{"id":128002,"date":"2009-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-21T08:58:36","modified_gmt":"2015-11-21T03:28:36","slug":"o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(PD)No.1338 of 2008\n&amp;\nCRP(PD)No.1339 of 2008\nMP.NO.1,1&amp;2\/2008\n\nO.M.H.Fazdul Hameed\t\t\tPetitioner  in both CRPs\n\nVs\n\n1.L.T.Ramachandran\t\t\tRespondent in CRP.1338\/2008\n2.L.T.Sunderrajan\t\t\tRespondent in CRP.1339\/2008\n\nPrayer\n\nThese Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated\n13.3.2008 made in unnumbered Review Petition NO.Nil\/2008 in IA.No.374\/2007 in\nunnumbered RCA.NO.Nil\/2007 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...\tMr.T.Lajapathi Roy\n^For Respondent\t...\tMr.M.Rajaraman\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \t\tThese Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated<br \/>\n13.3.2008 made in unnumbered Review Petition NO.Nil\/2008 to review the order<br \/>\npassed in IA.Nos.374 &amp; 372\/2007 in unnumbered RCAs passed by the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal Sub Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petition, are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions are brothers and<br \/>\nlandlords of the eastern and western portions of the premises respectively at<br \/>\nDoor No.134, North Veli Street, Madurai Town. Originally one Hussain Sahib was<br \/>\nthe tenant and he died on 10.6.2003 and after his death, his son<br \/>\nO.M.H.Bajudulhameed became the tenant.  The tenant  was carrying on seat cover<br \/>\nbusiness on a monthly rent of Rs.2500\/- on each portion payable according to<br \/>\nEnglish Calendar month.  As the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the<br \/>\nrespective landlords  filed eviction petition on the ground of willful default<br \/>\nin RCOP.No.23\/2005 and RCOP.NO.21\/2005 respectively and the petitioner\/tenant<br \/>\ncontested the said petitions by filing a counter.  Pending the said eviction<br \/>\npetitions, the landlords filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ((herein after referred to as the Act) to<br \/>\ndirect the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.65000\/- towards arrears of rent in<br \/>\nIA.No.163\/2006 and IA.No.162\/2006 respectively. The said petitions were resisted<br \/>\nby the tenant contending inter alia that an application  for deposit of rent is<br \/>\npending before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  Even prior to the filing of applications under Section 11(4) of<br \/>\nthe Act, the petitioner has moved the Rent Controller by filing a petition under<br \/>\nSection 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent with the court<br \/>\nand the respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions have filed their<br \/>\nwritten objection to the said petitions.  In the mean while, the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled Tr.OP.NO.1\/2006 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai to tranfer the<br \/>\nRCOP.No.21\/2005 and RCOP.No23\/2005 from the file of the Additional District<br \/>\nMunsif, Madurai Town to the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town<br \/>\nto try jointly along with the RCOP.No.136\/2005 and the said Tr.OP has been<br \/>\nallowed on 14.7.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  But, by order dated 7.12.2006 in IA.No.163\/2006 and 162\/2006,<br \/>\nthe learned Judge passed an order directing the tenant to deposit Rs.65000\/-<br \/>\neach to the respective landlords on or before 9.1.2007 and continue to pay the<br \/>\nmonthly rent, failing which an eviction order would be passed against the<br \/>\ntenant.  As the tenant failed to deposit the sum as directed, the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal District Munsif directed to stop all further proceedings and ordered<br \/>\neviction granting two months time by order dated 10.1.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  It is important to note here that despite the order passed in<br \/>\nTr.OP.No.1\/2006 to try RCOP.NOs.21 and 23\/2005 jointly together with<br \/>\nRCOP.No.136\/2005, the learned Principal District Munsif has passed orders in<br \/>\ncontrary to the order passed in Tr.OP.No.1\/2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  Pursuant to the eviction order passed by the learned Principal<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif for not complying with the conditional order, the landlords have<br \/>\nfiled eviction petition and the same is pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  In the mean while, the petitioner has filed an appeal against<br \/>\nthe eviction order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the learned Principal District<br \/>\nMunsif in unnumbered RCA with petitions to condone the delay of 123 days in<br \/>\nIA.No.373\/2007 and IA.No.374\/2007 respectively before the Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  The petitioner has stated that he applied for certified copy of<br \/>\nthe order dated 10.1.2007 on the same day and stamps were called for by the<br \/>\noffice on 20.3.2007 and as his Advocate&#8217;s Clerk was on leave, they could not<br \/>\nsubmit the stamps and hence, it was struck off.  