{"id":223352,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-04T23:14:49","modified_gmt":"2018-10-04T17:44:49","slug":"s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/11\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.7272 of 2011\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\nS.Durgeshwaran\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n   Employees Provident Fund\n   Appellate Tribunal,\n   New Delhi.\n\n2.The Assistant Provident\n   Fund Commissioner,\n   Employees Provident Fund Organisation,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n3.The Recovery Officer,\n   Employees Provident Fund Organisation,\n   Sub-Regional Office,\n   Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan,\n   NGO 'B' Colony, Tirunelveli-627 007.\t... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the\nproceedings of the first respondent in A.T.A.No.303(13)2011, dated 25.04.2011\nand quash the same as illegal.\n\n!For Petitioner\t  \t... Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh\n^For Respondents\t... Mr.K.Murali Shankar\n\t\n\t\t\t\t             ******\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>*******<\/p>\n<p>\t\tWhen the petitioner mentioned for extension of interim order, this<br \/>\nCourt was not inclined to grant extension of interim order and this Writ<br \/>\nPetition is a clear abuse of process of law. The very same petitioner earlier<br \/>\nfiled Writ Petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.6174, 11472 and 1700 of 2008 before this<br \/>\nCourt, challenging the order demanding dues including the distraint proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated. All the three Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court stating<br \/>\nthat if the petitioner is aggrieved, the effective remedy by way of appeal under<br \/>\nSection 7-I of the Employees&#8217; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,<br \/>\n1952 [hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;] before the Employees&#8217; Provident Fund<br \/>\nTribunal alone is available and he cannot dispute before this Court regarding<br \/>\nthe partnership business liability as well as the status of the petitioner in<br \/>\nthe said partnership.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. Even though the order was made as early as on 06.10.2010, the<br \/>\npetitioner moved the Division Bench with Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.221 to 223<br \/>\nof 2011. When the Writ Appeals themselves were taken up for hearing, for the<br \/>\nreasons best known, the petitioner withdrew the Writ Appeals with liberty to<br \/>\nfile appeals under Section 7-I of the Act and he has also made an endorsement in<br \/>\nthe appeal bundles. Accepting the endorsement made by the counsel, the Division<br \/>\nBench dismissed the Writ Appeals with liberty to file appeals. The original<br \/>\norder of assessment was also handed over and he was directed to file appeals<br \/>\nwithin two weeks vide order dated 01.03.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. Thereafter, the petitioner exhausted the right of appeal under<br \/>\nSection 7-I before the Employees&#8217; Provident Fund Tribunal and the said appeal<br \/>\nwas taken on file as A.T.A.No.303(13)2011. As a pre-requisite for entertaining<br \/>\nthe appeal, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the assessed<br \/>\namount within two months and in case of such deposit, the respondents,<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; Provident Fund authorities were directed not to take any coercive<br \/>\nmeasures till the disposal of the appeal presented. The counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent Provident Fund Department opposed the admission of the appeal.<br \/>\nHowever, in any event, the appeal was admitted and the interim order was granted<br \/>\non a conditional basis. It is once again the petitioner is before this Court<br \/>\nchallenging the interim order dated 25.04.2011. It is not clear as to how the<br \/>\npetitioner can have a second round of litigation, that too, against the<br \/>\nconditional interim order passed by the Tribunal. Under Section 7-O of the Act,<br \/>\nno appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal, unless he has<br \/>\ndeposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to<br \/>\nin section 7-A. The proviso to Section 7-O gives liberty to the Tribunal, for<br \/>\nreasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited<br \/>\nunder the said Section.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. In the present case, the Tribunal, in exercise of its discretion,<br \/>\nhad only directed the petitioner to deposit 40% and not the entire 75% and there<br \/>\ncannot be any further judicial scrutiny on the conditional order of stay granted<br \/>\nby the Tribunal. The petitioner cannot state that such an order is reviewable<br \/>\nbefore this Court and raise once again the contentions, which weighed in the<br \/>\nearlier round of litigation, for the purpose of getting further reduction. In<br \/>\nessence, the petitioner cannot improve his terms of stay order, which is granted<br \/>\nby the Tribunal, when the main appeal is pending under Section 7-I, for which,<br \/>\nhe took permission from the Division Bench to move the Tribunal, even though, at<br \/>\nthe relevant time, the time for filing an appeal has already expired. Having<br \/>\nexhausted the right of appeal and also having made the Tribunal to exercise its<br \/>\ndiscretion in granting interim stay with reduced deposit, no further judicial<br \/>\nreview is permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The Supreme Court, vide its judgment in Raj Kumar Shivhare v.<br \/>\nAssistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772, has<br \/>\nheld that if an appeal is provided under the special enactment, it has to be<br \/>\nexhausted by an aggrieved party and merely because the appeal provides for a<br \/>\npre-deposit, that will not make the appeal illusory and on that ground, the High<br \/>\nCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain any Writ<br \/>\nPetition. In paragraph Nos.30 to 35, 39 and 40, the Supreme Court had observed<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;30.The argument that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article<br \/>\n226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be<br \/>\nousted by parliamentary legislation is far too fundamental to be questioned<br \/>\nespecially after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1524908\/\">L.<br \/>\nChandra Kumar v. Union of India7. However,<\/a> that does not answer the question of<br \/>\nmaintainability of a writ petition which seeks to impugn an order declining<br \/>\ndispensation of pre-deposit of penalty by the Appellate Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t31.When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and<br \/>\nthat too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring<br \/>\nthe statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of<br \/>\nappeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a<br \/>\nlitigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ<br \/>\njurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by<br \/>\nnot appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ<br \/>\npetition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t32.No reason could be assigned by the appellant&#8217;s counsel to demonstrate<br \/>\nwhy the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does<br \/>\nnot provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason<br \/>\nsince the High Court itself is the appellate forum.