{"id":244276,"date":"2004-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004"},"modified":"2015-03-30T07:34:58","modified_gmt":"2015-03-30T02:04:58","slug":"i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 18\/02\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nCivil Revision Petition No. 3388 of 2001\nand CRP NOs., 3389, 3390 and 3410    Of 2001\n\n\nI. Jairaj             .. Petitioner in all the C.R.Ps.\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.B. Champalal Jain  .. 1st Respondent in C.R.P.3388\/2001.<\/pre>\n<p>1.Mrs. Avantika N. Jain..1st Respondent in C.R.P.3389\/2001<\/p>\n<p>1.Mrs. Chetna R. Jain  ..1st Respondent in C.R.P.3390\/2001<\/p>\n<p>1.M. Parasmal         ..1st Respondent in C.R.P.3410\/2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. M\/s. Firenze Shoes P. Ltd.,<br \/>\n   Chennai-117.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. M\/s. Lords Shoe Makers P.Ltd.,<br \/>\n   Chennai-17<\/p>\n<p>4. SBP Madan Mohan, Chennai-41.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Radhika Mohan, Chennai41.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 ..Respondents 2 to 5 in CRP Nos.3388<br \/>\n                                       to 3390 and 3410\/2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Civil Revision Petitions against the order and  decretal  order  dated<br \/>\n24-9-2001  passed  by  the  II  Assistant  Judge,  City Civil Court, Madras in<br \/>\nI.A.No.   17651\/2000   in   O.S.No.2267\/99;   I.A.No.17652\/2000   in   O.S.No.<br \/>\n2262\/1999; 17653\/2000 in  O.S.No.    2261\/1999;  and  I.A.No.   1 7650\/2000 in<br \/>\nO.S.No.2265 of 1999 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>!Ms.  Chitra Narayanan:- For petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>^Mr.  A.  Venkatesan:- For 1st Respondent in<br \/>\n                        All the C.R.Ps.\n<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n<p>Since the petitioner is one and the same and issue  raised  is  also  similar,<br \/>\nthey are being  disposed of by the following common Order.  C.R.P.No.  3388 of<br \/>\n2001 is directed against the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the II  Assistant<br \/>\nJudge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A.No.17651 of 2000 in O.S.No.  2267 of 99<br \/>\nin  and  by which, the learned judge dismissed the said petition filed to stay<br \/>\nthe proceedings of the suit.   Against  the  similar  orders,  the  very  same<br \/>\npetitioner has filed the other three Revisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The  first  respondent  herein  B.   Champalal Jain filed O.S.Nos.2267\/99,<br \/>\n2262\/99, 2261\/99, and 2265\/99 on the file of  the  II  Assistant  Judge,  City<br \/>\nCivil Court,  Madras  for recovery of money based on promissory notes.  In all<br \/>\nthe suits, the first defendant is M\/s.   Firenze  Shoes  P.Ltd.,  Chennai-117,<br \/>\nsecond defendant is  M\/s.    Lords  Shoe  Makers  P.  Ltd., Chennai-117, third<br \/>\ndefendant is SBP Madan Mohan, Chennai-41 and fourth defendant is Radhika Mohan<br \/>\nand fifth defendant is I.  Jairaj.  Defendants  1  and  2  are  companies  and<br \/>\ndefendants 3  to 5 are Directors.  Except 5th defendant, the petitioner in all<br \/>\nthe above revisions, others  were  set  ex  parte.    Pending  the  suit,  5th<br \/>\ndefendant\/petitioner  herein filed Interlocutory Applications in all the suits<br \/>\nunder Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies  (Special  Provisions)  Act,<br \/>\n1985, seeking to stay trial of the suit.  In the affidavit filed in support of<br \/>\nthe  above  applications,  it  is stated that the first defendant company is a<br \/>\nsick company and has been registered with the Board for Industrial Development<br \/>\nand Financial Reconstruction ( BIFR in short) as a  sick  industrial  company.<br \/>\nIn  view  of  the  registration  in terms of Section 22 of the Act, no suit or<br \/>\nother proceedings can be initiated or continued against the  company  and  the<br \/>\npresent proceeding is liable to be stayed.  In other words, the petitioner has<br \/>\nprayed  for  an order staying the suits till the completion of the proceedings<br \/>\nbefore B.I.F.R.  The said applications  were  resisted  by  the  plaintiff  by<br \/>\nfiling counter affidavit.  Before the II Assistant Judge, three documents were<br \/>\nmarked as Exs.    P-1 to P-3 on the side of the petitioners.  No oral evidence<br \/>\nwas let in by both sides.  