court, Madras.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22\/04\/2004 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE T.V. MASILAMANI Appeal Suit No.54 of 1998 K. Kannan Chettiar .. Appellant -Vs- 1. The Commissioner, HR &amp; CE Administration Department Madras [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-21T11:35:34+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\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T11:35:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1358,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\",\"name\":\"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T11:35:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-21T11:35:34+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\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T11:35:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004"},"wordCount":1358,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004","name":"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T11:35:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-kannan-chettiar-vs-the-commissioner-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Kannan Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/106103","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=106103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}