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t33.Reference may be made to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court<br \/>\nrendered in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes8, which was also a decision in<br \/>\na fiscal law. Commenting on the exercise of wide jurisdiction of the High Court<br \/>\nunder Article 226, subject to self-imposed limitation, this Court went on to<br \/>\nexplain: (AIR p. 1423, para 7)<br \/>\n\t&#8220;7. ? The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against<br \/>\nthe decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by<br \/>\nassuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy<br \/>\nprovided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved<br \/>\npetitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for<br \/>\nobtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally<br \/>\nwill not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nthe machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party<br \/>\napplying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t(emphasis added)<br \/>\nThe decision in Thansingh8 is still holding the field.\n<\/p>\n<p>34.Again in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa9 in the background<br \/>\nof taxation laws, a three-Judge Bench of this Court apart from reiterating the<br \/>\nprinciple of exercise of writ jurisdiction with the time-honoured self imposed<br \/>\nlimitations, focused on another legal principle on right and remedies. In para<br \/>\n11, at AIR p. 607 of the Report, this Court laid down: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11)<br \/>\n\t&#8220;11. ? It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is<br \/>\ncreated by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy<br \/>\nprovided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with<br \/>\ngreat clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford10<br \/>\nin the following passage: (ER p. 495)<br \/>\n\t&#8216;? There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be<br \/>\nestablished founded upon a statute. ? But there is a third class viz. where a<br \/>\nliability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same<br \/>\ntime gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. ? The remedy<br \/>\nprovided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party<br \/>\nto pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by<br \/>\nthe statute must be adopted and adhered to.&#8217;<br \/>\nThe rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville<br \/>\nv. London Express Newspapers Ltd.11 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council<br \/>\nin Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd.12 and<br \/>\nSecy. of State v. Mask and Co.13 It has also been held to be equally applicable<br \/>\nto enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The<br \/>\nHigh Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t35.In this case, liability of the appellant is not created under any<br \/>\ncommon law principle but, it is clearly a statutory liability and for which the<br \/>\nstatutory remedy is an appeal under Section 35 of FEMA, subject to the<br \/>\nlimitations contained therein. A writ petition in the facts of this case is<br \/>\ntherefore clearly not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t39.In the instant case none of the aforesaid situations are present.<br \/>\nTherefore, principle laid down in Ratan case15 applies in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case. If the appellant in this case is allowed to file a<br \/>\nwrit petition despite the existence of an efficacious remedy by way of appeal<br \/>\nunder Section 35 of FEMA this will enable him to defeat the provisions of the<br \/>\nstatute which may provide for certain conditions for filing the appeal, like<br \/>\nlimitation, payment of court fee or deposit of some amount of penalty or<br \/>\nfulfilment of some other conditions for entertaining the appeal. (See para 13 at<br \/>\nSCC p. 408.) It is obvious that a writ court should not encourage the aforesaid<br \/>\ntrend of bypassing a statutory provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t40.The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/74371550\/\">Monotosh Saha v. Enforcement Directorate16. That<\/a> was a decision<br \/>\nentirely on different facts. In that decision Saha preferred an appeal before<br \/>\nthe Appellate Tribunal with a request for dispensing with requirement of pre-<br \/>\ndeposit, but the Tribunal directed the deposit of 60% of the penalty amount<br \/>\nbefore entertaining the appeal. When an appeal was preferred before the High<br \/>\nCourt under Section 35 of FEMA, the same was dismissed by the High Court holding<br \/>\nthat no case for hardship was made out either before the Tribunal or before it.<br \/>\nIn the background of those facts, this Court observed that since pursuant to<br \/>\nthis Court&#8217;s interim order Rs 10 lakhs have been deposited with the Directorate,<br \/>\nthe appellant was directed to furnish further such security as may be stipulated<br \/>\nby the Tribunal and directed that on such deposit the Tribunal is to hear the<br \/>\nappeal without requiring further deposit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner<br \/>\nhad invoked the Tribunal&#8217;s discretion for the reduction of the pre-deposit. He<br \/>\ncannot have any further concession, as it is the second round of litigation and<br \/>\nthe earlier attempt was terminated by this Court. Hence, there is no case made<br \/>\nout to entertain the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands<br \/>\ndismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\n   Employees Provident Fund<br \/>\n   Appellate Tribunal,<br \/>\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Assistant Provident<br \/>\n   Fund Commissioner,<br \/>\n   Employees Provident Fund Organisation,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Recovery Officer,<br \/>\n   Employees Provident Fund Organisation,<br \/>\n   Sub-Regional Office,<br \/>\n   Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan,<br \/>\n   NGO &#8216;B&#8217; Colony, Tirunelveli-627 007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/11\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.7272 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Durgeshwaran &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident [&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-223352","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-04T17:44:49+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\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T17:44:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1888,\"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-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T17:44:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-04T17:44:49+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\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T17:44:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":1888,"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-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011","name":"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T17:44:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-durgeshwaran-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Durgeshwaran vs The Presiding Officer on 11 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/223352","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=223352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}