{"id":176466,"date":"2008-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-18T07:13:29","modified_gmt":"2014-05-18T01:43:29","slug":"s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.11987 of 2008\n\nS.Sundharalingam              ... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling\n  Revenue Authority cum Inspector General,\n  Registration Department,\n  Santhome High Road,\n  Chennai-28.\n\n2.The Special Deputy Collector,\n  [Stamp Duty]\n  Tiruchirappalli.\n\n3.The Sub Registrar,\n  Office of the Sub Registrar,\n  Aranthangi,\n  Pudukkottai District       ... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records\nrelating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in\nMuu.Mu.No.42160\/N4\/07 dated 27.09.2008 and quash the same and to direct the 1st\nrespondent to entertain and decide the Appeal on merits and in accordance with\nlaw.\n\n!For Petitioner  ... Mr.K.Balasundharam\n^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t     Special Government Advocate\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the<br \/>\nimpugned order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Muu.Mu.No.42160\/N4\/07<br \/>\ndated 27.09.2008 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to<br \/>\nentertain and decide the Appeal on merits and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 2. Heard Mr.K.Balasundharam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also<br \/>\nMr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf<br \/>\nof the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the<br \/>\nwrit petition, is to the effect the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate<br \/>\nauthority viz., the first respondent as against the order of the second<br \/>\nrespondent, challenging the quantum of stamp duty fixed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent; however the first respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that<br \/>\nthere is no provision for condoning the delay under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of<br \/>\nUndervaluation of Instrumental Rules.  Hence, this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/194081\/\">S.Ramachandran v. Special Commissioner and<br \/>\nCommissioner<\/a> for Land Administration, Chennai and Another reported in (2007)7<br \/>\nMLJ 409 would develop his arguments to the effect that in matters like this,<br \/>\ninterlocutary application could be filed for getting the delay condoned, by<br \/>\nplacing reliance on Section 5 of Limitation Act.  An excerpt from the said<br \/>\ndecision would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;4. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court reported in <a href=\"\/doc\/193036\/\">P.Sarathy v. State Bank of India<\/a> 2000(3) CTC 552.  In<br \/>\nthat case, the suit came to be filed after the prescribed period of limitation<br \/>\nand the appellant therein took a stand that the period during which he was<br \/>\nagitating before the appellate authority constituted under the provisions of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, should be excluded while working out<br \/>\nthe period of limitation.  The Supreme Court accepted the claim of the<br \/>\nappellant.  The Supreme Court, while construing Section 14(1) of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct, where the expression &#8220;Court&#8221; has been used, held that the said expression<br \/>\nwould take within its fold all those quasi-judicial authorities who have all the<br \/>\ntrappings of the Court.  Paragraph 13 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nis relevant for our present purpose, which reads as under:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;13. <a href=\"\/doc\/968992\/\">In Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.<br \/>\nAIR<\/a> 1967 SC 1494 : 1967 Crl.LJ 1380 this Court, while considering the question<br \/>\nunder the Contempt of Courts Act, held that the Registrar under the Bihar and<br \/>\nOrissa Cooperative Societies Act was a court.  It was held that the Registrar<br \/>\nhad not merely the trappings of a court but in many respects he was given the<br \/>\nsame powers as was given to an ordinary civil court by the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure including the powers to summon and examine witnesses on oath, the<br \/>\npower to order inspection of documents and to hear the parties.  The Court<br \/>\nreferred to the earlier decisions in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, AIR 1950 SC<br \/>\n188 : 1950 SCR 459; <a href=\"\/doc\/1815080\/\">Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR<\/a> 1953 SC 325 : 1953<br \/>\nSCR 730 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1776469\/\">Brajnandan Sinha vs. Jyoti Narain, AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 66 : 1955 (2) SCR\n<\/p>\n<p>955.  The Court approved the rule laid down in these cases that in order to<br \/>\nconstitute a court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is<br \/>\nthat the court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a<br \/>\njudicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has<br \/>\nFinality and Authoritativeness which are the essential tests of a judicial<br \/>\npronouncement&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. If the principles set out in the said paragraph are applied to the<br \/>\nfacts of this case, it can be safely held that the jurisdiction exercisable by<br \/>\nthe first respondent as a revisional authority would satisfy all the<br \/>\nrequirements that have been set out in the above referred to decision of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court.  Even under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the expression used<br \/>\nis only &#8220;Court&#8221; and not a &#8220;Civil Court&#8221;.  Therefore, it can be safely held that<br \/>\nthere is every jurisdiction vested in the first respondent to condone the delay<br \/>\ninvolved in preferring the revision petition by invoking Section 5 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Having regard to the said legal position, it is just and proper that<br \/>\nthe petitioner is permitted to move the first respondent by way of an<br \/>\napplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of the<br \/>\ndelay in filing the revision petition by adducing the reasons which prevented<br \/>\nthe petitioner from filing the revision within the prescribed period of 30 days.