{"id":195083,"date":"2004-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004"},"modified":"2018-09-21T06:36:16","modified_gmt":"2018-09-21T01:06:16","slug":"s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 20\/11\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN              \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI           \n\nAPPEAL SUIT No.1323 of 1989   \nand \nC.M.P.No.16427 of 1989  \n\nS.Ameer                                ...  Appellant \/\n                                             Plaintiff\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s. Vivek Enterprises,\nrep. By its Sole Proprietor                     ...  Respondent \/\nMr.R.Kaliaperumal.                                   Defendant.\n\n\n                This appeal is filed against the Judgment  and  Decree  dated:\n03.04.1  989  made  in O.S.No.418 of 1986 on the file of Principal Subordinate\nJudge, Pondicherry.\n\n!For Appellant          :  Mr.  S.Krishnasamy\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.  A.Chidambaram  \n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
R.BANUMATHI,J   <\/p>\n
                This Appeal is  preferred  at  the  instance  of  unsuccessful
\nPlaintiff  in  O.S.No.418  of 1986 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge,
\nPondicherry.  The learned trial Judge has dismissed the  Plaintiff’s  suit  on
\nthe  Preliminary  Issue that the suit is not sufficiently stamped and that the
\nsuit claim is unsustainable on the foot of the suit instrument.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Case of Appellant \/ Plaintiff is  that  the  Respondent  \/
\nDefendant  borrowed  Rs.50,000\/- on 01.12.1985 from the Plaintiff for purchase
\nof exhibition rights of the Film “Rajarishee” and the Defendant has agreed  to
\nrepay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum by 01.06.1986
\nand executed the suit Promissory Note and thereafter Defendant failed to repay
\nthe same and hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   Denying  the  claim of the Plaintiff, Defendant has filed
\nWritten Statement interalia contending that he  was  doing  Toddy  and  Arrack
\nbusiness.   In  that  connection, the Plaintiff used to purchase empty bottles
\nfrom the Defendant as well  as  from  others  recommended  by  the  Defendant.
\nFurther  case  of  Defendant is that in November 1985, Defendant had asked the
\nPlaintiff to lend money for  starting  Film  Distribution  Trade  and  without
\nparting with  the  money,  Defendant’s  signature was taken in the paper.  The
\nDefendant has mainly contended that the suit document is not a Promissory Note
\nas described under S.4 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that the suit  cannot
\nbe filed  on  the  said document.  No consideration was passed to Defendant on
\n01.12.1985 and  there  is  no  cause  of  action  for  the  suit.     Due   to
\nmisunderstanding  in  the  Trade of Empty Bottles, the Plaintiff has filed the
\nvexatious suit and the suit is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  On the basis of the above pleadings, five Issues  were  framed  in
\nthe trial  Court.  The first Issue “Whether the suit document is not valid and
\nenforceable in law ?  ” was taken up as the Preliminary Issue.  On that Issue,
\nthe learned Principal Subordinate Judge has dismissed the  suit  finding  that
\nthe  impugned  document is a Promissory Note within the meaning of S.4 of N.I.
