{"id":11460,"date":"2008-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-03T05:05:49","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T23:35:49","slug":"tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/09\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.2691 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.2736 &amp; 2737 of 2005\n\nTamil Nadu Mercantile Bank,\nRep.by its Branch Manager,\n50(229-A),Charles Miller Street,\nCollege Road, Nagercoil.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\nVs.\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu,\n  Rep.by its Secretary,\n  Home (Courts II-A) Department,\n  Fort St.George, Chennai-9.\n\n2.The Additional Commissioner,\n  Land Administration,\n  Govt.of Tamil Nadu,\n  Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.\n\n3.District Revenue Officer,\n  Kanyakumari District,\n  K.P.Road, Nagercoil.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records\nrelating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in\nRef.C4\/77067\/2004 dated 07.03.2005 and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner  \t... Mr.M.Ramesh\n\n^For Respondents \t... Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan,AGP\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe writ petitioner is a Scheduled Bank licensed by the Reserve Bank of<br \/>\nIndia for doing banking business.  In the present case, they are seeking to<br \/>\nchallenge the order of the District Revenue Officer and the Competent Authority,<br \/>\nKanyakumari District dated 07.03.2005 informing the petitioner\/Bank that they<br \/>\ncannot proceed with the auctioning of the property of Elvin Bankers, Asaripallam<br \/>\nJunction, Kanyakumari, in view of the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.1028<br \/>\nHome (Courts-IIA) Department, dated 27.10.2003 attaching the said property under<br \/>\nSection 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial<br \/>\nEstablishments) Act, 1997.  The Bank was also informed by the Deputy<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police (EOW-II), Nagercoil, on 23.02.2005 to stop further<br \/>\nproceedings.  It is this letter of information which is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  The petitioner\/Bank also filed a copy of the attachment notice issued<br \/>\nby the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.1028 Home (Courts-IIA) Department, dated<br \/>\n27.10.2003.  It is seen from the said order, the properties of the Elvin<br \/>\nBankers, Kanyakumari District, were attached because of their default in return<br \/>\nof deposits and the attachment order came to be passed.  In the schedule of<br \/>\nproperty enclosed along with the Government Order, the land and building bearing<br \/>\nD.No.12-81A at Vembanoor Village, Kanyakumari District, in Resurvey No.666\/1<br \/>\n(Old Survey No.862) within the registration Sub-District, Rajakkamanagalam, to<br \/>\nan extent of 2.005 cents is also mentioned as item No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  The writ petition was admitted on 01.04.2005 and no interim order was<br \/>\ngranted in W.P.M.P.No.2737 of 2005.  In W.P.M.P.No.2736 of 2005 an interim<br \/>\ninjunction was granted on 01.04.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.  Heard Mr.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and<br \/>\nMr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State<br \/>\nGovernment and perused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.  The contention raised by the petitioner was that they are a Scheduled<br \/>\nBank and they are having an equitable redemption of mortgage by title deeds for<br \/>\nthe loan advanced by them.  The mortgage was made to them in the year 1989 and<br \/>\nwhereas the Government Order came to be passed in 2003. Therefore, they have a<br \/>\npreemptive right of foreclosing the mortgage and bring the property to sale and<br \/>\nthe Government cannot be interfere with the sale of the property.  It is also<br \/>\nstated that as a secured creditors they have a strong footing than any unsecured<br \/>\ncreditors or depositors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.  In this context it is necessary to refer the Full Bench Judgment of<br \/>\nthis Court to which this Court is a party (K.CHANDRU,J.) in S.Bagavathy Vs.<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2007(2) CTC 207.  The Full Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court dealt with various aspects of the Tamil Nadu Act, 44 of 1997<br \/>\nincluding the contention as to whether the Act is ultra vires of the provisions<br \/>\nof the Banking Companies Act and the Reserve Bank of India Act.  In this context<br \/>\nthe Full Bench judgment in Bagavathy&#8217;s case (cited supra) held that the State<br \/>\nlegislation is an intra vires of the powers of the State vested under list II<br \/>\nand list III of Schedule VII of the Constitution and it is protected by Article<br \/>\n254(2) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.  In paragraph 142 to 145 it is stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t142.  &#8220;In the instant case, the noxious net caused by the financial<br \/>\nestablishments was large and the State moved to stop this menace.  Small sums<br \/>\ncollected from the subscribers accumulated into huge resource like many a little<br \/>\nmakes a mickle, and then these financial establishments disappear and evade<br \/>\npayments, after siphoning of the amounts  collected or diverting them by mala<br \/>\nfide transfers.  As referred to above, about 19 lakhs of people reported to be<br \/>\nsuffering by this menace in the State of Tamil Nadu.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t143.  &#8220;Reserve Bank of India being a body corporate, constituted under the<br \/>\nReserve Bank of India Act, 1943 can only transact its business which is<br \/>\nauthorised by the Act to transact.  Under the existing provisions of either<br \/>\nReserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or Companies Act, 1956, there is no provision to<br \/>\ndeal with the financial establishments, particularly for the recovery of amounts<br \/>\ndue to the depositors, viz., to attach, sell, realise and distribute equitably.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t144.  &#8220;In the impugned enactment, the Government has rightly provided<br \/>\nspecial machinery and judicious mechanism to attach the properties of the<br \/>\nfinancial establishment or the persons mentioned under Section 3 of the Act as<br \/>\nwell as that of the mala fide transferees and to bring them for sale and<br \/>\nthereafter to distribute the sale proceeds equitably among the depositors, of<br \/>\ncourse, in compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice, as discussed above<br \/>\nin detail, while considering the issue(i).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t145.  &#8220;Therefore, the State Government rightly in order to protect the<br \/>\ninterest of the public and to regulate the activities of the financial<br \/>\nestablishments, enacted the impugned Act to meet the urgent need.  The State<br \/>\nGovernment has, thus, rightly, in order to plug certain loopholes in the<br \/>\nexisting system and in the public interest, tracing the field of legislation<br \/>\nunder Entries 1 and 32 of the State List, enacted the impugned Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.  Therefore, the petitioner\/Bank being a Scheduled Bank cannot find<br \/>\nfault with the attachment made by the State Government until the attachment is<br \/>\nraised in the manner known to law.  By filing a writ petition, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/Bank cannot achieve what it cannot achieve otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner\/Bank stated that<br \/>\nthe petitioner\/Bank did not have any notice on the attachment.  Section 3 of the<br \/>\nsaid enactment does not contemplate any such notice and the only opportunity<br \/>\nthat is contemplated is a post decisional hearing under Section 7 of the said<br \/>\nenactment.  The Special Court before finalizing the attachment can be moved by<br \/>\nthe aggrieved parties.  In paragraph 23 of the judgment this position has been<br \/>\nset out.  Therefore, the only forum open to the petitioner\/Bank is to move the<br \/>\nSpecial Court for raising the attachment by setting forth the circumstances<br \/>\nunder which the petitioner\/Bank has exclusive control over the particular<br \/>\nproperty.  It is only when the Special Court is satisfied such an attachment can<br \/>\nbe removed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.  Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that<br \/>\ntheir transaction was prior to the Government attachment and therefore, this Act<br \/>\ncannot have any impact on past transactions.  This argument overlooks Section 8<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial<br \/>\nEstablishments) Act, 1997, where mala fide transfers can also be questioned<br \/>\nunder this enactment.  If it is found by the State that moneys were ciphoned off<br \/>\nand stashed elsewhere or transformed into different properties even those moneys<br \/>\nconverted into different properties can be brought for the purpose of satisfying<br \/>\nthe depositor&#8217;s claims.  Therefore, whether the particular property was<br \/>\npurchased through mala fide transfer, is yet to be determined by a competent<br \/>\nforum under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.  Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid<br \/>\nof merits and accordingly it stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.  If the petitioner\/Bank is so advised, it is open to them to move the<br \/>\nSpecial Court and seek for raising the attachment of the property which are<br \/>\nmortgaged with them and which is covered by the Government&#8217;s order in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.1028 Home Department, dated 27.10.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.  The learned counsel expresses apprehension that since the time limit<br \/>\nfor raising attachment in terms of Section 7 is already over and their<br \/>\napplication may not be entertained.  Since in the present case the<br \/>\npetitioner\/Bank has moved this Court and also were not aware of the earlier<br \/>\nattachment, if any such application is filed, the concerned Special Court will<br \/>\nconsider the same on merits without reference to limitation prescribed under<br \/>\nSection 7.  No costs.  Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>nbj<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Home (Courts II-A) Department,<br \/>\n  Fort St.George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional Commissioner,<br \/>\n  Land Administration,<br \/>\n  Govt.of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\n  Kanyakumari District,<br \/>\n  K.P.Road, Nagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/09\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.2691 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.2736 &amp; 2737 of 2005 Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Rep.by its Branch Manager, 50(229-A),Charles Miller Street, College Road, Nagercoil. &#8230; [&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-11460","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>Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 - 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\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-02T23:35:49+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\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-02T23:35:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1319,\"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\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-02T23:35:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 - 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\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-02T23:35:49+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\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-02T23:35:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008"},"wordCount":1319,"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\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008","name":"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-02T23:35:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-mercantile-bank-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11460","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=11460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}