{"id":202633,"date":"2003-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003"},"modified":"2015-12-30T17:52:09","modified_gmt":"2015-12-30T12:22:09","slug":"ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 20\/02\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.24471 of 2002\nand\nCRL.M.P.NO.10202 OF 2002\n\n\nM\/s. Vindia Exports P.Ltd.,\nrep. by Director\nDr.A.R.Pradeepkumar,\nChetpet, Chennai 31.             ..     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep. by\nDeputy Superintendent of\nPolice, Central Bureau of\nInvestigation, Banking\nSecurity and Fraud Cell,\nBangalore.                       ..       Respondent\n\n\n        The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section  482\nof Cr.P.C as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner:  :  Mr.M.Ravindran, S.C.,\n                for M\/s.Lakshmipathy Associates\n\nFor Respondent:  :  Mr.N.Ranganathan, (Spl.P.P.CBI)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        The  above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner
\npraying to call for the records in C.C.No.60 of 2000, pending on the  file  of
\nthe  learned  X  Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the
\ncharge sheet against accused No.5 in C.C.No.60 of 20 00 on the file of  the  X
\nAdditional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   In  the  affidavit  filed  in  support  of  the Criminal Original
\nPetition, the petitioner would submit that the respondent has  filed  a  final
\nreport  alleging  offences punishable u\/s 120B, r\/w 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.
\nand 13(2) r\/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C.No.60
\nof 2000 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai only  against  Accused
\nNo.1  to 4 ; that he was not initially arrayed as an accused either in the FIR
\nor in the charge sheet and the respondent had not alleged any  specific  overt
\nor  covert  act  constituting  an offence against him; that the respondent CBI
\nafter a full fledged and thorough investigation had submitted its final report
\nindicating specifically the role played by each accused but has not  whispered
\neven  a  word about the petitioner in the capacity of a director or otherwise;
\nthat subsequently the Trial Court after taking cognizance  against  all  other
\ndirectors summoned him adding him as 5th accused in the case.\n<\/p>\n
        3.    The   petitioner   would   further  submit  that  he  has  filed
\nCrl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.  before the Trial Court  to
\ndischarge  him  from  the  alleged  offence  and the same was dismissed on 2.8
\n.2002; that the charge sheet itself  admits  that  Mr.A.R.Rajasekaran  is  the
\nManaging  Director and the Authorised signatory to operate the Current Account
\nand had submitted the Application Form for  obtaining  the  credit  facilities
\nfrom  Bank  of  India,  Purasawalkam Branch, Chennai; that the trial Court has
\nmechanically issued summons to the petitioner without satisfying whether there
\nis any iota of evidence  either  oral  or  documentary  against  him  but  had
\nincluded  him  as  an Accused since the company was mentioned represented by 3
\ndirectors namely accused No.2  and  3  and  the  petitioner  which  is  highly
\narbitrary;  that  he  was  not  responsible  for  managing the business of the
\ncompany nor was  he  in-charge  of  the  affairs  of  the  company;  that  the
\nrespondent  had  not produced any evidence to show that he was responsible for
\nthe affairs of the company, which is the most essential fact so as to hold him
\nliable for the acts of the company; that there is absolutely  no  evidence  to
\nrope  him  in  a case of criminal conspiracy in the absence of any material to
\nshow the meeting of the minds to commit an offence and hence the allegation of
\ncommitting an offence punishable u\/s 120B  is  groundless  and  unsustainable;
\nthat  the  trial Court has wrongly concluded in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 that the
\npetitioner as a director of the company would also be liable for the acts done
\nby the company which is inconsistent and contrary to the legal provisions.  On
\nsuch averments, petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the  petitioner
\nbesides reiterating the averments of the petition would cite a judgment of the
\nHonble  Supreme  Court  reported  in  AIR  1983  SUPREME  COURT 67 (MUNICIPAL
\nCORPORATION OF DELHI v.RAM KISHAN ROHTAGI AND OTHERS)  wherein  an  appeal  by
\nspecial leave is directed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court, quashing
\nthe  proceedings  taken  against  the  respondents Nos.1 to 5 arising out of a
\ncomplaint which was filed by the Assistant  Municipal  Prosecutor  before  the
\nCourt  of  Metropolitan  Magistrate, Delhi against the accused therein for the
\nalleged commission of offence under Section 7\/16 of  the  Prevention  of  Food