The learned II Additional Judge on appreciation  of<br \/>\nrival  contentions,  after holding that the petitioner neither the company nor<br \/>\nthe guarantor filed suit promissory note and he is only an individual, refused<br \/>\nto grant stay of the suit and ultimately dismissed all the four  applications;<br \/>\nhence the present Revisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  Heard  Ms.   Chitra Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.<br \/>\nA.  Venkatesan for first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  Ms.  Chitra Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me<br \/>\nthrough Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)  Act,<br \/>\n1985,  would  contend  that  in view of the pendency of proceedings before the<br \/>\nBIFR, all the four suits cannot be proceeded with till  the  disposal  of  the<br \/>\nproceedings before the BIFR.   On the other hand, Mr.  A.  Venkatesan, learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the  contesting  first  respondent\/plaintiff,  contended<br \/>\nthat  the  petitioner  neither  a  company nor a guarantor, the Court below is<br \/>\nperfectly right in dismissing his petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The only point for consideration in these Revisions is, whether the  suits<br \/>\nare to be stayed till the completion of the proceedings before the BIFR?\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   As  said earlier, the first respondent herein\/ plaintiff filed four suits<br \/>\nagainst the company and it its Directors claiming money based on promotes.  In<br \/>\nthe suit promissory notes the petitioner herein namely I.  Jairaj has put  his<br \/>\nsignature  in  4  places,  two  as Managing Director and in two places without<br \/>\nmentioning anything.  The name of the two companies, namely, defendants 1  and<br \/>\n2 are also mentioned in the promissory notes.  No doubt, except 5th defendant,<br \/>\npetitioner in  these  revisions all others are not contesting the suit.  It is<br \/>\nthe claim of the petitioner that the company has filed an appropriate petition<br \/>\nbefore the BIFR and the Board has  accepted  the  claim  of  the  company  and<br \/>\nproceedings are  pending as on date.  This is evident from ex.P-3, an order of<br \/>\nBIFR dated 12-9-2001.  It is relevant to refer Section 22 of the Act:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 22.  Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.- (1)  Where  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  an  industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or<br \/>\nany scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or  consideration<br \/>\nor  a  sanctioned  scheme  is  under  implementation  or where an appeal under<br \/>\nsection 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding<br \/>\nanything contained in the Companies  Act,  1956,  or  any  other  law  or  the<br \/>\nmemorandum  and articles of association of the industrial company or any other<br \/>\ninstrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no  proceedings  for<br \/>\nthe  winding  up  of  the industrial company or for execution, distress or the<br \/>\nlike against any of the properties  of  the  industrial  company  or  for  the<br \/>\nappointment  of  a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of<br \/>\nmoney or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or<br \/>\nof any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the  industrial<br \/>\ncompany shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the<br \/>\nBoard or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  above  provision  makes it clear that Section 22 (1) attracts even a suit<br \/>\nfiled for recovery of money pending  before  any  civil  Court.    Learned  II<br \/>\nAssistant  Judge  though accepted the fact that the company has approached the<br \/>\nBIFR and proceedings are pending after finding that the petitioner is  neither<br \/>\na company nor a guarantor, dismissed the petition filed for staying the suits.<br \/>\nI have  already  referred  to  the  contents  of  promissory note.  Though the<br \/>\npetitioner has promised to pay the amount mentioned therein, he  borrowed  the<br \/>\namount  not  for  himself, but for the company which is clear that he borrowed<br \/>\nthe amount in the capacity of the Managing Director of the company.  In such a<br \/>\ncircumstance, I am satisfied that the learned trial  Judge  has  committed  an<br \/>\nerror in  dismissing  the  petition filed by the petitioner.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1786956\/\">In Patheja Bros.<br \/>\nForging and Stamping v.  