\nAct.  Pointing out the recitals in the Impugned Document that  the  Amount  is
\npayable  by  01.06.1986,  the  trial Court found that for the purpose of Stamp
\nDuty, the Impugned Document is covered under  Cla.(b)(ii)  of  Art.13  of  the
\nStamp Act.  Since the amount is payable on demand which falls under Cla.(b) of
\nArt.49  of  the  Stamp  Act, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit as
\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit on the Preliminary  Issue
\nof maintainability  of  the  suit,  Plaintiff  has filed this appeal.  Learned
\ncounsel for the Appellant \/ Plaintiff has contended that the Court below erred
\nin dismissing the suit on the Preliminary Issue itself without taking the fair
\ntrial.  Submitting that the Impugned Document dated 01.12.1985 is a Promissory
\nNote which would attract Art.49(a)(ii) of the Stamp Act and not  Art.49(b)  of
\nthe  Stamp  Act, it is further contended that the trial Court has not properly
\nappreciated the decision reported in 1971 (1) M.L.J.   214.    It  is  further
\nsubmitted that in any event, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit by
\ntreating  the  said  document  as a ” Receipt ” based on the original cause of
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Per contra learned counsel for  the  Respondent  \/  Defendant  has
\nsubmitted  that  in view of the recital in the Impugned Document to the effect
\nthat the amount is payable by 01.06.1986, only Cla.(b) of Art.4 9 of the Stamp
\nAct is applicable and that the findings of the trial Court are  well  balanced
\nand that there is no reason warranting interference.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   We  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions  of both sides,
\nJudgment of  the  trial  Court  and  the  materials  on  record.     In   such
\nconsideration, the point following points arise for our consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
1.   Whether  the  trial  Court was justified in taking the view that the suit
\ndocument is a Promissory Note; but inadmissible in evidence on the ground that
\nthe said document was not duly stamped as required by law ?\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Without setting forth the alternative plea can the Plaintiff  fall
\nback upon the original cause of action and make the suit claim ?\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Whether  the  learned  trial  Judge  was right in non-suiting the
\nPlaintiff on the Preliminary Issue ?\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Point No.1:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        For better  appreciation  of  the  contentious  points
\nurged, we may quote the relevant portion of the Impugned Document:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
” tpGg;g[uk; efuk; No.42 ehaf;fd; njhg;g[ K.    nc&f; $hd; KfkJ kfd; S.  mkPh;
\nvd;gthplkpUe;J.   uh$hpc&p glk; th’;Ftjw;fhf ehsJ njjpapy; ehd; bgw;Wf; bfhz;l
\nbuhf;fk; U:\/50.000-?  (U:gha; Ik;gjpdhapuk; kl;Lk;)\/ nkw;go gzj;ij S.   mkPnuh
\nmy;yJ  mthpd;  mjpfhuk;  bgw;wtnuh  ahh; nfl;gpDk; 1?6?86f;Fs; mjw;F chpa tl;o
\n100f;F 1 U:gha; tPjk; mrnyhL nrh;e;j tl;oa[ld; bfhLf;f ehd;  rk;kjpj;J  vGjpf;
\nbfhLj;j urPJ\/
\n                                        tpntf; vz;lh;gpiur!;fhf.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        20 P    20 P\n                                                Sd\/- R.fypabgUkhs;\n\n<\/pre>\n
The document is stamped with Revenue Stamps of 40 Paise.  (20 P.  Plus 20 P.).
\nThe  Defendant  has  denied  the  borrowing  of the amount from the Plaintiff;
\nhowever, the Defendant has admitted his signature in  the  Impugned  Document.
\nThe  Defendant  \/  Executant  of  the  document  has described the document as
\n“Receipt”.  Though it is described as a ” Receipt”, it is clearly provided  in
\nthe  Impugned Document that the amount is payable on demand before 01.06.1986.
\nThus the amount is not payable immediately; but payable on demand only  before
\n01.06.1986.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  S.4 of N.I.  Act describes Promissory Note as under:-\n<\/p>\n
4.  ” Promissory Note”\n<\/p>\n
                A  “Promissory  Note” is an instrument in writing (not being a
\nbank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional  undertaking  signed
\nby  the  maker,  to  pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a
\ncertain person, or to be bearer of the instrument.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  As per S.2 (22) of  the  Stamp  Act,  definition  of  the
\nPromissory Note reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        (22)  Promissory  Note.– “Promissory Note” means a promissory note as
\ndefined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;\n<\/p>\n
                It also includes a note promising the payment of  any  sum  of
\nmoney  out  of  any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon
\nany condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen;\n<\/p>\n
With the above definitions we have to firstly consider whether the document in
\nquestion is a Promissory Note.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In order to find out whether the particular  document  is
\npromissory  note or not, the intention of the parties at the time of execution
\nof the document is to be looked into with reference to the  substance  of  the
\ndocument,  the  surrounding  circumstances  in  which  the  document  had been
\nexecuted and its negotiability in the popular sense, whether the document  was