\nAdulteration  Act  who  summoned  all  the  respondents  for  being  tried for
\nviolating the provisions of the Act.  The Honble Supreme Court following  the
\njudgments  reported in AIR 1980 SC 258, AIR 1976 SC 1947 and AIR 1977 SC 17 54
\nhas held:\n<\/p>\n
        Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can  be  quashed
\nonly  if  on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no
\noffence is constituted.    In  other  words,  the  test  is  that  taking  the
\nallegations  and  the  complaint  as  they  are, without adding or subtracting
\nanything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be  justified  in
\nquashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   In  consideration  of the facts pleaded by the petitioner, having
\nregard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned  counsel
\nfor  both,  it comes to be seen that the judgment cited by the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner squarely applies to the case in hand since  the  petitioner
\nin this case is only a director of the company and that his name does not find
\nplace in  the  F.I.R  and  in  the  charge  sheet  as  well.  After a thorough
\ninvestigation having been held by the respondent the  charge  sheet  has  been
\nlaid  against  4  accused  of  whom  the  petitioner  Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar S\/o
\nA.R.Rajasekaran is not one and a careful perusal of the charge  sheet  in  the
\nwhole  narration  of the offences specifically committed by each and every one
\nof the accused named in the lengthy charge sheet  ranging  to  8  pages,  only
\nthose accused  named  in  the  accused column as accused No.  1 to 4 have been
\ncharged for the commission of the offence offering specific reasons to the act
\nof each and every one of the accused named in the charge  sheet.    But  in  a
\npeculiar manner  while  concluding, for no reason assigned, the I.O.  has also
\nmade a mention of the name of the petitioner Dr.Pradeep Kumar in the following
\nmanner:-\n<\/p>\n
         By their above acts, Sh.A.R.Rajasekaran (A2),  Sh.Madhusudanan  (A3)
\nhave committed offences  punishable  U\/s.420,  468,  471  I.P.C.  M\/s.  Vindia
\nExports (P) Ltd.,  (A4)  represented  by  its  three  directors,  A2,  A3  and
\nDr.Pradeep Kumar   committed  an  offence  punishable  U\/s  420  I.P.C.    and
\nSh.R.Krishnamoorthy (A1) has committed offences  punishable  U\/s  13  (2)  r\/w
\n13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.<\/p>\n
        6.   It  is  only  the  manner in which the name of the petitioner Dr.
\nPradeep Kumar which has been brought into the charge along with two others  as
\nthough  the  three directors committed offence punishable under Section 420 of
\nthe I.P.C.  without having brought his name in the relevant accused column nor
\nspecifying as to what is the specific offences committed on the  part  of  the
\npetitioner  without  which  simply  his  name  cannot  be  inserted  into  the
\nconcluding paragraph just for the simple reason that he was also a director of
\nthe company.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Further more, the trial Court taking advantage of  this  insertion
\nof  the  name  of  the  petitioner  as  one of the directors in the concluding
\nparagraph of the charge sheet while framing charges has  made  the  petitioner
\nDr.Pradeep  Kumar  as the 5th accused therein and has sent the summons for his
\nappearance before the lower  Court  and  therefore,  the  petitioner  filed  a
\npetition in  Crl.M.P.No.28  of  2002  under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.  before the
\nSpecial Judge for CBI Cases praying for the discharge of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the  petitioner
\nwould  wonder  as  to  how  and  what procedure the trial Court has adopted to
\nimplicate the petitioner as the 5th accused consequent to which it has  issued
\nsummons to  the  petitioner  to appear before him.  The learned senior counsel
\nwould exhort that the trial Court is not bound by the charge sheet laid by the
\npolice and it could frame the charges of its own based on the ingredients  and
\nthe  materials  made available in the whole of the case of the prosecution and
\nsince there is nothing put-forth to implicate the petitioner from the whole of
\ninvestigation nor even showing him as an accused in the charge sheet, just for
\nthe simple reason that he also acted as the director of  the  company  he  has
\nbeen  falsely  shown  at  the  last paragraph of the charge sheet filed by the
\nrespondent police as though he too committed an offence under section  420  of
\nthe I.P.C.    absolutely  without  assigning any reason for having brought his
\nname in the manner that it has been broughtforth in the  concluding  paragraph
\nof  the charge sheet laid by the police which is nothing but erroneous and the
\ntrial Court having been misguided by such erroneous inclusion of the  name  of
