{"id":246491,"date":"2007-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007"},"modified":"2015-02-26T00:04:50","modified_gmt":"2015-02-25T18:34:50","slug":"a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA No. 1250 of 2000()\n\n\n\n1. A.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE UNION OF INDIA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :30\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    (M.RAMACHANDRAN  & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)\n\n             ----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                           M.F.A.No. 1250 of 2000-A\n\n\n        -----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                Dated this the  30th day of January, 2007\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran, J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       An Original Petition had been filed,  under Section 372<\/p>\n
of the Indian Succession Act, before the Subordinate Judge’s<\/p>\n
Court,   Ottapalam,   by   four   persons,   who   are   brothers   and<\/p>\n
sisters   of   Sri.A.Narayanankutty.     That   gentleman   had<\/p>\n
expired   on   07-08-1997   while   at   Sanjeevani   Hospital,<\/p>\n
Kulappully.     Sri.Narayankutty   was   unmarried   and   his<\/p>\n
parents   had   pre-deceased   him.     Petitioners   claimed   that<\/p>\n
they were the only  legal heirs of the deceased person, and<\/p>\n
required   the   certificates   for   claiming   assets   locked   in   by<\/p>\n
way of securities in Banking Institutions at Ottapalam.<\/p>\n
       2.          Assets   described   were  (1)     a   Fixed  Deposit   for<\/p>\n
Rs.one lakh    in   the  State Bank of India,  Ottapalam,  (2)     a<\/p>\n
Fixed   Deposit   for   Rs.80,000\/-   in   the   Nedungadi   Bank,<\/p>\n
Ottapalam and (3) funds remaining in Savings Bank Account<\/p>\n
[S.B.A\/c.No.3403] in the same Bank.  In respect of the Fixed<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                       -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Deposit Account with the State Bank of India, Narayanankutty<\/p>\n
had   presented   Ext.B2   nomination,   wherein   the   name   of   the<\/p>\n
nominee had been shown as Prime Minister’s National Relief<\/p>\n
Fund.   Likewise, in respect of the accounts in the Nedungadi<\/p>\n
Bank, he had addressed a letter (Ext.B1) dated 04-07-1996 to<\/p>\n
the Manager of the Bank, requesting that in the event of his<\/p>\n
death,  he   desired  that  the  proceeds   are   to  be transferred   to<\/p>\n
the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, Trivandrum, Kerala State.<\/p>\n
       3.      Sri.Narayanankutty   had  died  intestate.     The<\/p>\n
submission made before the Court was that the nominations,<\/p>\n
if   any,   were   not   valid   or   legally   enforceable   and   the   legal<\/p>\n
heirs   alone   are   entitled   to   the   estate   and   not   the   nominees.<\/p>\n
Further contention raised was that the right of the nominees<\/p>\n
necessarily was confined to a duty of accepting the amounts,<\/p>\n
in due course, for distributing it as among the legal heirs.   A<\/p>\n
certificate would have therefore avoided a circuitous course.<\/p>\n
       4.      The   Government   of   India   and   the   State<\/p>\n
Government   were   made   parties   to   the   proceedings   for<\/p>\n
obvious   reasons.   The   two   banking   institutions   also   were<\/p>\n
impleaded as respondents.     Documentary  and oral evidence<\/p>\n
had   come   as   adduced   by   the   parties.     The   court   below   held<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the nomination in respect of the amounts in deposit with<\/p>\n
the State Bank of India could not be considered as valid, since<\/p>\n
it did not conform to the prescriptions of Section 45ZA of the<\/p>\n
Banking   Regulations   Act,   1949.     It   should   have   been   in   the<\/p>\n
name   of   a   person.       Since   it   was   not   so   earmarked,   it<\/p>\n
continued   to   be   an   asset   of   Narayanankutty,   who   had   died<\/p>\n
intestate.     According   to   the   Court,   the   claim   therefore<\/p>\n
required to be allowed.  Petitioners were declared as entitled<\/p>\n
to   receive   the   amounts   together   with   interest   accrued<\/p>\n
thereon.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.      However,   in   respect   of   the   amounts   in   deposit<\/p>\n
with   the   Nedungadi   Bank,   the   Court   below   was   of   the   view<\/p>\n
