{"id":200530,"date":"2005-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005"},"modified":"2018-10-04T08:26:20","modified_gmt":"2018-10-04T02:56:20","slug":"mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, P.K.Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2619 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nMangt.of Madurantakam Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. \t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.Viswanathan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde &amp; P.K.Balasubramanyan       \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this appeal the appellant is challenging an order made by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras<br \/>\nwhich allowed a writ appeal filed by the respondent-workman (the<br \/>\nworkman) reversing the order of the learned Single Judge of the<br \/>\nsame court who in turn had set aside the award of reinstatement<br \/>\nmade by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent was working as a Clerk in the Divisional<br \/>\nOffice of the appellant &#8211; Sugar Mills which had several godowns in<br \/>\ndifferent places under the control of the said Divisional Office. The<br \/>\nappellant &#8211; Sugar Mills used to issue permit for supply of manure<br \/>\nin bags to cane growers. The workman used to attend to the<br \/>\ndistribution of manure bags at two such godowns on different days<br \/>\nof the week. It is alleged that on 5.2.1976 while the workman was<br \/>\nattending to work in the godown at Sathancheri, he made an illegal<br \/>\ndemand of additional sum of Rs.10\/- purportedly as a donation for<br \/>\na temple festival stating that the said collection was authorised by<br \/>\nthe higher ups in the Management. The complainant &#8211; cane grower<br \/>\nhad stated in his complaint that this is an illegal gratification which<br \/>\nthe workman was collecting from the cane growers. He had also<br \/>\nalleged that the appellant had behaved in a rude manner with him<br \/>\nby using insulting words when he met him on that day. The<br \/>\ncomplainant further stated that the workman was given defective<br \/>\nmanure bags and no opportunity was being given to the cane<br \/>\ngrowers to select their own bags.\n<\/p>\n<p>Based on the above complaint, a departmental enquiry was<br \/>\ninstituted and the same was conducted by the Labour Welfare<br \/>\nOfficer who on the basis of the evidence recorded by him found<br \/>\nthe workman guilty of alleged misconduct and recommended his<br \/>\ndismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The disciplinary authority before passing the order based on<br \/>\nthe enquiry report, re-appreciated the evidence recorded by the<br \/>\nenquiry officer and came to the conclusion that though the<br \/>\nmisconduct is proved a punishment of dismissal was too harsh and<br \/>\nconverted the same to one of discharge.\n<\/p>\n<p>A labour dispute was raised by the workman which was<br \/>\nreferred to the Labour Court. Before the said court one of the<br \/>\ncontention of the workman was that the enquiry officer, namely,<br \/>\nLabour Welfare Officer was specifically debarred under the rules<br \/>\napplicable from conducting an enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry<br \/>\nagainst him was vitiated. The Management while admitting that the<br \/>\nsaid enquiry officer was disqualified from conducting the enquiry<br \/>\ncontended that the material collected in the enquiry ipso facto<br \/>\nwould not be vitiated even though the enquiry officer was an<br \/>\nunauthorised person and the disciplinary authority having<br \/>\nconsidered the entire material on record and in fact having reduced<br \/>\nthe punishment it is not open to the workman to plead that any<br \/>\nprejudice has been caused to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the facts of this case and for the reasons recorded herein<br \/>\nbelow, it may not be necessary for us to decide this issue, since<br \/>\ninspite of the fact that the enquiry officer was not an authorised<br \/>\nperson, the workman himself had relied on certain portions of the<br \/>\nevidence recorded by the said enquiry officer before the Labour<br \/>\nCourt for proving his innocence. Hence, we leave this question of<br \/>\nlaw open.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before the Labour Court, the Management had sought<br \/>\npermission to adduce further evidence to establish its charge<br \/>\nagainst the workman. The Labour Court permitted both the parties<br \/>\nto adduce additional evidence pursuant to which the Management<br \/>\nexamined two witnesses while the workman examined himself in<br \/>\nsupport of their respective cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Labour Court having perused the material on record<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that though the demand for donation might<br \/>\nhave been made by the workman, the same was not as an illegal<br \/>\ngratification and since the complainant had not paid the amount<br \/>\ndemanded, the workman had cancelled the receipt of such amount<br \/>\nwhich was done on the back of the permit issued by the<br \/>\nManagement. It also came to the conclusion that the Management<br \/>\nhas failed to prove that the workman had misbehaved with the<br \/>\ncomplainant and further held that the workman was justified in not<br \/>\nallowing the cane growers to enter the stores for choosing the<br \/>\nmanure bags of their choice. On the basis of the said finding the<br \/>\nLabour Court set aside the punishment of discharge and directed<br \/>\nthe Management to reinstate the workman with back wages and<br \/>\nother retiral benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>The aggrieved Management preferred a writ petition before<br \/>\na learned Single Judge who on re-appreciation of the evidence<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that the Management has proved the<br \/>\ndemand of illegal gratification in the guise of donation. Hence, it<br \/>\nset aside the award of the Labour Court upholding the order of<br \/>\ndischarge made by the Management.