<br \/>\nAccordingly, while setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition, and<br \/>\npermitting the petitioner to file appropriate application for condonation of<br \/>\ndelay, along with the revision petition, the first respondent is directed to<br \/>\ndispose of the petitioner&#8217;s application for condonation of delay, in accordance<br \/>\nwith law and pass appropriate orders before entertaining the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrevision petition and to decide the same on merits.  The petitioner shall re-<br \/>\npresent the revision petition along with the application for condonation of<br \/>\ndelay within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. No contrary opinion is forthcoming from the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\nand there is also nothing to show that any appeal was filed by the Government as<br \/>\nagainst the precedent cited supra by the petitioner.  Hence, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that the first respondent has to consider the interlocutary<br \/>\napplication on merits, by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the<br \/>\napplication for condoning the delay on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would make a further submission<br \/>\nto the effect that pending such appeal, the original sale deed may be ordered to<br \/>\nbe returned after making necessary endorsements as contemplated in the decisions<br \/>\nof this Court.  An excerpt of the decision  of this Court in B.Rajappa and<br \/>\nanother v. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madras and others reported in<br \/>\n2002(3) CTC 544, is extracted here under for ready reference:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;While appreciating the anxiety expressed on behalf of the State by the<br \/>\nlearned Advocate General, this Court directs that:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ti) It is open to the Registering Authority to affix a seal, while<br \/>\nreleasing the original deed or conveyance or any other document indicating that<br \/>\na reference is pending under Section 47-A with respect to under-valuation and<br \/>\nassessment of Stamp Duty payable, as and when the proceedings reach finality,<br \/>\nthe same shall be intimated to the person who is liable to pay stamp duty<br \/>\ndemanding payment of deficit Stamp Duty payable on the instrument.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tii) The Registrar to make corresponding entries under Sections 54, 55 of<br \/>\nthe Registration Act, 1908, in the Register of indexes as to pendency of<br \/>\nproceedings under Section 47-a.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tiii) On completion of adjudication as to the under-valuation by the<br \/>\ncompetent authority as well as appeal or revision, if any, thereof, and<br \/>\ndepending upon the ultimate decision, the said authorities to recover deficit<br \/>\nstamp duty according to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tiv) Till such proceeding reaches finality and deficit is paid, there will<br \/>\nbe a charge for the deficit stamp duty, which is the subject matter of transfer<br \/>\nor conveyance.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tv) On payment of deficit stamp duty, if any payable, the Registrar may<br \/>\nonce again, on production of the original deed of transfer, make appropriate<br \/>\nentry and recording the additional stamp duty paid and release of charge and<br \/>\nalso make consequential entries in the registers\/indexes maintained under<br \/>\nSections 54, 55, etc., of the Registration Act&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.Accordingly I further direct that in the event of appeal being numbered, the<br \/>\noriginal document shall be released after making necessary endorsements.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>dp\/smn<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling<br \/>\n  Revenue Authority cum Inspector General,<br \/>\n  Registration Department,<br \/>\n  Santhome High Road,<br \/>\n  Chennai-28.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Special Deputy Collector,<br \/>\n  [Stamp Duty]<br \/>\n  Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Sub Registrar,<br \/>\n  Office of the Sub Registrar,<br \/>\n  Aranthangi,<br \/>\n  Pudukkottai District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.11987 of 2008 S.Sundharalingam &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General, Registration Department, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28. 2.The Special Deputy [&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-176466","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>S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 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\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-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=\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-18T01:43:29+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\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-18T01:43:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1346,\"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\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008\",\"name\":\"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-18T01:43:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 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":"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 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\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-18T01:43:29+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\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-18T01:43:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008"},"wordCount":1346,"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\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008","name":"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-18T01:43:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sundharalingam-vs-the-tamil-nadu-chief-controlling-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Sundharalingam vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling on 22 December, 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\/176466","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=176466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}