that   Ext.B1   letter   dated     04-07-1996   in   definite   terms<\/p>\n
divulged   the   desire   of   the   deceased   person   to   donate   the<\/p>\n
amount   of   the   Fixed   Deposit   as   well   as   the   outstanding<\/p>\n
balance  in   the  Savings  Bank  Account to the   Chief  Minister’s<\/p>\n
Relief Fund.  Even though the letter was not in the prescribed<\/p>\n
form, as specified under the Banking Companies (Nomination)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1985, the recitals   in the letter addressed to the Bank<\/p>\n
Manager   adequately   revealed   that     the   depositor   desired   to<\/p>\n
donate the entire amounts to the Relief Fund after his death.<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Consequently,   it   would   not   have   been   possible   to   issue   a<\/p>\n
Succession   Certificate   in   respect   of   such   assets   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioners\/appellants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.       The   appellants   had   challenged   that   part   of   the<\/p>\n
order,   adverse   to   them.     There   is   no   appeal   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
respondents.   In respect of the amount that is lying with the<\/p>\n
State Bank of India, therefore the directions in the judgment<\/p>\n
have attained finality.   It may not, therefore, be necessary to<\/p>\n
interfere   with   that   part   of   the   finding,   although   left   to<\/p>\n
ourselves, we would have had reservations about the wisdom<\/p>\n
of the order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.     Of   course,   as   observed   by   the   court   below,   while<\/p>\n
interpreting   the   nominee’s   interest,   the   Supreme   Court   had<\/p>\n
held, in  Sarbati Devi  v.  Usha Devi  [AIR 1984 SC 346], that<\/p>\n
amounts   received   under   a   policy   when   the   assured   died<\/p>\n
intestate   shall   be   subject   to   the   claim   of   the   heirs   of   the<\/p>\n
assured   under   the   Law   of   Succession.     Naming   a   nominee<\/p>\n
therefore was not equivalent to conferment of a status as  heir<\/p>\n
or a legatee.  The court below had also  adverted to two  other<\/p>\n
judgments of this  Court in  Bhaskaran  v.  Kalliani  [1990 (2)<\/p>\n
KLT   749]   and  Saraswathi   Amma  v.  Padmavathi   Amma<\/a><\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
[1992   (2)   KLT   276],   which   were   cases   under   the   Family<\/p>\n
Welfare   Benefits   Scheme.     The   principle   was   that   nominee<\/p>\n
was  only   a trustee   competent  to  act  on   behalf   of  legal   heirs<\/p>\n
and the right of legal heirs were not extinguished because of<\/p>\n
such nomination.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.       However, nomination referred to in section 45ZA,<\/p>\n
coming under Part IIIB of the Banking Regulation Act, is not<\/p>\n
at all a nomination of a genre,  which had been considered by<\/p>\n
the court in the above three decisions.  Such provisions were<\/p>\n
incorporated in the said Act for facilitating certain operations<\/p>\n
of   the   banking   companies,   more   in   their   own   interest   than<\/p>\n
that   of   the   customers.       Sub-section   (4)   made   it   clear   that<\/p>\n
payment   by   a   banking   company   shall   constitute   a   full<\/p>\n
discharge   of   its   liability   in   respect   of   the   deposit.       It   is<\/p>\n
necessary to note that similar provisions are brought in by the<\/p>\n
amendments,   in   the  matter  of   return   of   articles   kept  in   safe<\/p>\n
custody  and  release  of contents  of safety  lockers.   However,<\/p>\n
the   provision   as   above   was   not   to   affect   the   right   or   claim,<\/p>\n
which any person may have, against the person to whom any<\/p>\n
payment is made, as above stipulated.\n<\/p>\n
\n[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
       9.      We have to agree with the ultimate view that was<\/p>\n
taken   by   the   Subordinate   Judge   that   a   nomination   as<\/p>\n
presented before  the State Bank  of India was not one  which<\/p>\n
was   envisaged   by   the   provisions   in   the   Banking   Regulation<\/p>\n
Act and the very acceptance of the nomination was therefore<\/p>\n
misconceived.     We   may   now   go   to   examine   the   claims   as<\/p>\n
urged in the appeal, in respect of the deposits in Nedungadi<\/p>\n
Bank Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.     Mr.Santheep submits that the defect as attached<\/p>\n
