{"id":242171,"date":"2007-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-14T04:53:23","modified_gmt":"2018-11-13T23:23:23","slug":"sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 06\/03\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN\n\nCriminal Revision Petition No.789 of 2005\n\n\nSahayaraj\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.M.Ramani\n2.K.K.Shah\n3.C.Sivarama Krishnan\n4.A.S.Rajagopalan\n5.Vasudevan\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\tCriminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 &amp; 401 of Cr.P.C.\tagainst\nthe order dated 12.10.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2004 in C.C.No.23 of 2004\nby the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikkanal,  allowing the\npetition for discharge filed by the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C.245(2)\nof Cr.P.C.\n\n\n!For Petitioner \t: K.S.Ramachandran\n\n^For  Respondents  \t: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for\n\t\t\t  Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe Revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif<br \/>\ncum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikkanal in Crl.M.P.No.753 of 2004 in C.C.No.23 of<br \/>\n2004 dated 12.10.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The brief case of the respondents\/accused is briefly as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta)The respondents herein are the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.753 of 2004.<br \/>\nThey have filed a discharge petition under Section 204 r\/w 245(2) IPC before the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikkanal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb)The Revision Petitioner herein filed a complaint for the alleged non-<br \/>\npayment of dues to him by the SIV Industries Ltd.  of which the petitioner\/1st<br \/>\naccused is the Secretary and the petitioners\/accused Nos.2 to 4 are the<br \/>\nDirectors and the 5th accused is the Vice President (Finance) of SIV Industries<br \/>\nLtd., Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc)The complainant has not stated where and when the first accused met him<br \/>\nat Kodaikaal and therefore even the very genesis of the complaint is suspected.<br \/>\nThe fact is that one Moulana Traders were supplying pulp wood to SIV Industries<br \/>\nLtd.,  and  transporting the pulp wood from Kodaikanal and Ooty to the factory<br \/>\nof SIV Industries at Sirumugai  was being done by one Mohammed Ali of Dindigul.<br \/>\nAs he could not continue the transport business, Kader Oli of Moulana Traders,<br \/>\nby a letter dated 23.8.2001 requested the SIV Industries Ltd., to award the<br \/>\ntransport contract to the complainant \/Revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\td)Therefore it is clear that the first accused never met the complainant<br \/>\nat Kodaikanal and in fact none of the accused have ever met the complainant.<br \/>\nSince the alleged meeting of the first accused and the complainant at Kodaikanal<br \/>\nhas been disproved, the learned Judicial Magistrate Kodaikanal has no<br \/>\njurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence.  The complainant did not<br \/>\nreveal the date or atleast the month during 2001, when he allegedly met  the<br \/>\naccused Nos. 1 to 5 at Sirumugai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\te)In and by the letter dated 29.8.2001  of the SIV Industries Ltd., the<br \/>\ncomplainant was permitted to undertake transport of various varieties of pulp<br \/>\nwood that were to be supplied by the Moulana Traders.  From the said letter,  it<br \/>\nis evident that  the payments would be made as per the actual weight recorded at<br \/>\nSirumugai Factory weigh bridge or any other weigh bridge authorised by the<br \/>\ncompany.  It is also evident that the payment would be made at Corporate Office<br \/>\nby Account Payee Crossed Cheque  after deductions if any.  The respondent\/<br \/>\ncomplainant was never assured that payments would be made to him by way of<br \/>\nhundies even from the very beginning.  Payments to the tune of Rs.19.48 lakhs<br \/>\nhave been made by way of cheques to the complainant between October 2001 and<br \/>\nNovember 2001.   Therefore, the complainant failed to make out even the<br \/>\nrudimentary ingredients of Section 420 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tf)The complainant has concealed in the complaint regarding the payments<br \/>\nmade by the SIV Industries Ltd.  Earlier on the basis of the complaint forwarded<br \/>\nby the Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal to the Kodaikanal Police Station for<br \/>\ninvestigation and report, the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station<br \/>\nobserved<\/p>\n<p>that the SIV Industries is a sick company.  The Income Tax Department conducted<br \/>\nsearch in the premises of Kader Oli, Proprietor of Moulana Traders and<br \/>\nrestrained the SIV Industries from transferring or charging certain properties<br \/>\nmentioned in the letter.  A sum of Rs.26,56,051\/- payable to the complainant has<br \/>\nalso been indicated in that letter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tg)The complainant filed an application under Section 22(1) of the Sick<br \/>\nIndustrial Companies Act.  The complainant can be treated only as a creditor.<br \/>\nTherefore, prayed to recall the process issued against them, discharge them from<br \/>\nthe case and to dismiss the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent\/ complainant,  it is<br \/>\nstated that the claim of the petitioners can be proved only through examination<br \/>\nof witnesses.  It is true that the transport contract was earlier done by<br \/>\nMohammed Ali of Dindigul and as the payments were not made to him on time, he<br \/>\nwas not willing to continue with the contract and as he revealed to the accused<br \/>\nthat he had terminated his relationship with the company as a Transport<br \/>\nContractor. The said Moulana Traders recommended the complainant upon which the<br \/>\nfirst accused approached the said complainant to take up the contract as a<br \/>\nswitching contractor.  The averments in the application that the accused never<br \/>\nmet the complainant  at Kodaikanal , has to be  proved.  Merely because the<br \/>\ncomplainant did not mention the date of business transaction with the accused,<br \/>\nthat will not be a ground to discharge.   The Hundies were given to the<br \/>\ncomplainant knowing fully well that the company was heading towards bankruptcy.<br \/>\nThis action would impart on the accused to act with the deliberate intention to<br \/>\ncheat the complainant.  The accused made certain payments through cheques and<br \/>\nfor remaining amount, the accused issued Hundies.    Since the balance amount of<br \/>\nRs.30,82,288.27 was neither secured by cheques nor by Hundies, the complainant<br \/>\nfiled an application before the BIFR.  Therefore, the complainant&#8217;s application<br \/>\nbefore the BIFR is for a different amount and the accounts and that the<br \/>\nadditional documents  produced by the complainant  will establish the same.  