{"id":21873,"date":"2006-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006"},"modified":"2019-03-18T08:16:44","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T02:46:44","slug":"geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 17\/06\/2006\n\n\nCORAM :\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM\n\n\nWRIT PETITION (MD) NO.964 of 2006\nand\nWPMP.NOS.1040 &amp; 2234 OF 2006 &amp; WVMP.NO.80 OF 2006\n\n\nGeo Tech Ground Water\nand Irrigation Consultants through\nits partner K.R.Asokan\n\t\t\t\t..\t\tPetitioner\t\nVs\n\n\nThe Authorised Officer, Indian Bank\nVeeraraghapuram Branch,\nTirunelveli District.\n\t\t\t\t..\t\tRespondent\n\n\tPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the\nissuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating\nto the impugned notice in 'Dina Malar' daily dated 29.6.2005, quash the same as\nillegal and consequentially direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to\nsettle the entire loan amount in accordance with the circular dated 3.9.2005\nissued by the Reserve Bank of India.\n\n\n!For Petitioner \t...\tMr.M.Ajmal Khan\n\n\n^For Respondent \t...\tMr.S.Suresh for\n\t\t\t\tM\/s.Aiyer &amp; Dolia\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tWith consent of learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself<br \/>\nis taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from the respondent bank in<br \/>\n1993. Since the petitioner committed default in repayment, the respondent filed<br \/>\na suit in O.S.No.301 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,<br \/>\nTirunelveli for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,88,556.72 being the principal and<br \/>\nfurther interest. In the said suit, a preliminary decree came to be passed on<br \/>\n21.12.2001. To recover the amount due as per the decree, the respondent<br \/>\npublished a notice in &#8216;Dina Malar&#8217; dated 29.6.2005 purported to be a notice<br \/>\nunder Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets<br \/>\nand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\nAct) calling upon the petitioner to settle the amount within 60 days. By the<br \/>\nsaid notice, the petitioner was put on notice that if the petitioner fails to<br \/>\nsettle the dues, action will be taken under Section 13(4) of the Act.<br \/>\nThereafter, proceedings have been taken under Section 13(4) of the Act as the<br \/>\npetitioner failed to settle the loan amount. The impugned proceedings issued<br \/>\nunder Section 13(4) of the Act is under challenge in the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The impugned proceedings is challenged on the following grounds:<br \/>\ni.No notice is given in writing to the petitioner as required under Section<br \/>\n13(2) of the Act; and<br \/>\nii.Since the respondent filed a suit in O.S.NO.301 of 1998 on the file of the<br \/>\nPrincipal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli and obtained a decree, the respondent<br \/>\nis not entitled to proceed further under Section 13(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The writ petition was admitted on 1.2.2006. At the time of admission, a<br \/>\nconditional stay was granted. The respondent bank filed a petition to vacate the<br \/>\nstay granted on 1.2.2006 inter alia contending that the petitioner has got an<br \/>\nappeal remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act and<br \/>\nthe writ petition filed without exhausting the alternate remedy of appeal is not<br \/>\nmaintainable. It is further contended that subsequent to the notice issued by<br \/>\nthe respondent, the auction sale notice was published in the newspapers and the<br \/>\nauction was also conducted and one Mr.Kavin Vendan was the successful bidder for<br \/>\na sum of Rs.16.10 lakhs. The sale was confirmed in his favour and he also paid<br \/>\nthe entire bid amount. The sale certificate was issued in his favour on<br \/>\n28.1.2006. The writ petition has been filed belatedly after fully knowing the<br \/>\nentire facts. The allegation that no notice was issued under Section 13(2) of<br \/>\nthe Act has been denied.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the vacate<br \/>\nstay petition that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on<br \/>\n15.3.2003 itself and thereafter, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the<br \/>\nAct was issued on 29.6.2005 and the same was also published in the tamil daily<br \/>\n&#8216;Dina Malar&#8217; dated 29.6.2005. The receipt of demand notice dated 15.3.2003 and<br \/>\nthe possession notice dated 29.6.2005 was acknowledged by the petitioner in<br \/>\ntheir letter received by the respondent on 23.8.2005. It is also stated that<br \/>\nsuppressing all the above said facts, the petitioner has filed the above writ<br \/>\npetition with false averments and obtaining of a decree from the civil Court by<br \/>\nthe respondent is not a bar for invoking the provisions of the Act for bringing<br \/>\nthe property for sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forth the following<br \/>\nsubmissions :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;i. The petitioner was not issued with the notice under \t   Section<br \/>\n13(2) of the Act;\n<\/p>\n<p>ii.The respondent cannot invoke the provisions of the Act, since the bank has<br \/>\nalready obtained a decree against the petitioner; and<br \/>\niii. The respondent cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of<br \/>\nagricultural lands belonging to the petitioner, as the respondent is aware of<br \/>\nthe provisions contained in Section 31(i) of the Act exempting the auctioning of<br \/>\nthe agricultural lands.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The first contention of the petitioner has to be rejected in the light<br \/>\nof the admission contained in the letter written by the petitioner to the<br \/>\nrespondent, which is filed in page NO.1 of the typed set filed by the respondent<br \/>\nwherein the petitioner referred to the demand notice dated 15.3.2003 and the<br \/>\npossession notice dated 29.6.2005. Having received the demand notice and the<br \/>\npossession notice, the petitioner has made a false statement in the affidavit.