{"id":237642,"date":"2002-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002"},"modified":"2018-05-26T20:22:09","modified_gmt":"2018-05-26T14:52:09","slug":"ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nW.P.NO. 11261 OF 2000\nand\nW.M.P.No.16144 OF 2000\n\n\nM\/s. Jiwan International,\nrep. by its Proprietor,\nMr. Anil Gadodia,\nNew Delhi.                                      ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nTamil Nadu Forest Plantation\n  Corporation Limited,\n(A Governmentof Tamilnadu\n  Undertaking),\nAA-26, Anna Nagar, Tennur,\nTiruchirapalli 620017.                  ..  Respondent\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mrs.  Nalini Chidambaram\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.S.  Silambanan\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.V.S.  Sethuraman\n                Special Govt.  Pleader\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                The  petitioner  has  prayed  for  quashing  the  order  dated<br \/>\n31.1.1999 passed by the respondent Corporation  in  Ref.No.7129\/98\/A2  and  to<br \/>\ndirect  the  respondent to deliver 900 kgs of Sandalwood Oil at the rate fixed<br \/>\nwith Certificate of Origin \/ Legal Procurement Certificate.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The respondent is Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation<br \/>\nLimited, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking.  Such  Corporation  issued  a<br \/>\nnotice  calling  for  tenders from prospective buyers quoting the rate for the<br \/>\nsale of Sandalwood Oil (ISI Specification) produced by the respondent  in  its<br \/>\nfactory at  Tamil  Nadu.    Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  notice,  the present<br \/>\npetitioner submitted his sealed tender  for  900  kgs  of  sandalwood  oil  at<br \/>\nRs.10,700\/- per   kilogram.    The  respondent  accepted  the  tender  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner vide letter dated 22.7.1998 and enclosed a copy of the agreement to<br \/>\nbe signed by the petitioner for taking further action.  In the said letter, it<br \/>\nwas indicated that it<br \/>\n        \u201c .  .  .  had been informed at the time of  opening  of  the  Tender,<br \/>\nthat  the  sale  is only for internal consumptions and the Respondent will not<br \/>\ngive any  documents  such  as  Certificate  of  Origin  or  Legal  Procurement<br \/>\nCertificate if any demanded subsequently by the petitioner.\u201d<br \/>\nSubsequently, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 4.8.1998 to send the<br \/>\nagreement duly signed within a week.  the petitioner was further intimated<br \/>\n        \u201c .  .    .  If you fail to lift oil within 60 days as stated, we will<br \/>\nbe forced to cancel our offer  at  your  risk  forfeiting  the  Earnest  Money<br \/>\nDeposit.\u201d<br \/>\nIn  the  reply  to  the letter dated 22.7.1998, it was stated on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner<br \/>\n        \u201c .  .  .  We may mention that the tender notice does  not  state  any<br \/>\npre-condition that the corporation will not issue any certificate of origin or<br \/>\nlegal procurement certificate.  .  .\u201d<\/p>\n<p>After  receiving  the  aforesaid  letter,  the  respondent again reiterated by<br \/>\nletter 18.8.98 that the Corporation is not in a position to issue  certificate<br \/>\nof origin\/legal procurement certificate.  The petitioner was again called upon<br \/>\nto execute the agreement within 10 days.  It was further indicated<br \/>\n        \u201c .  .    .    If you fail to execute the agreement, the Earnest Money<br \/>\nDeposit amount will be forfeited as per agreement Clause No.2, and as per  our<br \/>\nletter dated 04.08.98.  .  .\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently another letter dated 28.8.1998 was sent by the Corporation to the<br \/>\npetitioner to :\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .    .   show cause why the Earnest Money Deposit remitted by you<br \/>\nshall be forfeited.  \u201d<br \/>\nOn receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner gave reply dated  3  1.8.98<br \/>\nto the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .    .   Our is a 100% EOU firm and we cannot make local sales in<br \/>\nthe firm.  So to sort ought the problems we can take delivery in the  name  of<br \/>\nour  sister concern, we are prepared to give any undertaking and letter as may<br \/>\nbe required by you to transfer the bid\/order in the name of sister concern.