\nthe  petitioner  should  not have made him as accused No.5 and sent summons to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The learned senior counsel would  further  submit  that  in  these
\ncircumstances,  unless  by means of following the procedures established under
\nSection 319 of Cr.P.C.  within the meaning of Section 3 of  the  Evidence  Act
\nrelating  to  the  facts in issue, under no other provision of law the trial
\nCourt has any option to include any one as the accused and therefore, what the
\ntrial Court did to include the name of the  accused  as  the  5th  accused  is
\nnothing  but  arbitrary  and in violation of the procedures established by law
\nand the same should not only be discredited but set aside as well.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In consideration of the  facts  pleaded,  having  regard  to  the
\nmaterials placed on record and upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner  and  the  learned Central Government Standing Counsel representing
\nthe respondent, this Court is of  the  view  that  neither  the  name  of  the
\npetitioner  having  been  mentioned  in the accused column by the charge sheet
\nlaid by the respondent  nor  having  brought-forth  anything  as  to  how  the
\ncommission  of  an  offence  under Section 420 has been done by the petitioner
\nsimply mentioning his name  as  one  of  the  directors  of  the  company  and
\ntherefore concluding that he too committed an offence punishable under section
\n420 of  I.P.C.    in  the  charge  sheet  laid  by the respondent, without any
\nmaterial placed on record to the effect of the role of the petitioner  in  the
\nwhole  of  the case of the prosecution specifying the criminal act perpetrated
\non the part of the petitioner so as to attract Section 420 of  the  I.P.C  and
\nwithout  following  the  procedures  established  by  law under Section 319 of
\nCr.P.C.  since the trial Court has come forward to name the petitioner as  the
\n5th  accused  for  himself being tried for an offence punishable under Section
\n420 of I.P.C.  has committed an error apparent on  the  face  of  the  records
\nconnected  to the whole of the case and since the same being a legal error the
\nact of the trial Court  in  the  inclusion  of  the  name  of  the  petitioner
\nDr.A.R.Pradeep  Kumar further dismissing the petition filed on the part of the
\npetitioner, are nothing but acts erroneous in  law  and  hence  the  following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
        In result,<\/p>\n
        (i)  the  above  Criminal  Original  Petition succeeds and the same is
\nallowed;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the order dated 2.8.2002 made in Crl.M.P.No.28  of  2002  by  the
\nCourt of X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is set aside;
\ngr.\n<\/p>\n
V.KANAGARAJ,J\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) the inclusion of the petitioner Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar as the 5 th
\naccused  in C.C.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Court of X Additional Special
\nJudge for CBI Cases, Chennai is quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) Consequently, Crl.M.No.10202 of 2003 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
gr.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.   Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking
\nSecurity and Fraud Cell, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/02\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.24471 of 2002 and CRL.M.P.NO.10202 OF 2002 M\/s. Vindia Exports P.Ltd., rep. by Director Dr.A.R.Pradeepkumar, Chetpet, Chennai 31. .. Petitioner -Vs- State […]<\/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-202633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 - 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\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-30T12:22:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-30T12:22:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1959,\"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\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\",\"name\":\"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-30T12:22:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 - 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\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-30T12:22:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-30T12:22:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003"},"wordCount":1959,"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\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003","name":"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-30T12:22:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vindia-exports-p-ltd-vs-state-rep-by-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Vindia Exports P.Ltd vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/202633","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=202633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}