\nintended  to be promissory note or was intended to be a mere acknowledgment of
\ndebt or receipt of consideration.  We have carefully read the recitals of  the
\nImpugned  Document  to  cull  out the intention of the parties so as to decide
\nwhether the instrument is a promissory note or not.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  As we have  pointed  out  earlier,  the  recitals  nkw;go
\ngzj;ij S.    mkPnuh my;yJ mthpd; mjpfhuk; bgw;wtnuh ahh; nfl;gpDk; 1?6?86f;Fs;
\nmjw;F chpa tl;o 100f;F 1 U:gha; tPjk; mrnyhL nrh;e;j  tl;oa[ld;  bfhLf;f  ehd;
\nrk;kjpj;J vGjpf;  bfhLj;j  urPJ  are  emphatic.  That the amount is payable to
\nPlaintiff – Ameer or to others who has the authority from Ameer  clerly  shows
\nthe negotiability  of  the  instrument.    Thus  the  amount payable under the
\nImpugned Document is payable on demand either to Plaintiff – Ameer or who  has
\nthe authority  from  the  Plaintiff  – Ameer.  The amount is payable on demand
\nwhich clearly shows that the document is a Promissory Note within the  meaning
\nof S.4  of N.I.Act.  Hence we confirm the findings of the trial Court that the
\nImpugned Document is a Promissory Note.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  The amount due on the Promissory Note may be  payable  on
\ndemand or payable after a certain period.  The amount on the Impugned Document
\nis  not payable immediately on demand; but was made payable before 01.06.1986,
\ni.e., no immediate demand could be made since the Defendant has  the  time  to
\npay till  01.06.1986.   Since the amount is not immediately payable on demand,
\nbut payable otherwise than on demand, the learned trial Judge found  that  the
\ndocument falls  under  Cla.(b)  of  Art.49  of  Sch.I  of  the Stamp Act.  The
\ncorrectness of this finding is very much assailed by the Appellant \/ Plaintiff
\ncontending that the trial Court erred  in  finding  that  the  amount  on  the
\ndocument is payable otherwise than on demand.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  Art.49 of Sch.I of the Stamp Act is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
49.  Promissory Note as defined by S.  2(22) —\n<\/p>\n
(a) When payable on demand —\n<\/p>\n
        (i) When the amount or value does       (Ten Paise)\n                not exceed Rs.250;\n\n        (ii) When the amount or value (Fifteen paise)\n                exceeds Rs.250 but does not\n        exceed Rs.1,000;\n\n        (iii)in any other case; (Twenty-Five Paise)\n\n<\/pre>\n
(b) when payable otherwise than on The same duty as a
\n        demand                          Bill of Exchange
\n                                                (No.13) for the
\n                                                same amount payable
\n                                                otherwise than on
\n                                                demand)<\/p>\n
The  definition  of  Promissory Note under the Stamp Act is wider than that of
\nS.4 of N.I.  Act.  In this case, the amount  is  not  payable  immediately  on
\ndemand;  but  payable  before 01.06.1986 since the amount is payable otherwise
\nthan on demand.  The document is chargeable with higher duty i.e., Stamp  Duty
\nis payable under Art.49 (b) of Sch.I of the Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   Under Art.49 (b) of Stamp Act, for the instrument ” when
\npayable otherwise than on demand “, the Stamp Duty is payable as  ”  the  same
\nduty  as a Bill of Exchange (No.13) for the same amount payable otherwise than
\non demand “.  Art.13 of the Stamp Act deals with Bill of  Exchange.    As  per
\nArt.13, for a Bill of Exchange, Stamp Duty is payable as indicated therein for
\nthe time  slab.    In  the instant case, the amount is payable within one year
\nperiod.  For this case, Art.13(ii) of Stamp Act is relevant to be quoted.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Bill of exchange, as defined by S.2 (2) not being a bond,  bank  note  or
\ncurrency-note.\n<\/p>\n
(a) [Omitted]<\/p>\n
(b) where payable otherwise than
\n        on demand–\n<\/p>\n
(i) …\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Where payable more than three
\n        months but not more than six
\n        months after date or sight–\n<\/p>\n
        if the amount of the bill or    [Two rupees fifty\n        note does not exceed Rs.500;            paise]\n\n        if it exceeds Rs.500 but does   [ Five rupees]\n        not exceed Rs.1,000;\n\n        and for every additional                [ Five rupees]\n        Rs.1,000 or part thereof in\n        excess of Rs.1,000;\n\n<\/pre>\n
In  this case, since the amount is payable otherwise than on demand, the Stamp
\nDuty payable is the same duty as a Bill of  Exchange  [Art.13  (ii)]  for  the
\namount payable.  To make it clear, on the amount of Rs.50,000\/- the Stamp Duty
\nof  Rs.2,455\/-  (Rs.5\/-  Plus Rs.2,450\/-) ought to have been calculated as per
\nArt.13(ii) of t he Stamp Act.  Obviously, the Impugned Document is executed in
\nthe paper affixed with 40 Paise Revenue Stamp.  The Impugned Document  is  not
\nsufficiently stamped.    The  learned  trial  Judge has rightly found that the
\ndocument is covered under Cla.(b) (ii) of Art.13 of the Stamp Act and that the
\ndocument is insufficiently stamped.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  Since the document is insufficiently  stamped,  the  same
\ncannot be  admitted in evidence.  S.35 of the Stamp Act prohibits admission of
\nany such document in evidence.  Under S.35 of the  Stamp  Act,  an  instrument
\nshall  not  be  admitted in evidence “unless such instrument is duly stamped”.