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In reply to the aforesaid letter, the Corporation gave the following reply  by<br \/>\nletter dated 14.9.1998 :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .  .  Eventhough, we have clearly informed to you that the tender<br \/>\nconducted  on  20.07.98 is meant only for local sales you are still asking for<br \/>\ncertificate of origin, etc., for your offer for 900 kgs.  of  Sandalwood  oil.<br \/>\nIf you  remit the full payment for 900 kgs.  of Sandalwood oil @ Rs.10,700\/- +<br \/>\ntaxes etc., we will issue necessary cash bill, which will enough to show  that<br \/>\noil originate from Tamil Nadu.  We wish to add that no other certificate could<br \/>\nbe  issued  by  us  on  the  quantity  offered  at  the time of tender held on<br \/>\n20.07.1998.  Please note further, the Corporation has no  authority  to  issue<br \/>\ncertificate of origin.  .  .    \u201d<\/p>\n<p>and  a  further letter was issued on 18.9.98 indicating willingness to deliver<br \/>\nsandalwood oil to the sister concern of the petitioner  and  called  upon  the<br \/>\npetitioner to  sign an agreement to that effect.  Since no reply was received,<br \/>\nthe Corporation wrote letter dated 22.10.1998 calling upon the  petitioner  to<br \/>\nshow cause as to why \u201c .  .  .  the Earnest Money Deposit lodged by you should<br \/>\nnot  be  forfeited,  for your default in not having executed the agreement and<br \/>\nfailure to lift 900 kgs.  of Sandalwood oil as per your tender.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>On  receiving  the  aforesaid  letter,  the  petitioner  gave  a  reply  dated<br \/>\n24.11.1998 to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .   .  Please note that the tender was for sale of sandalwood oil<br \/>\nAgmark Standard but the test report of your oil is not Agmark  Standard.    We<br \/>\nare still  prepared  to lift the oil if the same is Agmarked with report.  So,<br \/>\nplease kindly arrange to supply Agmarked Sandalwood oil with report and inform<br \/>\nus accordingly otherwise refund our EMD.  .  .\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently another letter  dated  10.12.1998  was  sent  by  the  petitioner<br \/>\nindicating  its  willingness  to  take  delivery  of  Agmark Quality oil only.<br \/>\nThereafter by letter dated 31.1.1999 the Managing Director of  the  respondent<br \/>\nCorporation  declared  the  petitioner  as defaulter and forfeited the Earnest<br \/>\nMoney Deposit.  After receipt of  the  aforesaid  letter,  the  petitioner  by<br \/>\nletter dated 5.2.1999 wrote back stating<br \/>\n        \u201c .  .    .  The tender was for sale of sandalwood oil agmark standard<br \/>\nbut the test of your oil is not agmark standard.  We  are  still  prepared  to<br \/>\nlift the oil if the same is agmarked with report.  So please kindly arrange to<br \/>\nsupply agmarked sandalwood oil with report and inform us accordingly otherwise<br \/>\nrefund our EMD.\u201d<br \/>\nThereafter the petitioner issued legal notice dated 15.2.1999 calling upon the<br \/>\nrespondent  to  cancel  the  forfeiture order and to convey his willingness to<br \/>\ndeliver sandalwood oil with Agmark standard.  After receipt of the  Advocate\u2019s<br \/>\nnotice,  the respondent gave a reply through Advocate stating that there was a<br \/>\ntypographical error in the letter dated  22-10-1998  and  the  last  date  for<br \/>\nreceipt  of  the  reply  as  per  letter  dated  22-10-1998  should be read as<br \/>\n31.10.1998 and not 31.10.1999.  Thereafter the present writ petition has  been<br \/>\nfiled  for quashing the order of forfeiture of earnest money deposit and for a<br \/>\nfurther direction to the respondent to deliver 900 kgs of  sandalwood  oil  at<br \/>\nthe stipulated price.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   In  the  writ  petition, it has been contended that since<br \/>\ntime had been given till 31.10.1999, the order of forfeiture should  not  have<br \/>\nbeen passed  without  waiting  till 31.10.1999.  It has been further indicated<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was all along willing to lift the sandalwood oil, provided<br \/>\nit was certified to  be  as  ISI  quality  or  Agmark  standard  and  in  such<br \/>\ncircumstances,  there was no question of forfeiting the earnest money deposit.<br \/>\nIt has been further stated that the petitioner is 100%  Export  oriented  unit<br \/>\nand  not  allowed  to  trate locally and therefore the Corporation should have<br \/>\nissued  Origin  Certificate  \/  Legal  procurement  certificate,  which  is  a<br \/>\npre-requisite condition for obtaining export license.