{"id":134384,"date":"2008-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-19T10:20:01","modified_gmt":"2015-08-19T04:50:01","slug":"the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 16\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.No.1266 of 2000\nand\nS.A.No.1267 of 2000\n\n\n1.The Chairman,\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  Mount Road, Chennai.\n2.The Superintending Engineer,\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  Thanjavur.\n3.The Executive Engineer,\n  Operation & Maintenance,\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  Pattukottai.\n4.The Assistant Engineer,\n  Operation and Maintenance,\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  Perumalkoil, Pattukottai.\n\n\t\t\t\t   .. Appellants\/Appellants\/Defendants\n\t\t\t\t\tin both the second appeals\n\nVs\n\nSatchi Selvam\n\t\t\t    \t   .. Respondent\/Respondent\/Plaintiff\n\t\t\t\t\tin both the second appeals\n\n\nPrayer in both the second appeals\n\nAppeals filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the common judgment\nand decrees dated 16.11.1999 passed in A.S.Nos.97 and 98 of 1998 on the file of\nthe learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur in confirming the common judgment\nand decrees dated 05.01.1998 passed in O.S.Nos.4 and 5 of 1996 on the file of the\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai.\n\n\t\n!For Appellants   ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar\n\n^For Respondent   ... No appearance\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThese two second appeals are focussed as against the common judgment and
\ndecrees dated 16.11.1999 passed in A.S.Nos.97 and 98 of 1998 on the file of the
\nlearned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur in confirming the common judgment
\nand decrees dated 05.01.1998 passed in O.S.Nos.4 and 5 of 1996 on the file of
\nthe learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The parties are referred to hereunder in the same order as they were
\narrayed before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.  Despite printing the
\nname of the respondent, no one has appeared.  This is an old matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. These two second appeals are taken together for disposal as they
\nemerged out of the common Judgment passed in A.S.Nos.97 and 98 of 1998 on the
\nfile of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
\nof these two second appeals would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe nitty-gritty and gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff as stood
\nexposited from the records in both the original suits in O.S.Nos.4 and 5 of 1996
\ncould be portrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The plaintiff is running an ice factory, enjoying the three phase
\nelectricity supply.  While so, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board officials found
\nthat out of the three phases, for one phase, there was no proper recording of
\nthe supply in the meter.  Thereupon, Ex.A5 the Inspection Report emerged and
\nconsequently Ex.A6 the communication was sent calling upon the plaintiff to pay
\nthe arrears.  Whereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.4 of 1996 for
\ndeclaration that the action taken by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board officials
\nhad to be declared as null and void and that there should not be any
\ndisconnection of the electric supply to the plaintiff’s ice factory.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. During the pendency of the said suit, it so happened that the Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board officials proceeded with their assessment in accordance
\nwith Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and assessed the arrears
\nof electric charges.  Thereupon another suit was filed in O.S.No.5 of 1996 for
\ndeclaring such assessment as null and void and for injunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  Per contra, the third defendant filed the written statements in both
\nthe suits, which were adopted by the other defendants; the pith and marrow of
\nthem would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe electricity Board officials properly conducted inspection and found
\nout that there were defects in the meter relating to supply of electricity under
\none phase and that alone resulted in non-collection of electricity charges.
