{"id":228163,"date":"2003-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003"},"modified":"2018-08-01T03:37:55","modified_gmt":"2018-07-31T22:07:55","slug":"n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 February, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 26\/02\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1121 of 2001\nAND\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2001\nAND\nCRL.M.P.Nos.432,433 AND 531 OF 2001.\n\n1.N.A.R.Nagarajan\n2.S.P.Arjuna Raja\n3.Tmt.Thangamani Thangavelu             ... Petitioners in both\n                                            the Crl.O.Ps.\n\n-Vs-\n\nAdditional Registrar of Companies,\nTamilnadu,\nShastri Bhavan,\n26, Haddows Road,\nMadras-6.                               ... Respondent in both<\/pre>\n<p>                                            the Crl.O.Ps.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Criminal Original Petitions filed under Sections 482 of  the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure praying for the reliefs as stated therein.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n!For petitioners in\nboth the Crl.OPs.       :  Mr.B.Sriramulu,\n                        senior counsel for\n                        Mr.A.K.Mylsamy\n\n^For respondent in\nboth the Crl.OPs.       :  Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam,\n                        Addl.Central Govt.\n                        Standing Counsel\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>                Both  the  above  criminal  original petitions have been filed<br \/>\nunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to  call  for  the<br \/>\nrecords  respectively  in C.C.Nos.133 and 132 of 1989 on the file of the Court<br \/>\nof Judicial  Magistrate  No.VII,  Tiruchirapalli  and  quash  the  proceedings<br \/>\ntherein so far as the petitioners are concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The  petitioners,  in the similar petitions filed in both<br \/>\nthe cases, would submit that they  were  the  Directors  of  Rama  Sayee  Agro<br \/>\nIndustries Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies<br \/>\nAct,  and  the  respondent initiated the legal proceedings against the company<br \/>\nand all the Directors including the  petitioners  under  Section  58A  of  the<br \/>\nCompanies  Act  and Rule 3(a) of the Companies ( Acceptance of Deposit) Rules,<br \/>\n1975; that the said complaints have been filed by the respondent on  22.2.1984<br \/>\nin  the  Court  of Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Tiruchirapalli and on petitions<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioners, this Court quashed the proceedings  against  one  of<br \/>\nthe accused and remitted the cases for trial to be held in accordance with law<br \/>\nand  on  account  of  lethargic  prosecution, the Court below has only granted<br \/>\nadjournments so far and the complainant, throughout the  year  2000,  did  not<br \/>\ncare  about  the  cases  nor  appeared  before  the  Court and in spite of the<br \/>\npetitioners  having  requested  the  court  to  dismiss  the  complaints   for<br \/>\nnon-prosecution,  the  learned Magistrate did not do so but only adjourned the<br \/>\ncases from time to time for no reason assigned.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The petitioners would further submit that the  failure  on<br \/>\nthe  part  of  the  respondent  to  prosecute  the complaints filed by them is<br \/>\nnothing but abuse of process of Court and in fact, the said  Rama  Sayee  Agro<br \/>\nIndustries  Limited  itself had been wound-up by the order of this Court dated<br \/>\n21.12.1994 in compliance with Rules 3(a) and 11 of the  Companies  (Acceptance<br \/>\nof  Deposits)  Rules, 1975; that the entire amounts due to the depositors have<br \/>\nbeen repaid by the petitioners out of their own funds, after the  disposal  of<br \/>\nthe  quash  proceedings  and  there  is  no  amount due as such to the deposit<br \/>\nholders of the company in liquidation; that the failure  to  repay  the  fixed<br \/>\ndeposits  during  the  relevant  period to the deposit holders was only due to<br \/>\nbusiness loss incurred by the company due to the vagary of economic situation;<br \/>\nthat the petitioners did not accept any fresh deposits; that after the  filing<br \/>\nof  the  complaint,  they  have  repaid  the  entire amount due to the deposit<br \/>\nholders; that the  proceeding  initiated  by  the  Official  Liquidator  under<br \/>\nSection 446  of  the Companies Act has been unnecessarily dragged-on.  For all<br \/>\nsuch reasons, the petitioners would pray for the reliefs extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  No counter  even  would  be  filed  on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\nrespondent  explaining  their  stand  and therefore this Court is left with no<br \/>\nchoice but to pass orders based on the  pleadings  of  the  petitions,  having<br \/>\nregard  to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor both.