ICICI (SC)<\/a> [Volume 102] 2000 Company Cases  page  21,<br \/>\nthe  Supreme  Court of India has held that the suit for the enforcement of the<br \/>\nguarantor in respect of the loan granted could not be  proceeded  with  unless<br \/>\nconsent as required  by  Section  22  is obtained.  <a href=\"\/doc\/970659\/\">In Ravi Srinivasan, V.  v.<br \/>\nManipal Finance  Corporaiton  Ltd.,<\/a>  reported  in  2002  (4)  CTC  219,  while<br \/>\nconsidering  the  provisions  of  the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and Sick<br \/>\nIndustrial companies ( Special Provisions) Act, 1985, I  have  held  that  the<br \/>\nbenefit conferred on the principal debtor is applicable to the guarantor.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The  perusal of suit promissory note as discussed above, Ex.P-3, order of<br \/>\nBIFR dated 12-9-2001, I am satisfied that the learned trial Judge  disregarded<br \/>\nthe peremptory  provision  of  Section  22 of the Act.  It is settled law that<br \/>\nonce a company is registered with the BIFR., all proceedings filed  against  a<br \/>\ncompany  and  its  guarantors  must  be  stayed  forth-with  and  shall not be<br \/>\nproceeded with without the consent of BIFR.  Section 22 imposes a  prohibition<br \/>\non recovery  from  guarantors  of  the  sick  industrial company.  The purpose<br \/>\nbehind such a provision is to prevent the isolated burdening of the  guarantor<br \/>\nor  co-obligant  with  the debt of the sick industrial company, until recovery<br \/>\ncan be commenced against the sick industrial company itself,  which  fact  has<br \/>\nbeen disregarded  by  the  learned trial Judge.  Further, the materials placed<br \/>\nclearly show that the loan was granted to the sick industrial company and that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was only the Director of the company.  It is  also  clear  that<br \/>\nthe  petitioner has signed the debt instrument only as a Director on behalf of<br \/>\nthe sick industrial company and I hold that the benefit of Section 22  of  the<br \/>\nAct will accrue to him.  By virtue of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act,<br \/>\nall  co-obligants  are  also entitled to the benefit of stay in terms thereof,<br \/>\nuntil permission is obtained from the BIFR.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the learned II<br \/>\nAssistant Judge, City Civil Court dated 24-9 -2001 made in I.A.Nos.17651\/2000,<br \/>\n17652\/2000, 17653\/2000 and 17650\/20 00 are set aside and  there  shall  be  an<br \/>\norder of  stay  of proceedings in O.S.Nos.  2267, 2262, 2261 and 2265 of 1999.<br \/>\nDepending on the orders of the BIFR, the parties are at liberty  to  move  the<br \/>\nCourt below for  further  orders.    Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:- Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:-\n<\/p>\n<p>The II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18\/02\/2004 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Civil Revision Petition No. 3388 of 2001 and CRP NOs., 3389, 3390 and 3410 Of 2001 I. Jairaj .. Petitioner in all the [&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-244276","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 - 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\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-30T02:04:58+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\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-30T02:04:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"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\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\",\"name\":\"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-30T02:04:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 - 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\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-30T02:04:58+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\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-30T02:04:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004"},"wordCount":1560,"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\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004","name":"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-30T02:04:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-jairaj-vs-b-champalal-jain-1st-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"I. Jairaj vs B. Champalal Jain .. 1St on 18 February, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/244276","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=244276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}