\nAfter finding out the defects in accordance with the procedures contemplated
\nunder law, the arrears\/ electricity charges were assessed and informed to the
\nplaintiff.  The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board complied with the procedures as per
\nthe agreement between the consumer and the Electricity Board and also as per the
\nrules and regulations governing the same.  The suits filed by the plaintiff are
\nnot maintainable under the law.  Accordingly, the defendants Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board prayed for the dismissal of both the suits.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Both the suits were taken up for joint trial by the trial Court.  The
\ntrial Court framed the relevant issues and during trial, on the side of the
\nplaintiff,  P.W.1 examined himself as P.W.1. and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked.  On
\nthe side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were
\nmarked.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The trial Court ultimately decreed both the suits.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Challenging the common Judgment and decrees of the trial Court, the
\ndefendants Tamil Nadu Electricity Board preferred the first appeals, whereupon
\nthe first appellate Court by a common Judgment dated 16.11.1999 confirmed the
\ncommon Judgment and decrees of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such common Judgments and
\ndecrees of both the Courts below, the defendants Electricity Board filed these
\ntwo second appeals on the following grounds inter-alia thus:
\n\tThe Courts below committed error in entertaining the matter as though the
\ncivil Court had jurisdiction oblivious of the relevant provision of law and the
\nfact that the Electricity Board officials adhered to the procedures properly and
\ntook action.  Both the Courts below simply decreed the suits as though the
\nElectricity Board officials acted in violation of the Acts and Rules.  The
\nplaintiff has not even prayed for sending the meter to the Chief Electrical
\nInspector. Accordingly, the defendants Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prayed for
\nsetting aside the common Judgments and decrees of the both the Courts below and
\nfor dismissing the original suits.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The following substantial question of law was framed by my learned
\nPredecessor at the time of admitting these two second appeals:
\n\t“Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the meters should
\nhave been sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector and it is only the Chief
\nElectrical Inspector, the authority to decide the issue?”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. At the time of arguments, I felt that it is just and necessary to
\nframe the additional substantial question of law also as under:
\n\t“Whether the civil Court had got jurisdiction to entertain the suits in
\nviolation of the statutory provisions governing the electricity supply?”.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The substantial question of law and the additional substantial
\nquestion of law are taken together for discussion as they are interlinked with
\none another.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Heard learned counsel for the appellants\/ defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned counsel for the appellant\/ defendant Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board by drawing the attention of this Court to the Judgments and
\ndecrees of the Courts below would argue that both the Courts below assumed as
\nthough civil Court has got jurisdiction to look into the factual aspects of the
\nmatter and had given their verdicts on the contentious issues relating to
\nassessment of electric charges, which have arisen between the plaintiff and
\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pubjab State
\nElectricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar reported in (1997)5 Supreme Court
\nCases 120, the learned counsel for the appellants\/defendants Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board would pray for setting aside the Judgments and decrees of both
\nthe Courts below and consequently for dismissing the original suits on the
\nground that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction in this matter and that it
\nis for the plaintiff to approach the appropriate authority to get his grievance
\nredressed.  It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants\/defendants that without exhausting the remedies contemplated under
\nthe Electricity Act and the relevant terms and conditions formulated under the
\nAct, the plaintiff had not right to file the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. It is therefore, just and necessary to look into the issue as to
\nwhether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all.  This is
\na pure question of law and necessarily it has to be decided by this Court in
\nthis second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The learned counsel for the appellants\/ defendants Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board would submit that the ratio decidendi in the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt in Ashwani Kumar case cited supra is actually to be applied in this case.
\nI could see considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellants\/defendants that before applying a particular decision of the
\nHon’ble Apex Court, the ratio decidendi in it should be considered.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar case is
\nrelating to the Electricity Act itself.  An excerpt from it would run thus:
\n\t“8. The question then arises whether the civil court would be justified in
\nentertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as
\ncontended by Shri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the objections were raised
\nin the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the same were
\ngiven up. Section 9 of the CPC provides that the civil court shall try all suits
\nof civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is
\nexpressly or by necessary implication barred. Such suit would not be
\nmaintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the civil court has jurisdiction to go
\ninto and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamental
\nfairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars adumbrated
\nabove do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been
\nprescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implication, the
\ncognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, the civil
\ncourt shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the
\ndeclaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under
\nthe Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the
\nInstructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Shri Goyal has contended that the authorities do not hear the parties,
\nnor give a reasoned order. Therefore, the parties cannot be precluded to avail
\nof the remedy of a suit. We cannot accept such a broad and generalised
\nproposition. When the provision for appeal by way of review has been provided by
\nthe statutory instructions, and the parties are directed to avail of the remedy,
\nthe authorities are enjoined to consider all the objections raised by the
\nconsumer and to pass, after consideration, the reasoned order in that behalf, so
\nthat the aggrieved consumer, if not satisfied with the order passed by the
\nBoard\/appellate authority, can avail of the remedy available under Article 226
\nof the Constitution. Therefore, by necessary implication, the appropriate
\ncompetent authority should hear the parties, consider their objections and pass
\nthe reasoned order, either accepting or negativing the claim. Of course it is
\nnot like a judgment of a civil court. It is then contended that the respondent
\nhas been subjected to pay huge amount of bill in a short period; hence, it is a
\ncase for interference . We find no force in the contention. May be that due to
\nthe advice given by the counsel, the respondent obviously has availed of the
\nremedy of the suit, instead of departmental appeal. In our view, by necessary
\nimplication the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the respondent is at
\nliberty to avail the remedy of appeal within six weeks from today and raise the
\nfactual objections before the Board and the Board\/appellate authority would
\nconsider and dispose of them, as indicated earlier, on merits.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar case has clearly held that
\nwhen the Electricity Board or Electricity Authority demands electricity charges,
\nby stating that there was wrong billing due to the defect in the electricity
\nmeter concerned, the consumer has to exhaust his remedy by approaching the
\nappropriate authorities and straight away the aggrieved party viz., the consumer
\ncannot file a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Here, the background facts have to be seen.  Admittedly and
\nindubitably the grievance of the plaintiff is that the electricity board
\nunilaterally adjudged as though there were defects in the electric meter and
\nthat too without informing the consumer concerned, viz., the plaintiff and
\narbitrarily and unilaterally arrived at the imaginary figure, as arrears.  At
\nthis juncture, I would like to highlight that the very institution of the suits
\nitself, is bad in law and both the Courts below without applying their mind on
\nthe maintainability of the suits, simply jumped to the conclusion as though the
\nmandatory provision under Section 223 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual
\nhas not been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The learned counsel for the appellant\/ defendants Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board read out the relevant provisions of Clauses 17.10, 17.11,
\n17.12 and 17.13 in the Terms and Conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and
\nit is extracted here under for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\t“17.10: Where supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where the
\nmeter fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no theft of
\nenergy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during
\nthe period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed was
\ndefective, will be assessed as mentioned hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe quantity of electricity, supplied during the period in question will
\nbe determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the
\npreceding four months in respect of High Tension Service connections and two
\nassessment period (four months) in respect of Low Tension service connections,
\nprovided that the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said
\nfour months\/two assessment period were not different from those which prevailed
\nduring the period in question.  In respect of High Tension service connections,
\nwhere the meter fixed for measuring the Maximum Demand becomes defective, the
\nMaximum Demand will be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of
\nthe recorded demand during the previous four months.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhere the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection
\nis effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in question
\nis to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the
\nsucceeding two assessment period, provided the conditions in regard to the use
\nof electricity in respect of such Low Tension service connections are not
\ndifferent.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.11: If the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the two
\nperiods as mentioned above were different, assessment will be made on the basis
\nof any consecutive four months period during the preceding twelve months when
\nthe conditions of working were similar to those in the period covered by the
\nbilling.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.12: Where it is not possible to select a set of four months, the
\nquantity of electricity supplied will be assessed by the Assistant Executive
\nEngineer in the case of Low Tension service connections and by the Executive
\nEngineer in the case of High Tension service connections on the basis of the
\nconnected load and the hours of usage of electricity by the consumer.