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on  behalf<br \/>\nof  the  petitioners  would submit that these are the very long pending cases,<br \/>\nwhich were instituted as early as in the year 1984 and in  fact,  the  company<br \/>\nitself  has  been  wound-up  in the year 1994, in spite of which the Directors<br \/>\ntook steps to repay the entire amount due to the depositors.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The learned counsel  for  the  petitioners  would  cite  a<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  Honourable Apex Court, dated 1.5.1996, delivered in &#8220;COMMON<br \/>\nCAUSE&#8221; A REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR  vs.    UNION  OF  INDIA  AND<br \/>\nOTHERS  reported  in  AIR  1996 SC 1619 wherein the Honourable Apex Court gave<br \/>\n`certain directions in respect of cases pending in criminal  courts  for  long<br \/>\nperiod  in view of the fact that the very pendency of criminal proceedings for<br \/>\nlong periods by itself operates as an engine of oppression&#8217; and would rely  on<br \/>\npara No.2(e) of the order, which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Where the cases pending in Criminal Courts under IPC or any other law for the<br \/>\ntime  being  in  force are punishable with imprisonment up to one year with or<br \/>\nwithout fine, and if such pendency is for more than one year and  if  in  such<br \/>\ncases  trials have still not commenced, the Criminal Courts shall discharge or<br \/>\nacquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above said judgment was clarified by the  Honourable  Apex  Court  by  its<br \/>\nsubsequent  order  in  the  same  case,  dated  28.11.1996,  reported  in 1997<br \/>\nCrl.L.J.195 wherein the Honourable Apex Court has clarified that:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The time  limit  mentioned  regarding  the  pendency  of  criminal  cases  in<br \/>\nparagraphs  from 2(a) to 2(f) of our judgment shall not apply to cases wherein<br \/>\nsuch pendency of the criminal proceedings is wholly or partly attributable  to<br \/>\nthe  dilatory  tactics  adopted  by the concerned accused or on account of any<br \/>\nother action of the accused which results in prolonging the trial.   In  other<br \/>\nwords,  it should be shown that the criminal proceedings have remained pending<br \/>\nfor the requisite period mentioned in the aforesaid  clauses  of  paragraph  2<br \/>\ndespite  full  cooperation  by  the concerned accused to get these proceedings<br \/>\ndisposed of and the delay in the  disposal  of  these  cases  is  not  at  all<br \/>\nattributable  to the concerned accused, nor such delay is caused on account of<br \/>\nsuch accused getting stay of criminal proceedings from higher Courts.  Accused<br \/>\nconcerned are  not  entitled  to  earn  any  discharge  or  acquittal  as  per<br \/>\nparagraphs 2(a) to 2(f) of our judgment if it is demonstrated that the accused<br \/>\nconcerned  seek  to  take  advantage of their own wrong or any other action fo<br \/>\ntheir own resulting in protraction of trials against them.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Submitting the above judgments, the  learned  counsel  for<br \/>\nthe  petitioners would submit that the punishment contemplated for the offence<br \/>\nunder Section 58A of the Companies Act is only one year and according  to  the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  Honourable Apex Court, if the pendency is for more than one<br \/>\nyear in such cases, the accused are entitled  to  be  discharged  and  further<br \/>\nmore,  the  delay in conducting the trial in the cases in hand is attributable<br \/>\nonly to the respondent and hence even on this ground, as per the clarification<br \/>\norder passed by the Honourable Apex Court also, the petitioners  are  entitled<br \/>\nto  the  benefit  of  the said judgment of the Honourable Apex Court and would<br \/>\npray to allow both  the  above  criminal  original  petitions  and  quash  the<br \/>\nproceedings against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  On the contrary, the learned Additional Central Government<br \/>\nStanding  Counsel  would  submit  that  in  the said judgment relied on by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioners, the Honourable Apex Court, in para  No.4,<br \/>\nmade  it  clear  that the directions made therein `shall not apply to cases or<br \/>\noffences involving (a) corruption, misappropriation of public funds, cheating,<br \/>\nwhether under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act or any other<br \/>\nstatute &#8230;  (k) any other type of offences against the State&#8217;, and since  the<br \/>\ncases  in  hand  are  pertaining  to  misappropriation of public funds and the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant itself being the State, the benefits of the said  judgment<br \/>\ncould  not  be  extended to the petitioners and would pray to dismiss both the<br \/>\nabove criminal original petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In consideration of the facts pleaded,  having  regard  to<br \/>\nthe  materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both,<br \/>\nwhat comes to be known from both the above criminal original petitions is that<br \/>\nthe respondent initiated  the  proceedings  against  the  petitioners  for  an<br \/>\noffence punishable under Section 58A of the Companies Act and Rule 3(a) of the<br \/>\nCompanies  (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 in the year 1984, which came to<br \/>\nbe taken on file respectively in C.  