\nThe Act clearly imposes upon the Court  the  duty  of  seeing  in  every  case
\nwhether an  instrument  presented  before  it  is duly stamped or, not.  “Duly
\nstamped” is defined in the Act to be ” stamped in accordance with the  law  in
\nforce when  such instrument is executed or first executed”.  The Act lays down
\nthat “all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in India
\nshall be stamped before or at the time of execution”.  If an instrument is not
\nso stamped, clearly it is not stamped according to the Act and cannot be  held
\ntherefore to  be duly stamped.  As demonstrated earlier, the impugned document
\nnot being duly stamped as per Art.13(ii) of Stamp Act but only  executed  with
\nrevenue stamp  of  40  Paise cannot be admitted in evidence.  S.35 would be an
\nembargo to admit the document.  The learned trial Judge has rightly found that
\nS.35 prohibits admission of the suit document since it is not duly stamped.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  Almost a similar factual  situation  arose  in  the  case
\nrelied upon  by  the Respondent \/ Defendant reported in A.I.R.  1971 Mad 290 –
\nThenappa Chettiar v.  Andivappa Chettiar.  In<\/a> that  case,  the  suit  document
\nprovided  that  the executant shall pay the amount in question to the creditor
\nafter two years on demand by the creditor with interest.  In  para  8  of  the
\nJudgment, Venkataraman, J speaking for the Court held that the suit promissory
\nnote could  not  be  considered  as  a promissory note payable on demand.  The
\nCourt came to the conclusion that the suit promissory note  was  a  promissory
\nnote  payable otherwise than on demand and the document could not be validated
\nby payment of penalty and the same was inadmissible for all purposes.  In para
\n5 of his Judgment, Venkataraman J.  referred to the case of Alamelu  Ammal  v.
\nRangai Gounder<\/a>  reported in A.I.R.  1945 Mad 42 and number of other decisions.
\nThe Division Bench held that the amount on the note was payable  otherwise  on
\ndemand.  Pointing out that the document was stamped with the Revenue Stamps 25
\nPaise (15  P.    Plus  10  P.),  the Division Bench held that the document was
\ninsufficiently stamped and the same cannot be admitted in evidence.  The ratio
\nof the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the suit document on  which
\nthe  amount  is  payable  otherwise than on demand; document is insufficiently
\nstamped with Revenue Stamps of 40 Paise (20 P.  Plus 20 P.).  We  confirm  the
\nfindings  of  the  trial Court that the suit document is a Promissory Note but
\ninadmissible in evidence on the ground that the suit  document  was  not  duly
\nstamped and Point No.1 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  Points No.2 and 3:-\n<\/p>\n
                                The   main   contention  of  the  Appellant  \/
\nPlaintiff is that the Impugned Document could be construed as a  ”  Receipt  ”
\nand  that  the Plaintiff is entitled to claim on the original cause of action.
\nTo substantiate this contention, Appellant \/ Plaintiff has  already  filed  an
\nAmendment Petition  in  C.M.P.No.16427  of 1989 before this Court.  By careful
\nreading of the averments in the affidavit and the  amendment  sought  for,  we
\nfind that  the proposed amendment sought for is only in the prayer column.  No
\namendment is sought for in the averments regarding original cause  of  action.