\n<\/p>\n<p>As stated above, this order of the learned Single Judge came<br \/>\nto be reversed by the appellate bench of the High Court recording a<br \/>\nfinding that there was no evidence to conclude that the amount<br \/>\ndemanded was towards illegal gratification and not as a donation<br \/>\nfor the temple festival. The Division Bench further came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that on the back of the permit a sum of Rs.10\/- was<br \/>\nstuck off since the complainant did not pay that money and a figure<br \/>\nof Rs.4.95 was entered by the workman which was towards the<br \/>\npayment of cooly charges. Thus taking a different view on facts<br \/>\nfrom that of the learned Single Judge and agreeing with the finding<br \/>\nof the Labour Court, it allowed the appeal of the workman and<br \/>\nupheld the award by setting aside the order of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n<p>This ding-dong battle on facts between the Management and<br \/>\nthe workman has reached this Court by way of this appeal and<br \/>\nleave having been granted, it is for us now to decide which of the<br \/>\nfour views is justifiable and is to be upheld. Is it the view of the<br \/>\nManagement taken in the domestic enquiry ? Or is it the view of<br \/>\nthe Labour Court ? Or is it the view of the learned Single Judge of<br \/>\nthe High Court ? Or is it the view of the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court ?\n<\/p>\n<p>  Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as<br \/>\nthe  case may be, is the final court of facts in these type of<br \/>\ndisputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not<br \/>\nbased on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either<br \/>\nunder Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\ncan go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the<br \/>\nTribunal. But before going into such an exercise it is necessary that<br \/>\nthe writ court must record reasons why it intends reconsidering a<br \/>\nfinding of fact. In the absence of any such defect in the order of the<br \/>\nLabour Court the writ court will not enter into the realm of factual<br \/>\ndisputes and finding given thereon. A consideration of the<br \/>\nimpugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that nowhere he<br \/>\nhas come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court is<br \/>\neither perverse or based on no evidence or based on evidence<br \/>\nwhich is not legally acceptable. Learned Single Judge proceeded as<br \/>\nif he was sitting in a court of appeal on facts and item after item of<br \/>\nevidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as well as before the<br \/>\nLabour Court was reconsidered and findings given by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt were reversed. We find no justification for such an approach<br \/>\nby the learned Single Judge which only amounts to substitution of<br \/>\nhis subjective satisfaction in the place of such satisfaction of the<br \/>\nLabour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Division Bench too in appeal, in our opinion, has<br \/>\ncommitted the same error. May be, there was some justification,<br \/>\nsince if it had to allow the appeal, then it had to consider the points<br \/>\non facts decided by the learned Single Judge. In that process it also<br \/>\ntook up for consideration every bit of evidence that was considered<br \/>\nby the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge and<br \/>\ndisagreed with the finding of the learned Single Judge.<br \/>\nIt is in this context that we are called upon to decide the<br \/>\nvalidity of the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri R.Sundaravardan, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe appellant contended that under Article 136 of the Constitution<br \/>\nit is open to this Court to correct the injustice that is done by the<br \/>\nimpugned order. According to the learned counsel the Division<br \/>\nBench was in error in coming to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nManagement had not established the fact that the workman had<br \/>\nabused the complainant. He also submitted that the finding of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench that money demanded was for donation to the<br \/>\ntemple festival and not as a bribe was again contrary to records.