<br \/>\nHence, the said contention is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Regarding the second contention of the petitioner, learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent submits that the term &#8216;debt&#8217; is defined under Section 2(ha) of<br \/>\nthe Act, which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Debt shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of Section 2 of<br \/>\nthe Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of<br \/>\n1993).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 2 (g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions<br \/>\nAct, 1993 defines the term &#8216;debt&#8217;, which is as follows :<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Debt means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due<br \/>\nfrom any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks<br \/>\nor financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken<br \/>\nby the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the<br \/>\ntime being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or<br \/>\nassigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil Court or any<br \/>\narbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and<br \/>\nlegally recoverable on, the date of the application.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the light of the definitions of the term &#8216;debt&#8217; as contained in the<br \/>\nabove said two Acts, it is crystal clear that &#8216;debt&#8217; includes any liability<br \/>\n(inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due and payable under a decree or<br \/>\norder of any civil Court and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date<br \/>\nof application. It is pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has not<br \/>\ndisputed the legality or validity of the civil Court&#8217;s decree or the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s liability to pay the decreed amount and hence, the respondent bank<br \/>\nis entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act and therefore, the second<br \/>\ncontention of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Regarding the third contention of the petitioner viz. the respondent<br \/>\nbank is not entitled to proceed against the agricultural lands of the petitioner<br \/>\nin view of the provisions contained in Section 31(i) of the Act, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent submits that since the other immovable properties belonged to<br \/>\nthe petitioner, as stated above, have been sold and a sum of Rs.16.10 lakhs has<br \/>\nbeen realised, the respondent bank is not going to proceed against the<br \/>\nagricultural lands belonging to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the light of the above submission made by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent, this Court is of the view that the third contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner need not be gone into.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. No other submission has been made by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is<br \/>\ndismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above WPMPS and WVMP are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order<br \/>\nof this Court dated 1.2.2006, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.6,58,000\/-<br \/>\nand in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to<br \/>\nget back the said amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that the said amount<br \/>\nwill be returned to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a<br \/>\ncopy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Therefore, it is just and proper that the respondent should be<br \/>\ndirected to refund the said sum to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent<br \/>\nis directed to refund the said sum  of Rs.6,58,000\/- (Rupees six lakhs and fifty<br \/>\neight thousand only) within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this<br \/>\norder by way of a demand draft.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank,  Veeraraghapuram Branch,<br \/>\nTirunelveli District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17\/06\/2006 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM WRIT PETITION (MD) NO.964 of 2006 and WPMP.NOS.1040 &amp; 2234 OF 2006 &amp; WVMP.NO.80 OF 2006 Geo Tech Ground Water and Irrigation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 - 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\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-18T02:46:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T02:46:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1340,\"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\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\",\"name\":\"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T02:46:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 - 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\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-18T02:46:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T02:46:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006"},"wordCount":1340,"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\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006","name":"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T02:46:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-ground-water-vs-the-authorised-officer-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Geo Tech Ground Water vs The Authorised Officer on 17 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/21873","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=21873"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21873\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}