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent.<br \/>\nIn the counter affidavit it has been indicated that<br \/>\n        \u201cthe  tender  was  held on 20.7.1998 and before opening the tenders it<br \/>\nwas clearly announced to the tenderers who were present that  the  Corporation<br \/>\nwould  encourage sandalwood consumer industry and also it was informed to them<br \/>\nthat the tender held on 20.7.1998 was not for export and no documents required<br \/>\nfor export purpose would be supplied by the Corporation,  and  this  fact  was<br \/>\nreduced in writing in the comparative statement prepared by the Corporation at<br \/>\nthe  time  of opening the tender and the signatures of the tenderers were also<br \/>\nobtained including the petitioner.  The petitioner was present at the time  of<br \/>\nopening  of  the  tender held on 20.7.1998 and had agreed that the Corporation<br \/>\nwould not give any documents required for export purposes.\u201d<br \/>\nIt has been further stated<br \/>\n        \u201c .  .  .    The  Corporation  once  again  by  letter  dated  18.8.98<br \/>\nreiterated  its  stands  by  stating  that the tender was meant only for local<br \/>\nconsumption and not for global sale, and that we cannot issue the  certificate<br \/>\nor  origin, or legal procurement certificate as requested by them and that the<br \/>\nproducts are manufactured by the Corporation and when  sold,  the  Corporation<br \/>\nraises  invoices  and  given  to purchasers and this is the practice which the<br \/>\nCorporation is following.  The petitioner was asked to execute  the  agreement<br \/>\nand  lift  the material and it was further informed to the petitioner that the<br \/>\ninvoice\/cash bill issued by the Corporation will be enough to  show  that  the<br \/>\noil originate from Tamilnadu in Lr.No.7129\/98\/A2, dated 14.9.1998.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It was further stated while referring to the letter dated 22.10.1998 that<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c.  .   .   In this letter the date has been wrongly typed as 31.10.99<br \/>\ninstead of 31.10.98.  Hence a clarification to the petitioner mentioning about<br \/>\nthe typographical error crept in the show cause notice dated 22.10.98 and  the<br \/>\npetitioner  was  only asked to submit their explanation on or before 31.10.98.<br \/>\n.  .  .\u201d<\/p>\n<p>                5.  In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances<br \/>\nas apparent from the correspondences, which have been  extracted  in  extenso,<br \/>\ntwo questions crop up for consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   First  question relates to the validity of the forfeiture<br \/>\nof earnest money deposit.  In the tender call notice itself, nothing had  been<br \/>\nindicated  as  to  whether  goods  were to be sold internally and particularly<br \/>\nwhether any certificate of origin would  be  granted  or  not.    However,  it<br \/>\nappears  from  the  letter of acceptance itself issued by the Corporation that<br \/>\nsuch an announcement had  been  made  at  the  time  of  opening  of  tenders.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the  petitioner  could  not  have  subsequently  insisted upon the<br \/>\nissuance of certificate of origin, even though the Corporation was  repeatedly<br \/>\nindicating in its correspondence that no such certificate would be issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   In  the  notice  relating  to  forfeiture,  however,  the<br \/>\nrespondent has indicated that reply should be given  by  31.10.1999.    It  is<br \/>\nquite  of  course  true that possibly it was a typographical mistake as it was<br \/>\nsubsequently pointed out by the Corporation.  However, forfeiture was effected<br \/>\nin January\/February 1999 and by then no such corrigendum had  been  issued  by<br \/>\nthe Corporation.    Since  an  order of forfeiture entails civil consequences,<br \/>\nnotice relating to forfeiture is required to be construed strictly.   When  in<br \/>\nthe  notice  it  was  indicated  that  the petitioner was required to reply by<br \/>\n31.10.1999, ordinarily one would expect that no order of forfeiture  would  be<br \/>\nissued before  October  1999.  Notwithstanding such previous correspondence if<br \/>\nthe Corporation would have  issued  a  subsequent  corrigendum  or  subsequent<br \/>\nnotice  indicating  that  the  date  31.10.99  was a typographical mistake and<br \/>\nproceeded  to  take  action,  one  could  not  have  faulted  such  action  of<br \/>\nforfeiture.    