to the nomination pertaining to State Bank of India account is<\/p>\n
equally   applicable   in   respect   of   the   other   deposit   as   well.<\/p>\n
Further,   he   alleges   that   the   letters   have   not   been<\/p>\n
appropriately   proved,   so   as   to   divest   the   appellants   of   their<\/p>\n
status as heirs of the person, who died intestate.   At least in<\/p>\n
such cases we are afraid such a technical stand have no place.<\/p>\n
The documents kept in regular course of business have been<\/p>\n
made available by a financial institution, and for the fancy of<\/p>\n
it,   they   cannot   be   sidelined.       Evidently,   larger   issues   are<\/p>\n
there and the objections of the appellants are self serving and<\/p>\n
do   not   appear   to   be   sustainable.     It   is   well   settled   that<\/p>\n
properties of a person can devolve in others after his death in<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                          -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
more than one manner.  Some assets may be governed by law<\/p>\n
of inheritance, simultaneously when another segment   of the<\/p>\n
properties can go by bequeath  [see Section  30  of the Indian<\/p>\n
Succession  Act].     As in  the present case, gifts which  satisfy<\/p>\n
preconditions   can   also   come   to   operation   in   yet   other<\/p>\n
instances.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11.      We may examine the relevance of Ext.B1 letter in<\/p>\n
this   context.     The   Chief   Minister’s   Relief   Fund   was   the<\/p>\n
nominee,   and   perhaps   the   idea   was   to   treat   it   as   coming<\/p>\n
under   Section   45ZA   of   the   Banking   Regulation   Act.     But,   in<\/p>\n
addition   thereto,   the   letter   as   above   completely   altered   the<\/p>\n
situation.   This  authorises the  Bank Manager to transfer the<\/p>\n
amounts to the Chief Minister’s Welfare Fund in the event of<\/p>\n
death of the depositor.  We feel that even in the absence of a<\/p>\n
Will   or   codicil,   this   document,  independently  in  existence,<\/p>\n
cannot at all be ignored.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.      The   Hindu   Succession   Act   refers   to   the   general<\/p>\n
rules of succession in the case of males, who die intestate.  It<\/p>\n
is   to   be   applied   to   the   relatives   specified   in   Class   I   of   the<\/p>\n
Schedule and so on.  However Section 30 of Chapter III of the<\/p>\n
Act  provides   that  any  Hindu   may  dispose of by  will  or  other<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
testamentary   disposition   any   property,   which   is   capable   of<\/p>\n
being so disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions<\/p>\n
of   the   Indian   Succession   Act   1925,   as   applicable   to   Hindus.<\/p>\n
Of   course,   there   is   no   Will   available   here,   but   Ext.B1,<\/p>\n
according to us, could be equated to a  disposition, as coming<\/p>\n
under the said Act.   It may not be objectionable at all,  since<\/p>\n
we   may   directly   go   over   to   Section   191   of   the   Indian<\/p>\n
Succession Act.  It refers to gifts in contemplation of death.  A<\/p>\n
man   may   dispose   of   any   movable   property,   by   gift   made   in<\/p>\n
contemplation   of   death,   which   he   could   dispose   of   by   Will.<\/p>\n
The   section   clarifies   that   a   gift   so   made   is   valid.     The<\/p>\n
contingency   provided   is   that   when   a   man,   who   is   ill   and<\/p>\n
expects to die shortly of his illness, if delivers to another the<\/p>\n
possession of any movable property to keep as a gift, in case<\/p>\n
the   donor   shall   die   of   that   illness,   it   remains   as   a   valid<\/p>\n
transfer.     Such   gift  of  course   may  be   resumed  by  the   giver<\/p>\n
and shall not take effect if he recovers from the illness.<\/p>\n
       13.      In the present case, the gift, evidenced by Ext.B1,<\/p>\n
although has not reached the  donee,  who is nominated,   as<\/p>\n
the   same   was   entrusted   with   an   Institution     in   whom   the<\/p>\n
person   has   confidence,       it   bears   all   the   trappings   of   a   gift<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                        -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
contemplated   by   the   section.   The   illustrations   given   in   the<\/p>\n