<br \/>\nTherefore, he contended the Division Bench has erred in coming to<br \/>\nthe wrong conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>We note that the Labour Court has taken into consideration<br \/>\nthe fact that the complainant had stated that on the day when he<br \/>\nwent to meet the workman he was greeted with an abuse, but this<br \/>\npiece of evidence was not accepted by the Labour Court rightly<br \/>\nbecause it is rather difficult to accept that any normal person who<br \/>\nmeets another person for the first time in his life would straight<br \/>\naway abuse him without any rhyme or reason. In this background,<br \/>\nwe cannot conclude that the finding of the Labour Court on this<br \/>\nquestion is perverse. The other argument of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant is that there was evidence to show that the demand of<br \/>\nRs.10\/- was made as illegal gratification in the guise of donation<br \/>\nand that case ought to have been accepted. We must state that even<br \/>\nthis question was considered by the Labour Court and was rejected<br \/>\non the ground that the mere statement of the complainant in this<br \/>\nregard without there being any corroborative material was<br \/>\ninsufficient to hold the workman guilty. Even this finding in our<br \/>\nopinion cannot be held to be perverse taking into consideration the<br \/>\nover all facts of the case. In regard to the third charge of not<br \/>\nallowing the complainant to enter the godown also, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse. In such a<br \/>\nbackground it is not possible for this court to accept the contention<br \/>\nof the Management that the Labour Court&#8217;s findings are<br \/>\nunsustainable in law. It may be possible for another person to take<br \/>\na different view, but certainly it is not possible to give a finding<br \/>\nthat the conclusion of the Labour Court was either perverse or not<br \/>\nbased on evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>This takes us to the consideration of the next argument of<br \/>\nthe learned senior counsel for the appellant who submitted that the<br \/>\ndirection of the tribunal granting full back wages is highly onerous,<br \/>\nin the background of the fact that the appellant-Management is in a<br \/>\nstate of financial crises. He submitted that there is material to show<br \/>\nthat the respondent-workman during his period of non employment<br \/>\nwith the appellant-Management was gainfully employed<br \/>\nelsewhere. Therefore, now that the respondent-workman is entitled<br \/>\nto his gratuity and other retiral benefits, the direction to pay the full<br \/>\nback wages may be modified.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ms.Hetu Arora, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent-workman strongly opposed this prayer of the appellant<br \/>\nand contended that the case is going on since 1976 and the<br \/>\nworkman had to spend considerable amount of money on the<br \/>\nlitigation solely because of the attitude of the Management. She<br \/>\nalso submitted that the statement of the learned senior counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant that the workman was gainfully employed is not<br \/>\nsubstantiated by any material on record, hence the said prayer<br \/>\nshould be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have anxiously considered the argument addressed by<br \/>\nboth sides in regard to the quantum of back wages to be paid to the<br \/>\nworkman. It is an undisputed fact that the workman had since<br \/>\nattained the age of superannuation and the question of<br \/>\nreinstatement does not arise. Because of  the award, the<br \/>\nrespondent-workman will be entitled to his retiral benefits like<br \/>\ngratuity etc. and accepting the statement of the learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant-Mills that it is undergoing a financial<br \/>\ncrises, on the facts of this case we think it appropriate that the full<br \/>\nback wages granted by the Labour Court be reduced to 50% of the<br \/>\nback wages. In addition the respondent-workman will also be<br \/>\nentitled to all other retiral benefits as if he was in service<br \/>\nthroughout the period when his services were discharged.<br \/>\nThe decision under appeal is confirmed subject to the above<br \/>\nmodification.  Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, P.K.Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2619 of 2003 PETITIONER: Mangt.of Madurantakam Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. RESPONDENT: S.Viswanathan DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2005 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde &amp; P.K.Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mangt.Of Madurantakam ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 - 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\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangt.Of Madurantakam ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-04T02:56:20+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T02:56:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2158,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Mangt.Of Madurantakam ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T02:56:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Mangt.Of Madurantakam ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 - 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\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangt.Of Madurantakam ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-04T02:56:20+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T02:56:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005"},"wordCount":2158,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005","name":"Mangt.Of Madurantakam ... vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T02:56:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangt-of-madurantakam-vs-s-viswanathan-on-22-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangt.Of Madurantakam &#8230; vs S.Viswanathan on 22 February, 2005"}]},{"@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\/200530","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=200530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}