C.Nos.132 and 133 of 1989 on the file  by<br \/>\nthe  Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Tiruchirapalli and for one reason or<br \/>\nother, the trial in the said cases has not  even  been  commenced  till  date.<br \/>\nHowever,  it  is  an  admitted case on the part of the petitioners that in the<br \/>\nbeginning, they initiated proceedings before this Court for quash,  which  has<br \/>\nbeen  done  against  one  of  the accused further directing the lower Court to<br \/>\ncommence the trial and to render early decision.  However,  according  to  the<br \/>\npetitioners,  in  spite  of  the non-cooperation of the complainant, the trial<br \/>\nCourt, without dismissing the cases for nonprosecution, has been granting only<br \/>\nadjournments so far and therefore ultimately  the  petitioners,  who  are  the<br \/>\naccused  in  both  the  above proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial<br \/>\nMagistarte No.VII,  Tiruchirapalli,  have  come  forward  to  file  the  above<br \/>\ncriminal original petitions praying to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Needless to mention that &#8211; as held by the Honourable Apex<br \/>\nCourt and many High Courts in the past &#8211; long pending prosecutions are nothing<br \/>\nbut  persecutions  and  it is disgraceful to note that in these two cases, the<br \/>\nCourt has not even commenced the trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  On the part of the petitioners, they  would  allege  that<br \/>\nthere  was no appearance at all consecutively for many hearings on the part of<br \/>\nthe complainant, but  regardless  of  such  failure  to  prosecute  the  cases<br \/>\nregistered  by  them,  the  trial  Court  has not passed any orders giving the<br \/>\nrelief  for  the  petitioners  either  discharging  them  under  the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions  of  the  Code of Criminal Procedure or doing anything constructive<br \/>\nbut only  granting  adjournments  all  these  years  as  a  result  of  which,<br \/>\nultimately,   the   petitioners  have  come  forward  to  initiate  the  above<br \/>\nproceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  Both the counsel appearing for  and  against  would  only<br \/>\nshow  the  norms  prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court for the trial Courts<br \/>\nregarding the discharge or  acquittal  without  throwing  more  light  on  the<br \/>\nsubject  and  this  Court is at a loss to understand as to why the trial Court<br \/>\nhas not made any decision nor conducted the trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.  The `Common Cause&#8217; judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC  1619<br \/>\nsince  being  rendered by the Honourable Apex Court, deriving the authority as<br \/>\nenshrined under  Article  21  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  in  order  to<br \/>\nstreamline  cases  of  such  nature pending before the criminal Courts wherein<br \/>\neither the accused is indefinitely kept in jail in  the  name  of  prosecution<br \/>\nthus depriving his personal liberty or even in other cases wherein he is being<br \/>\npersecuted  indefinitely  in  the  name of trial either without commencing the<br \/>\ntrial at all or having commenced endlessly keeping the same as a pending  case<br \/>\nand  the Honourable Apex Court with the general honest thought and common good<br \/>\nof all those who are stranded without a way out has rendered the said  `common<br \/>\ncause&#8217; judgment and the said judgment has no nexus or relevance in the context<br \/>\nof  the  High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 48 2 of<br \/>\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure under which the High Court has to exercise  its<br \/>\njurisdiction  in  its  own assessment of the nature of the case, the period of<br \/>\npendency, the reason for such pendency to  occur  and  to  make  out  its  own<br \/>\njudgment depending upon the circumstances of the case and therefore citing the<br \/>\n`Common  Cause&#8217;  judgment rendered by the Honourable Apex Court by either side<br \/>\nis not going to help this Court in any manner to decide the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.  So far as those cases which  fall  under  the  categories<br \/>\nenumerated  in  the  `common  cause&#8217; judgment delivered by the Honourable Apex<br \/>\nCourt are concerned, there is no need on the part of the accused  to  file  an<br \/>\napplication  under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure and the<br \/>\ncriminal courts, since bound by the said  judgment  itself,  have  to  act  in<br \/>\naccordance with the directions of the said judgment and only since the case in<br \/>\nhand  could not squarely brought under the purview of the said judgment of the<br \/>\nHonourable Apex Court, the merits of  this  petition  has  to  be  decided  in<br \/>\napplication  of  the  parameters  that  the  High  Court is empowered to under<br \/>\nSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and based on the proposition  of<br \/>\nlaw  pronounced  by  the upper forums particularly that of the Honourable Apex<br \/>\nCourt and the various benches of the High Courts.