\nMerely  by  making  amendment  in the plaint prayer, the Plaintiff cannot fall
\nback upon the original cause of action.  Further  the  proposed  amendment  is
\nsought for  in  the Appellate Stage, which is highly belated.  If the proposed
\namendment is allowed, it would relate back to the date of  the  suit  and  the
\nclaim might be barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
                19.    The   appellant  \/  Plaintiff  having  claimed  upon  a
\nPromissory Note, which is invalid for want  of  stamp  is  not  debarred  from
\nclaiming upon any ground of cause of action which he can prove without the aid
\nof  the  note;  in  other  words,  the  plaintiff could give other evidence of
\nconsideration paid by him to the defendant.  Excepting the Impugned  Document,
\nno  other  evidence  of consideration is adduced by the Appellant \/ Plaintiff.
\nHence, the Plaintiff is precluded from making claim on the original  cause  of
\naction.   Where Plaintiff files a suit on a Promissory Note, it is open to him
\nto put his case in an alternative form and sue for money on basis of  original
\nconsideration.  But if he does not base his case in the plaint on the original
\nconsideration,  he is out of Court because the Promissory Note is inadmissible
\nin evidence being insufficiently stamped.  We find in this case the  pleadings
\nare  not  properly framed for the purpose of enabling the Plaintiff to recover
\nthe amount on the original consideration.  The Plaintiff has neither set forth
\nthe facts nor pleaded the circumstances giving rise to the alternative plea  \/
\nclaim to  recover  the  amount on the original loan.  One is to search in vain
\nthe plaint averments putting forth alternative claim on the original cause  of
\naction.  The amount is said to have been advanced for purchase of Distribution
\nRights of Film “Rajarishee”.  There is no prior debt.  We find no averments in
\nthe plaint  setting  forth  facts  as  to  the  original  consideration.   The
\npermission to amend the plaint is also to  be  refused  since  the  effect  of
\namendment  would  be  taken  away  from  the Defendant a legal right which has
\naccrued to him by the lapse of time by passing  of  the  decree.    Hence  the
\npetition for amendment in C.M.P.No.16427 of 1989 is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   In  careful  analysis  of  the evidence and materials on
\nrecord, we find that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry  has
\nrightly  found that the Impugned Document is a Promissory Note on which amount
\nis payable otherwise than on demand.  Further the learned trial Judge has also
\nrightly found that the Impugned Document is insufficiently stamped and  cannot
\nbe admitted  in  evidence.  The suit claim based on the insufficiently stamped
\nPromissory Note is unsustainable.  This appeal is  bereft  of  merits  and  is
\nbound to fail.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  A.S.No.1323 of 1989:-\n<\/p>\n
                                        Therefore,  the Judgment and Decree of
\nthe Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry dismissing the suit in O.S.No.418
\nof 1986 (Dated:  03.04.1989) are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.    In
\nthe circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  C.M.P.No.16427 of 1989:-\n<\/p>\n
                                        For  the  reasons  stated  above, this
\npetition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (N.V.B,J) (R.B.I,J)<\/p>\n
                                                .11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes<\/p>\n
Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n
sbi<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Principal Subordinate Judge,
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Record Keeper,
\nV.R.Records, High Court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/11\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI APPEAL SUIT No.1323 of 1989 and C.M.P.No.16427 of 1989 S.Ameer … Appellant \/ Plaintiff -Vs- M\/s. Vivek Enterprises, rep. By […]<\/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-195083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 - 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\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-21T01:06:16+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=\"15 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-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Ameer vs M\\\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T01:06:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2932,\"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-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\",\"name\":\"S.Ameer vs M\\\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T01:06:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Ameer vs M\\\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@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.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 - 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\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-21T01:06:16+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T01:06:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004"},"wordCount":2932,"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-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004","name":"S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T01:06:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ameer-vs-ms-vivek-enterprises-on-20-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Ameer vs M\/S. Vivek Enterprises on 20 November, 2004"}]},{"@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\/195083","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=195083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}