{"id":114164,"date":"2006-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006"},"modified":"2014-01-23T09:53:06","modified_gmt":"2014-01-23T04:23:06","slug":"ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/01\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE    \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN     \n\nO.S.A.No. 102 of 2004 \n\n\nM\/s.Sundaram Finance Limited  \nRep. by the Assistant Manager (Legal)\nNo.21, Patullos Road,\nChennai  600 002.                       ... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. M.K.Kurian\n    No.3, 1st Cross,\n    Rainbow Nagar,\n    Pondicherry.\n\n2. Tomy Thomas,  \n    S\/o. Thomas Mathew, \n    Vattakunnel House,\n    Anakallu Post,\n    Erattupettah,\n    Kottayam District.                  ...Respondent\n\n        Prayer:  Original Side Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters\nPatent against the order dated 18.11.2002 made in O.A.No.970 of 2001 on the\nfile of this Court.\n\n!For Appellant  ::::  Mr.M.S.Krishnan\n\n^For Respondents        ::::  Mr.A.L.Somayaji,\n                        Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae\n                        Mr.R.Krishnasamy,\n                        Senior Counsel\n                        Mr.T.V.Ramanujan,\n                        Senior Counsel\n\nJ U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Honourable The Chief Justice)<\/p>\n<p>        The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is,  which<br \/>\nis  the  principal  civil  court  in  respect  of  matters  arising  under the<br \/>\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act for short) where  the  value  of<br \/>\nthe subject  matter  is  less  than Rs.10 lakhs.  The question is, whether the<br \/>\nMadras High Court exercising ordinary original civil  jurisdiction  under  the<br \/>\nLetters  Patent  or  the  Principal  Judge of the City Civil Court constituted<br \/>\nunder the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892, will  exercise  jurisdiction  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  matters  under the Act involving the value of not exceeding Rs.10<br \/>\nlakhs?  In order to appreciate the issue raised before us, it is necessary  to<br \/>\nset out briefly the relevant facts that have given rise to this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   An application was filed by the appellant against the respondents<br \/>\nunder Section 9 of the Act to grant an order of interim injunction restraining<br \/>\nthe respondents and their men from in any way alienating  or  encumbering  the<br \/>\nproperty belonging to the second respondent more specifically described in the<br \/>\nschedule pending  disposal  of  the arbitration proceedings.  The claim of the<br \/>\nappellant against the respondents  is  for  a  sum  of  Rs.3,13,213.28.    The<br \/>\nRegistry  raised  an  objection  with  reference to the maintainability of the<br \/>\napplication before the learned single Judge  on  the  ground  that  the  claim<br \/>\namount  is less than Rs.10 lakhs and, as such, the application under Section 9<br \/>\nof the Act ought to have been filed only  before  the  Principal  Judge,  City<br \/>\nCivil Court,  Chennai  and  not  before  this Court.  The learned single Judge<br \/>\ninter alia held that under ordinary original jurisdiction, this  Court  cannot<br \/>\nentertain the claim, which is less than Rs.10 lakhs and, as such, it has to be<br \/>\nfiled before  the City Civil Court.  Consequently, the objection raised by the<br \/>\nRegistry was  upheld  and  the  petition  was  directed  to  be  returned  for<br \/>\npresentation to proper Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Under Section 9 of the Act, a party may, before or during arbitral<br \/>\nproceedings  or  at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before<br \/>\nit is enforced, can move the Court to preserve the property and other  matters<br \/>\nenumerated therein.    The expression Court is defined in Section 2(1)(e) of<br \/>\nthe Act, which reads as follows:  2(1)(e).  Court means  the  principal  civil<br \/>\nCourt  of  original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in<br \/>\nexercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having  jurisdiction  to<br \/>\ndecide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same<br \/>\nhad been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of<br \/>\na grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   From  a  bare  perusal  of  the  definition, it is clear that the<br \/>\nexpression Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of  the  Act  would  include  a<br \/>\nCourt having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject matter of<br \/>\narbitration if  the  same  had been the subject matter of a suit.  High Courts<br \/>\nare included in the definition, but not any civil court of a grade inferior to<br \/>\nthe principal civil court or any Court of Small Causes.   This  definition  of<br \/>\nCourt  is narrower as compared with Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.<br \/>\nUnder the 1940 Act, it was every civil Court, but  now  it  is  the  principal<br \/>\ncivil  court  of  original  jurisdiction,  which is empowered to deal with the<br \/>\nmatters arising under the Act.  A particular expression is  often  defined  by<br \/>\nthe Legislature  by using the word means or the word includes.  Sometimes, the<br \/>\nwords means and includes are used.  The use of the word means  indicates  that<br \/>\ndefinition  is  hard and fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned<br \/>\nto the expression than is put down in that definition.  The word includes when<br \/>\nused, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to  comprehend  not<br \/>\nonly such things as they signifies according to their natural import, but also<br \/>\nthose things  to which the clause declares that they shall include.  The words<br \/>\nmeans and includes on the other hand, indicate an  exhaustive  explanation  of<br \/>\nthe meaning which, for the purpose of the Act, must invariably attach to those<br \/>\nwords or  expression  (see Dilwerth v.  Commissioner of Stamps, 1899 AC 99 at<br \/>\npp 105-106 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1087556\/\">Mahalakshmi Oil Mills vs.  State of Andhra  Pradesh,<\/a>  (1989)  1<br \/>\nSCC 164  at  page  169.).  The Legislature, by using the words means, includes<br \/>\nand does not include in clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act,  has  exhaustively<br \/>\nexplained the meaning of the term Court, in that, the word means is a term of<br \/>\nrestriction,  while the word includes is a term of enlargement and when both<br \/>\nthe words means and includes are used together  to  define  a  thing,  the<br \/>\ndefinition is intended to be exhaustive and not extensive and would cover only<br \/>\nthe  principal  civil  court as defined and other Courts are not comprehended.