{"id":247102,"date":"2006-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-11-22T21:05:59","modified_gmt":"2014-11-22T15:35:59","slug":"nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 08\/02\/2006\n\n\nCORAM :\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN\n\n\nWrit Appeal No. 87 of 2005\nand\nW.A.M.P. No. 106 and 167 of 2005\n\n\nNadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai\nthrough its General Secretary\nFor and on behalf of shareholders\nof Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVersus\n\n\n1. Reserve Bank of India\n   Central Office\n   Department of Banking\n   Operation Development Centre-I\n   World Trade Centre\n   Cuffee Parade\n   Bombay - 400 005\n\n2. The Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd\n   through its Chairman\n   Registered Office\n   57, V.E. Road\n   Tuticorin - 628 002\n\n3. V. Gopal Rao\n4. RP. Sarathy\n5. MK. Srinivasan\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\n\tAppeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 28-01-\n2005 made in WP No. 3716 of 2004 on the file of this Court.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t\t...\tMr. S. Sivashanmugam\n\n\n^For Respondents \t...\tMr. V. Karthikeyan\n\t\t\t \tfor Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan\n\t\t\t\tfor R2\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
A. KULASEKARAN, J<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant is the petitioner in WP (MD) No. 3716 of 2004 filed for
\nissuance of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 herein from effecting
\ntransfer or allow the respondents 3 to 5 to deal with 95418 shares of the second
\nrespondent\/Bank from in any manner.  The said writ petition was dismissed by the
\nlearned single Judge on 28.01.2005, hence the present writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tThe learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant herein is a society registered under the Societies
\nRegistration Act.  The second respondent\/Bank is a scheduled bank incorporated
\nunder the provisions of Companies Act.  It is stated that the writ petition has
\nbeen filed by the appellant herein to protect the interest of the members of
\ntheir Sangam, who are the main subscribers of the second respondent\/Bank, when
\nattempts were made by the respondents 2 to 5 herein to transfer 95418 shares to
\nthird parties contrary to the guidelines issued by the first respondent and that
\nthe respondents 2 to 5 are violating the guidelines issued by the first
\nrespondent pertaining to transfer of shares; that on 12.03.2004 in the 81st
\nAnnual General Meeting of the second respondent bank, so many shareholders were
\nprevented from attending the meeting on the ground that only power of attorney
\nholders are entitled to attend the same; that despite requests made to record
\ntheir objections, nothing has been done; that the first respondent\/Bank
\nprevented 33% of the shareholders of the bank from participating and voting in
\nthe said meeting on the other ground that a case in O.S. No. 479 of 1995 on the
\nfile of District Munsif, Tuticorin, filed by the power of attorneys to restrain
\nthe bank from preventing the respondents 3 to 5 from exercising their voting
\nright in the Annual General Meeting was decreed; that an appeal in C.M.A. No. 3
\nof 1996 has been filed before the Sub-court, Tuticorin which was later withdrawn
\nin collusion with the respondents 3 to 5; that the present directors of the
\nsecond respondent\/Bank are again planning to alienate 95418 shares, which
\nrepresents 33% of the total shares to various persons and benamies, if such an
\nact is allowed, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant and
\nthe interest of the depositors, clients and employees of the second
\nrespondent\/Bank will be affected; that the first respondent by order dated 13-
\n08-2004 rejected the transfer of the said shares of seven individuals; that the
\nrespondents 3 to 5 are taking steps to transfer the shares once again; that the
\nintention of the respondents 3 to 5 to effect transfer of shares is contrary to
\nthe guidelines issued by the first respondent and therefore the appellant finds
\nno other alternative except to file the above said writ petition, but the
\nlearned single Judge dismissed the same following the decision reported in
\nFederal Bank Limited vs. Sagar Thomas and others (AIR<\/a> 2003 Supreme Court 4325,
\nwhich has not totally excluded the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India and prayed for allowing the writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThe learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that
\nthe writ petition is not at all maintainable in law or on facts.  The writ
\npetition seeks to set at naught powers of attorney executed by certain
\nshareholders appointing the respondents 3 to 5 herein as their duly constituted
\nagents and such relief is contractual in nature as it is between two
\nindividuals, hence, the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution of India to either annul or to nullify such contract is not
\nmaintainable; that the appellant is neither a vendor nor the principal who
\nexecuted the power of attorney appointing the respondents 3 to 5 as agents,
\nhence, it is not a aggrieved person; that the petitioner being a stranger to
\ncontract cannot maintain a civil suit, however, writ petition is not at all
\nmaintainable; that the original vendors executed irrevocable powers of attorney
\nappointing the respondents 3 to 5 as their duly constituted power of attorney
\nagents and authorised them to deal with the shares as a absolute discretion;
\nthat the respondents 3 to 5 filed a suit in O.S. No. 479 of 1995 for injunction
\nrestraining the second respondent Bank from in any manner preventing them,