Again on 4.4.2007, they filed a<br \/>\nfresh copy application  and the copies were granted to him on 13.4.2007.  He has<br \/>\nfurther stated that he was suffering from jaundice from 7.4.2007 to 2.5.2007 and<br \/>\ntherefore, he could not contact his counsel and in the mean time, summer<br \/>\nvacation intervened and immediately on the reopening date i.e. on 4.6.2007 he<br \/>\nhad filed the appeal, thus there was a delay of 123 days and prayed the court to<br \/>\ncondone the aforesaid delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  The Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the said<br \/>\npetitions as against which the petitioner had filed review application on the<br \/>\nground that there are apparent mistakes committed in the order passed by the<br \/>\nRent Control Appellate Authority, but the learned judge dismissed those<br \/>\npetitions on the ground that review application is not maintainable and the<br \/>\nremedy available to the petitioner is only under Section 25 of the Act to file<br \/>\nrevision. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed these Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that he<br \/>\ncannot review his order is not to be interfered with.  However, if it is shown<br \/>\nthat the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is illegal and improper,<br \/>\nthis court can interfere.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  In the case of Somaiah and another Vs. S.P.Vasudevan [1996-1-<br \/>\nLW-407], this court has held that under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court<br \/>\ncan scrutinise the propriety of the finding of a fact.  The limit of such<br \/>\nscrutiny is only that of appreciation and weighing of evidence and coming to the<br \/>\ndifferent conclusion if the same is needed.  It has been held that if the<br \/>\nfinding is perverse, the High Court can interfere under Section 25 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.  In the case of Dorai Rajan Vs. Palaniappa Chettiar [1967-2-MLJ-<br \/>\n286], it has been held that when the decision of the lower court on the proved<br \/>\nfacts showed that the conclusion arrived at did not properly follow, this court<br \/>\ncan interfere with the said findings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. In the present case, the Rent Control Appellate Authority  has<br \/>\ncommitted an error in noting down the date of filing of the appeal   by the<br \/>\npetitioner as 4.7.2007 instead of 4.6.2007 and on the wrong assumption of date,<br \/>\nhe has come to the conclusion that the petitioner\/ tenant has not filed the<br \/>\nappeal immediately on the reopening date and therefore there is no satisfactory<br \/>\nexplanation for the delay.  The relevant passage in his order is extracted<br \/>\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>@,e;epiyapy; ePjpkd;w&#8217;; nfhiltpLKiw tplg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;Wk;\/ mjdhy; jhf;fy;<br \/>\nbra;atpy;iy vd;Wk;. gpd;g[ ePjpkd;wk; jpwe;jt[ld; jhf;fy; bra;jjhft[k; kDjhuh;<br \/>\njug;gp fl;rp mike;Js;sJ\/ Mdhy; nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fis Ma;t[ bra;fpd;wnghJ. mit<br \/>\n4\/7\/2007 ,y; jhd; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd\/ gpd;g[ mtw;wpy; Fiwfs; ,Ug;gijf;<br \/>\nRl;of;fhl;o jpUg;gg;gl;Ls;sd vd;gJk;. Mitfs; 14\/11\/2007 ,y; jhd; nfhg;g[f;F<br \/>\nvLf;ff;gl;Ls;sd vd;gJk; bjhpatUfpwJ\/  vdnt nfhiltpLKiw Koe;jt[ld; ePjpkd;wk;<br \/>\njpwe;jt[ld; $Pd; khjk; Kjy; thuj;jpy; ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fs;jhf;fy;<br \/>\nbra;ag;gltpy;iy\/  Mdhy; nfhiltpLKiwf;Fg;gpwF ePjpkd;wk; jpwe;j gpwF Rkhh; 1 khj<br \/>\nfhyk; brd;w gpwFjhd; ,e;j kDf;ffis jhf;fy; br;aJs;shh;\/  ,e;epiyapy; 13\/4\/2007<br \/>\nKjy; 4\/7\/2007 tiu cs;s ,ilg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fisj;jhf;fy;<br \/>\nbra;ahjjw;F jdf;F k rl;fhkhiy neha; Vw;gl;lJ jhd; fhuzk; vd;W<br \/>\nkDjhuh; Twpa[s;shh;\/ mjw;F Mjuthf kUj;Jtr; rhd;W xd;Wk; tH&#8217;;fg;gl;Ls;sJ\/  mjid<br \/>\nMa;t[ bra;fpd;wnghJ. mth; 7\/4\/2007 Kjy; 2\/5\/2007 tiu rpfpr;ir vLj;Jf;bfhz;ljhf<br \/>\nfhzg;gLfpwJ\/ mjd;gpwF rpy ehl;fs; Xa;t[ vLj;jpUe;jhYk; Tl nfhiltpLKiwf;F gpd;<br \/>\nePjpkd;wk; jpwe;j cld; $^d; khjj;jpy; Kjy; ntiy ehspy; ,e;j kDitj; jhf;fy;<br \/>\nbra;jpUf;fyhk;\/ Mdhy; 4\/7\/2007 md;Wjhd; ,e;j kD jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ\/ vdnt<br \/>\n10\/1\/2007,y; t\/g\/vz;\/163-2006,y; ,Wjp cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;ggl;l ehspy; ,Ue;J<br \/>\n,e;j nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fisj; jhf;fy; bra;j 4\/7\/2007 tiu cs;s fhy jhkjj;jpw;f<br \/>\nkDjhuh; jug;gpy; brhy;ypa[s;ss fhuz&#8217;;fs; jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy\/@\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14.  