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.  Be that as it may.  Now, the point before this Court is `<br \/>\nwhether the proceedings initiated by the respondent in C.C.Nos.132 and 133  of<br \/>\n1989  on  the  file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Tiruchirapalli<br \/>\nshould be quashed, as it is prayed for on the  part  of  the  petitioners,  or<br \/>\nshould  they  be  allowed to continue as it has been permitted to lie over for<br \/>\nthe last 18 years for some reason or other?&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>                16.  Whatever be the  reason  assigned  on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\npetitioners,  the  respondent and the trial Court, needless to mention keeping<br \/>\nthe said proceedings on the file of the trial Court all these  years,  without<br \/>\neven  taking  the  least  step  to conduct the trial and the trial Court never<br \/>\nbothering about conducting the trial granting only adjournments, is a disgrace<br \/>\nto the judiciary and it is undesirable to keep both the  above  cases  pending<br \/>\nany more.    Absolutely  no  progress  has been shown in the trial of both the<br \/>\nabove cases for all these years and it seems that the respondent is not at all<br \/>\ninterested in prosecuting the case since the respondent has not produced  even<br \/>\na single witness before the trial Court so far thus helping the lower Court to<br \/>\ncommence the  trial.    In  the  above  circumstances,  the  only irresistible<br \/>\nconclusion that could be arrived  at  in  both  the  above  criminal  original<br \/>\npetitions  is  to  quash both the above proceedings as it is prayed for on the<br \/>\npart of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>In result,\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)both the above criminal original petitions are allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)The proceedings in C.C.Nos.132 and 133 of 1989 on the file of the Court of<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.VII, Tiruchirapalli are hereby quashed in so far as the<br \/>\npetitioners are concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.432,433 and 531 of 2001 are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nRao<br \/>\nTo\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Additional Registrar of Companies,<br \/>\nTamilnadu,<br \/>\nShastri Bhavan,<br \/>\n26, Haddows Road,<br \/>\nMadras-6.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Judicial Magistrate No.VII,<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 February, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26\/02\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1121 of 2001 AND CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2001 AND CRL.M.P.Nos.432,433 AND 531 OF 2001. 1.N.A.R.Nagarajan 2.S.P.Arjuna Raja 3.Tmt.Thangamani Thangavelu &#8230; Petitioners [&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-228163","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>N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of ... on 26 February, 2003 - 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\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of ... on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-31T22:07:55+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-31T22:07:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2357,\"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\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\",\"name\":\"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of ... on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-31T22:07:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 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:\\\/\\\/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":"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of ... on 26 February, 2003 - 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\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of ... on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-31T22:07:55+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-31T22:07:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003"},"wordCount":2357,"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\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003","name":"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of ... on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-31T22:07:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-a-r-nagarajan-vs-additional-registrar-of-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.A.R.Nagarajan vs Additional Registrar Of &#8230; on 26 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:\/\/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\/228163","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=228163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}