However,  as  already  indicated,  in  the  present  case,  the<br \/>\nforfeiture order was issued in January, 1999 and the  correction  relating  to<br \/>\ndate  was  made  only  longafter  and in fact only after Advocate\u2019s notice was<br \/>\nissued on behalf of the petitioner.  In such peculiar circumstances, the order<br \/>\nof forfeiture cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  The next  question  is  relating  to  the  prayer  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner  regarding  direction to the respondent to deliver the goods at the<br \/>\nprice accepted by the respondent.  Such acceptance was communicated in August,<br \/>\n1998.  At that stage the petitioner was  insisting  upon  the  certificate  of<br \/>\norigin  and  the respondent had made it clear that it was not in a position to<br \/>\ngive any certificate of origin.  The petitioner had written that the goods may<br \/>\nbe delivered at the price quoted to the  sister  concern  of  the  petitioner.<br \/>\nThereafter  the  petitioner  raised  the  question  relating to quality of the<br \/>\nsandalwood oil and indicated that the earnest money deposit may  be  refunded.<br \/>\nEven after the order of forfeiture was passed in January, 1999, the petitioner<br \/>\nhad  rested  content  by  merely issuing Advocate notice in February, 1999 but<br \/>\nremained quiet for a period of about one year and  six  months  and  the  writ<br \/>\npetition was filed only in July, 2000.  After lapse of such a long period, the<br \/>\npetitioner\u2019s prayer for giving a direction to the respondent to deliver oil at<br \/>\nthe  rate  already  indicated  may  not  be  fair so far as the Corporation is<br \/>\nconcerned because of  fluctuation  in  price  in  the  meantime.    Since  the<br \/>\npetitioner  had  kept  quiet  for  a  pretty  long  period,  it  would  not be<br \/>\nappropriate to issue any direction in this matter.  However, it is made  clear<br \/>\nthat refusal to issue a direction would not stand on the way of the parties to<br \/>\narrive  at  a negotiated settlement and it would be open to the petitioner and<br \/>\nthe Corporation to sort out this matter by mutual discussion.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in<br \/>\npart and the order of forfeiture is quashed.  It is made clear that  it  would<br \/>\nbe  open  to  the parties to complete the transaction on the basis of amicable<br \/>\nsettlement.  The earnest money deposit made by the petitioner may be  refunded<br \/>\nto him within a period of three months from today, if the parties do not agree<br \/>\nupon any  other  arrangement  in  the meantime.  There would be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.  Consequently, W.M.P.No.1 6144 of 2000 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\ndpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation<br \/>\nCorporation Limited,<br \/>\n(A Governmentof Tamilnadu<br \/>\nUndertaking),<br \/>\nAA-26, Anna Nagar, Tennur,<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli 620017.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA W.P.NO. 11261 OF 2000 and W.M.P.No.16144 OF 2000 M\/s. Jiwan International, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Anil Gadodia, New Delhi. .. Petitioner -Vs- [&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-237642","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>M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 - 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\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-26T14:52:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-26T14:52:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2096,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-26T14:52:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 - 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\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-26T14:52:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-26T14:52:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002"},"wordCount":2096,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002","name":"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-26T14:52:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jiwan-international-vs-tamil-nadu-forest-plantation-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Jiwan International vs Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation on 25 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/237642","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=237642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}