In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in<br \/>\nIA.NO.372\/2007 and IA.NO.373\/2007, the petitioner has specifically averred that<br \/>\nthe appeal was filed on the first day of reopening after vacation and the same<br \/>\nis not disputed by the landlords in their counter, which is extracted in the<br \/>\norder dated 11.12.2008 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order passed<br \/>\nby the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not on correct finding of fact and<br \/>\nhad he noted the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner correctly, then<br \/>\nhis view would have   been different from that of the one which he passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15.  It must be pointed out that under the wide sweep of the<br \/>\nrevisional jurisdiction, the court has a dual role to fulfill, one as court of<br \/>\nreview examining the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the<br \/>\nRent Controller and the other as that of the superior court exercising<br \/>\nsupervisory jurisdiction over the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent<br \/>\nController.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16. It is pertinent to point that the review petitioner has<br \/>\ndeposited Rs.1,50,000\/- towards arrears of rent pursuant to the conditional<br \/>\norder passed by this court in the stay application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17. In view of the reasons stated above, it becomes necessary to<br \/>\ninterfere with the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the<br \/>\norder dated 11.2.2008 in IA.No.374 and 373\/2007 passed in unnumbered RCAs are<br \/>\nset aside and those applications stands allowed. The Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority is directed to number the appeals and dispose of the appeals, after<br \/>\ngiving reasonable opportunity to the parties, on merits and in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw, as expeditiously as possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t18. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Principal Sub Judge, Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.1338 of 2008 &amp; CRP(PD)No.1339 of 2008 MP.NO.1,1&amp;2\/2008 O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed Petitioner in both CRPs Vs 1.L.T.Ramachandran Respondent in CRP.1338\/2008 2.L.T.Sunderrajan Respondent in CRP.1339\/2008 Prayer These Civil Revision Petition [&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-128002","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>O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 - 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\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-21T03:28:36+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T03:28:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"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\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\",\"name\":\"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T03:28:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 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":"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 - 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\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-21T03:28:36+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T03:28:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009"},"wordCount":1645,"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\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009","name":"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T03:28:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-h-fazdul-hameed-vs-l-t-ramachandran-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed vs L.T.Ramachandran on 7 October, 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\/128002","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=128002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}