<br \/>\nAgain the Legislature has used the word principal thereby meaning the first<br \/>\nin importance or chief or main and the word grade used in Section  2(e)  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  is  suggestive  of  status and importance and it does not refer to a<br \/>\nclass or particular class inasmuch as the grade of  a  court  depends  on  the<br \/>\npecuniary or other limitations of the jurisdiction of the particular court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  So far as the city of Chennai is concerned, the ordinary  original<br \/>\ncivil  jurisdiction  is  vested  in  the  High Court and not in the City Civil<br \/>\nCourt.  The very preamble of the  Chennai  City  Civil  Court  Act  speaks  of<br \/>\nestablishment of an additional Civil Court for the city of Chennai.  It is the<br \/>\ncivil  court  of  limited pecuniary jurisdiction having power to deal with the<br \/>\nmatters involving the value of less than Rs.10 lakhs, whereas under Clause  12<br \/>\nof  the Letters Patent, the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction and<br \/>\nthis jurisdiction was expressly saved under Section 16  of  the  Chennai  City<br \/>\nCivil Court  Act.  Competency embodied by this section is pecuniary competency<br \/>\nand it has been held that this Section lays down a rule of procedure  and  not<br \/>\nof jurisdiction.    While it enjoins the institution of a suit in the court of<br \/>\nthe lowest grade competent to try it, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nCourt of a higher grade.  Even if the  Court  of  a  higher  grade  tries  and<br \/>\ndisposes  of  a  suit  which  could have been instituted in a Court of a lower<br \/>\ngrade, the decision rendered is not without jurisdiction (see  <a href=\"\/doc\/1725478\/\">Ramamirtham  v.<br \/>\nRama Film  Service  (FB),  AIR<\/a> (38) 1951 Madras 93).  It is thus clear that as<br \/>\nfar as the City of Chennai is concerned, the words  principal civil court  of<br \/>\noriginal  jurisdiction,  as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, would mean<br \/>\nthe High Court exercising jurisdiction on the original side and not  the  City<br \/>\nCivil Court.    More  over, the interpretation suggested by the learned single<br \/>\nJudge would mean that there would be two principal civil  courts,  i.e.    the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  and  the  City  Civil Court and such an interpretation is clearly<br \/>\nruled out by the words but does not  include  any  civil  court  of  a  grade<br \/>\ninferior to such principal civil court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  A reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme  Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/539740\/\">Raja<br \/>\nSoap Factory  v.  S.P.Shantharaj, AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 1449, wherein the Supreme Court,<br \/>\nwhile construing the definition of the District Court under Section 2(e)  of<br \/>\nthe  Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, has observed in para 3 as follows:<br \/>\n 3.  ..  The expression District Court has by virtue of S.  2(3)  of  Act<br \/>\n43  of  1958  the  meaning  assigned  to  that expression in the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, 1908.  Section 2(4) of the Code defines a district as meaning the<br \/>\nlocal limits of the jurisdiction of a  principal  civil  Court    called  the<br \/>\nDistrict  Court  and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil<br \/>\njurisdiction of a High Court.  If, therefore, a High  Court  is  possessed  of<br \/>\nordinary   original   civil  jurisdiction,  it  would,  when  exercising  that<br \/>\njurisdiction be included, for the purpose of Act 43 of 1958, in the expression<br \/>\nDistrict Court.  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>        7.   Similar  is the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1613396\/\">D.C.S.Bureau v.  United Concern, AIR<\/a> 1967 Madras 381, wherein it has been held<br \/>\nthat the term District Court, as defined in Section 62(1) of  the  Copyright<br \/>\nAct,  should be given the same meaning as in Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure and that as far as the area of the  Presidency  Town  of  Madras  is<br \/>\nconcerned,  the High Court exercising its original civil jurisdiction over the<br \/>\ncity limits and not the City Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Therefore, the view taken by the learned  single  Judge  that  the<br \/>\nCity  Civil  Court  should  be  regarded  as  the  principal  court  of  civil<br \/>\njurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act in matters  involving  value  of<br \/>\nless than Rs.10 lakhs is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In  the  result,  the appeal is allowed.  The order of the learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge is set aside.  The petition filed by the appellant is restored to<br \/>\nfile.   The  learned  single  Judge  is  requested  to  decide  the   petition<br \/>\nexpeditiously.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   Registry  is  directed  to  call for the papers in similar cases<br \/>\nwhich have been transferred to the City Civil Court by following the  judgment<br \/>\nof  the  learned  single  Judge  of  this  Court,  and  place  them before the<br \/>\nappropriate Court for disposal in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>Js\/pv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/01\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.A.P.SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Hon&#8217;ble Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN O.S.A.No. 102 of 2004 M\/s.Sundaram Finance Limited Rep. by the Assistant Manager (Legal) No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai 600 002. &#8230; Appellant [&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-114164","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 - 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\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-23T04:23:06+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\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T04:23:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1577,\"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\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\",\"name\":\"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T04:23:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 - 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\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-23T04:23:06+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\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T04:23:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006"},"wordCount":1577,"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\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006","name":"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T04:23:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sundaram-finance-limited-vs-m-k-kurian-on-21-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs M.K.Kurian on 21 January, 2006"}]},{"@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\/114164","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=114164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}