statute   are   sufficient   to   cover   the   position   available   here.   If<\/p>\n
that   be   so,     it   may   not   be   possible   for   us   to   uphold   the<\/p>\n
contention   of   Sri.Santheep   Ankarath   that   succession   always<\/p>\n
has to be only on the basis of the Hindu Succession Act, when<\/p>\n
a person dies intestate.   We  can assume from the recitals in<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   that   Sri.Narayanankutty   was   always   having   the<\/p>\n
intention   to   donate   substantial   amounts   to   the   Chief<\/p>\n
Minister’s   Relief   Fund   and   this   was   to   go   over   to   the   Fund<\/p>\n
after his death.  His other properties could be inherited by his<\/p>\n
legal   heirs,   but   the   deposit,   about   which   we   are   concerned,<\/p>\n
cannot   go   over   to   them.     The   proximity   of   the   letter   to   the<\/p>\n
date of his death compels us to conclude that way, and there<\/p>\n
was no revocation at any time, and the property continued to<\/p>\n
retain   its   character   as   a   gift   during   his   life   time.       The<\/p>\n
nominee   was   authorised   and   entitled   to   receive   and<\/p>\n
appropriate   the   amounts.     They   are   not   accountable   to   the<\/p>\n
legal heirs.   It may be  preposterous  to suggest that the Chief<\/p>\n
Minister’s   Welfare   Fund   was  to   accept  the   amount   from   the<\/p>\n
bank and was to distribute it after ascertaining the legal heirs<\/p>\n
of the deceased person.  We have no doubt in our mind that a<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                        -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
nominee,   in   such   cases,   is   totally   different   from   the<\/p>\n
(statutory) nominees referred to in the Insurance Act, Welfare<\/p>\n
Fund   legislations   and   the   like.     The   person   or   institution<\/p>\n
nominated by  the  deceased  person  is entitled  to appropriate<\/p>\n
the   amount   to   the   exclusion   of   any   others,   and   any   other<\/p>\n
contention we feel would be only violation of the wishes of the<\/p>\n
departed individual.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        14.     The appeal  is therefore  dismissed.    We  make no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        M.RAMACHANDRAN<\/p>\n
                                                                   (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                                               S.SIRI JAGAN<\/p>\n
                                                                    (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
mks\/<\/p>\n
[MFA No.1250 of 2000]<\/p>\n
                                         -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  (M.RAMACHANDRAN  & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)<\/p>\n
                    ================================<\/p>\n
                                       M.F.A.No.1250 of 2000-A<\/p>\n
                    ================================<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                             -C.R.-\n<\/p>\n
                   ================================<\/p>\n
                                           Dated:   3oth January, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA No. 1250 of 2000() 1. A.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. THE UNION OF INDIA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-25T18:34:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T18:34:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1946,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\",\"name\":\"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T18:34:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 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":"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-25T18:34:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T18:34:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007"},"wordCount":1946,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007","name":"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T18:34:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chandrasekharan-nair-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Chandrasekharan Nair vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 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\/246491","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=246491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}