The<br \/>\nInspector of Police, Kodaikanal is not the competent person to speak about the<br \/>\nlegalities of the sickness of the company.  The case registered under Crime No.3<br \/>\nof 2004 by the District Crime Branch is not connected with the present<br \/>\ncomplaint.  Hence, the complainant preferred a complaint under<\/p>\n<p>Section 200 Cr.P.C.  Since it is established that the accused have committed<br \/>\noffence punishable under sections 406, 407 and 420 IPC, the revision petitioner<br \/>\nhas prayed for dismissal of Cr.M.P.No.753 of 2004 in C.C.No.23 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The Point for determination is whether the above Criminal Revision<br \/>\nPetition is maintainable ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The respondent\/complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 406,<br \/>\n407, 417 and 420 IPC against the petitioners\/accused.    The first accused is<br \/>\nthe Secretary of SIV Industries Ltd.  The accused Nos.2 to 4 are the Directors<br \/>\nand the 5th accused is the Vice President (Finance) of SIV Industreis Ltd.,<br \/>\nwhich is a company engaged in the manufacture of Viscose Staple Fibre and Rayon<br \/>\nYarn among others.  Pulp Wood of different varieties was one of the raw<br \/>\nmaterials required for the manufacture of Viscose Staple Fibre and Rayon Yarn.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.According to the complainant, the first accused came to<\/p>\n<p>Kodaikanal and requested him to supply the pulp wood from Kodaikanal and Ooty to<br \/>\nthe factory of SIV Industries at Sirumugai.   The petitioners\/accused have<br \/>\nissued Hundies to the value of Rs.30.82,288.27  and when the Hundies were<br \/>\npresented, the same were dishonoured.    Hence, the complainant preferred a<br \/>\nprivate complaint. As against the said complaint, the accused\/petitioners filed<br \/>\ndischarge Petition in Cr.M.P.No.753 of 2004 before the District Munsif Cum<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and the learned Judicial Magistrate discharged<br \/>\nthe accused on 12.10.2004.  Challenging the above said order,  the complainant<br \/>\npreferred the above said Criminal Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The senior counsel for the respondents\/accused and the counsel for the<br \/>\nRevision Petitioner have elaborately argued only on the point dealt with by the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikkanal in Cr.M.P.No.753 of<br \/>\n2004 that the complainant has filed application only against its Directors and<br \/>\nthat the Company was not added as an accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.To support his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision<br \/>\nPetitioner relied on the case in ANIL HADA Vs. INDIAN ACRYLIC LTD., reported in<br \/>\n2001 SCC (Cri) 174,  wherein it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;..even in a case where the drawer company is not made an accused  but the<br \/>\noffice-bearers are well within their rights to adduce rebuttal evidence to<br \/>\nestablish that the company did not issue the cheque towards any antecedent<br \/>\nliability.  The contention that Section 139 of the Act would afford support to<br \/>\nthe plea that prosecution of the company is sine qua non for prosecuting its<br \/>\nDirectors under Section 141 of the Act is not sustainable.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner\/complainant submitted<br \/>\nthat merely because the Company was not impleaded as an accused, the Directors<br \/>\nof the company cannot escape from the liability.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents\/accused contended that there is no averments in the<\/p>\n<p>petition about the person who is incharge of the company at that time and that<br \/>\nthe petitioner\/complainant never approached the respondents\/ accused for the<br \/>\nbusiness transaction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.So, the only ground upon which the petition was allowed is that the<br \/>\ncompany was not impleaded as an accused.  But the principle laid down in the<br \/>\nabove said case will furnish the answer and as per the above said decision,<br \/>\neventhough the company was not impleaded as an accused, the Directors of the<br \/>\nCompany cannot be escaped from the penal liability.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The merits of the case cannot be decided at this stage.<br \/>\nThe learned Senior Counsel also argued about the jurisdiction and the nature of<br \/>\nbusiness transaction.  Finally he submitted that the respondents\/accused may be<br \/>\ngiven liberty to argue before the trial Court, about the genuineness and nature<br \/>\nof transaction.  They can raise the plea before the trial court as per law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.For the reasons stated above, I find that the order of the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the<\/p>\n<p>Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 12.10.2004 passed in<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.No.793 of 2004 in C.C.No.23 of 2004  by the District Munsif cum Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Kodaikkanal,  allowing the petition for discharge filed by the<br \/>\naccused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C.245(2) of Cr.P.C. is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nKodaikkanal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06\/03\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN Criminal Revision Petition No.789 of 2005 Sahayaraj .. Petitioner Vs 1.M.Ramani 2.K.K.Shah 3.C.Sivarama Krishnan 4.A.S.Rajagopalan 5.Vasudevan ..Respondents Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 &amp; 401 of [&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-242171","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>Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 - 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\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-13T23:23:23+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-13T23:23:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1590,\"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\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-13T23:23:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 - 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\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-13T23:23:23+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-13T23:23:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007"},"wordCount":1590,"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\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007","name":"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-13T23:23:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sahayaraj-vs-m-ramani-on-6-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sahayaraj vs M.Ramani on 6 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/242171","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=242171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242171\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}