\n\t17.13: In case the consumer does not agree with the assessment made by the
\nAssistant Executive Engineer\/Executive Engineer, the matter may be referred to
\nthe Executive Engineer\/Superintending Engineer whose decision shall be final and
\nbinding on the consumer”.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. A mere reading of those paras extracted supra would indicate that
\nwhenever there is any defect noted in the electric meter, the authority
\nconcerned has got the right to proceed under those clauses.  Clause 17.13 would
\ncontemplate referring of the matter to the Assistant Executive Engineer\/
\nExecutive Engineer of the Electricity Board and it is clear that two tier system
\nis contemplated.  If the consumer is aggrieved by the procedures to be adopted
\nby the Board official relating to the defective meter then he could get the
\nmatter referred to the the Assistant Executive Engineer\/ Executive Engineer for
\ngetting it decided.  Even thereafter if he is not satisfied, he could very well
\napproach the Superintending Engineer.  As such there are inbuilt safeguards
\nprescribed as above.  Oblivious of clause 17.10 to 17.13, the suits were filed
\nerroneously by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar case  has held that without
\nexercising such remedies a suit shall not be filed.  Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978)
\nare extracted here under for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\t“3. Bills to state the date by which payment are to be made and
\nconsequences of non-payment.- (1) Every bill for dues payable to the Board by a
\ndebtor shall be in the form prescribed by the Board and shall specify
\nconspicuously the date by which such dues are to be paid and shall be served in
\nsuch manner as may be prescribed by rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)(a) If a debtor disputes his liability to pay the whole or part of the
\ndues specified in the bill referred to in sub-section (1), he may, within such
\ntime as may be prescribed, prefer an appeal to the appellate authority to be
\nspecified by the Board.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The appellate authority shall, while deciding the appeal, follow such
\nprocedure as may be prescribed by rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) The dues as determined by the appellate authority in the case of an
\nappeal under this sub-section, shall be paid by such date as may be specified by
\nthe appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) If the dues as mentioned in the bill under sub-section (1), are not
\npaid by the date specified in the bill, and in the case of an appeal under sub-
\nsection (2), the dues as determined by the appellate authority are not paid by
\nthe date specified by such authority, the debtor shall be liable to pay, in
\naddition thereto such penalty which may be specified by the Board, and such dues
\nand penalty shall be recoverable along with the costs incurred in making such
\nrecovery, in the manner hereinafter laid down in this Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Notice of demand for dues and penalty not paid.- If the dues as
\nmentioned in the bill under sub-section (1) of Section 3 are not paid by the
\ndate specified in the bill and in the case of an appeal under sub-section (2) of
\nSection 3, the dues as determined by the appellate authority are not paid by the
\ndate specified by such authority, the prescribed authority may at any time serve
\nor cause to be served upon him a notice of demand in the prescribed form,
\nstating the name of the debtor, the amount payable by him on account of the
\nvarious dues, penalty and the costs of recovery.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation.- The sending of the notice by registered post shall be deemed
\nto be sufficient service on the person concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Suit to challenge liability to payment.- Where a notice of demand has
\nbeen served on, the debtor or his authorised agent under Section 4, he may, if
\nhe denies his liability to pay the dues, penalty or cost or any part of any of
\nthem, institute a suit within three months from the date of service of notice of
\ndemand, after depositing with the prescribed authority the aggregate amount
\nspecified in the notice of demand under protest in writing that he is not liable
\nto pay the same.  Subject to the result of such suit, the notice of demand shall
\nbe conclusive proof of the various dues, penalty and costs mentioned therein”.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. A cumulative and conjoint reading of those three Sections of Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978) would
\namply make the point clear that before filing a civil suit, invoking Section 5
\nof the said act, the consumer should exhaust his remedy contemplated under
\nSections 3 and 4 of the said Act.  But in this case, it was not done so.  It is
\ntherefore clear that both the Courts below fell into error in upholding the
\nplaintiff’s case.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Accordingly, the Substantial Question of law No.1 is decided to the
\neffect that both the Courts below were wrong in holding that electric meter
\nshould have been sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector and only the Chief
\nElectrical Inspector to decide the issue without considering the terms and
\nconditions of supply as set out supra. The Substantial Question of Law No.2 is
\ndecided to the effect that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
\nsuit in view of Clauses 17.10, 17.11, 17.12 and 17.13 of the Terms and
\nConditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978).\n<\/p>\n
\t29. With the above observations, these two second appeals are allowed
\nsetting aside the common Judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and
\nconsequently the Original Suits are dismissed.  However, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
smn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Principal District Judge,
\n   Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Subordinate Judge,
\n   Pattukottai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.1266 of 2000 and S.A.No.1267 of 2000 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mount Road, Chennai. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thanjavur. 3.The Executive Engineer, […]<\/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-134384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-19T04:50:01+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-19T04:50:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3244,\"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\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\",\"name\":\"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-19T04:50:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 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":"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-19T04:50:01+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-19T04:50:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008"},"wordCount":3244,"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\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008","name":"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-19T04:50:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-satchi-selvam-on-16-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chairman vs Satchi Selvam on 16 February, 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\/134384","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=134384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}