\njointly or severally, exercising all or any powers including the right to vote
\nand other anciliary rights at the Annual General Meeting or other meeting of the
\nbank; that the said suit came to be compromised and a decree dated 03.10.1996
\nwas passed to that effect, which became final and binding on the parties to the
\nsuit; that the bank also filed Civil Suit No. 836 of 1998 before the High Court,
\nMadras for declaration that seven companies, which have purchased the shares are
\nneither the legal nor equitable owners of the shareholders and also to declare
\nthat the powers of attorney become inoperative and that the decree passed in
\nO.S. No. 479 of 1994 is inoperative and not binding as the suit was dismised as
\nnot pressed; that subsequently, the first respondent refused to acknowledge the
\ntransfer of shares in favour of the seven companies, hence, the transfer of the
\nshares remain unresolved and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tThe learned single dismissed the writ petition filed by the
\nappellant herein on the ground that the same is not maintainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tIt is necessary to find out as to whether the writ petition filed by
\nthe appellant herein is maintainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tIn this case, the appellant herein alleged that the first
\nrespondent, having refused to acknowledge transfer of the shares, the second
\nrespondent cannot be permitted to effect the transfer.  In the normal
\nfunctioning of the private banking company, there is no participation or
\ninterference of the State or its authorities.  The statutes have been framed
\nregulating the financial and commercial activities so that the fiscal
\nequilibrium may be kept maintained and not get disturbed by the malfunctioning
\nof such companies or institutions involved in the business of banking.  These
\nare all regulatory measures for the purpose of maintaining healthy economic
\natmosphere in the Country.  Such regulatory measures are provided for other
\ncompanies also as well as industries manufacturing goods of importance.
\nOtherwise, these are purely private commercial activities.  It hardly makes any
\ndifference that such supervisory vigilance is kept by the Reserve Bank of India
\nunder a statute or the Central Government.  Even if it was with the Central
\nGovernment in place of the Reserve Bank of India it would not have made any
\ndifference.  It is only in case of malfunctioning of the company that occasion
\nto exercise such powers arises to protect the interest of the depositors,
\nshareholders or the company itself or to help the company to be out of the
\nwoods.  In the times of normal functioning, such occasions do not arise except
\nfor routine inspections etc., with a view to see that things are moved smoothly
\nin keeping with fiscal policies in general.  Besides taking care of such
\ninterest, as mentioned above, there is no other interest of the State to control
\nthe affairs and management of the private companies.  Such private companies
\nwould normally not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tIn this context, it is necessary to refer to the below mentioned
\njudgments, indeed, one of the judgments was also referred by the learned single
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tIn the decision reported in (Federal Bank Ltd., vs. V. Sagar Thomas
\nand others<\/a>) AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4325, it was held in Para Nos. 25 and 26
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“25.\tA company registered under the Companies Act for the purposes of
\ncarrying on any trade or business is a private enterprise to earn livelihood and
\nto make profits out of such activities.  Banking is also a kind of profession
\nand a commercial activity, the primary motive behind it can well be said to earn
\nreturns and profits.  Since time immemorial, such activities have been carried
\non by individuals generally.  It is a private affair of the company though case
\nof nationalized banks stands on a different footing.  There may, well be
\ncompanies, in which majority of the share capital may be contributed out of the
\nState funds and in that view of the matter there may be more participation or
\ndominant participation of the State in managing the affairs of the company.  But
\nin the present case, we are concerned with a banking company which has its own
\nresources to raise its funds without any contribution or shareholding by the
\nState.  It has its own Board of Directors elected by its shareholders.  It works
\nlike any other private company in the banking business having no monopoly status
\nat all.  Any company carrying on banking business with a capital of five lacs
\nwill become a scheduled bank.  All the same, banking activity as a whole carried
\non by various banks undoubtedly has an impact and effect on the economy of the
\nCountry in general.  Money of the shareholders and the depositors is with such
\ncompanies, carrying on banking activity.  The banks finance the borrowers on any
\ngiven rate of interest at a particular time.  They advance loans as against
\nsecurities.  Therefore, it is obviously necessary to have regulatory check over
\nsuch activities in the interest of the company itself, the shareholders, the
\ndepositors as well as to maintain the proper financial equilibrium of the
\nnational economy.  The Banking companies have not been set up for the purposes
\nof building economy of the State on the other hand such private companies have
\nbeen voluntarily established for their own purposes and interest but their
\nactivities are kept under check so that their activities may not go wayward and
\nharm the economy in general.  A private banking company with all freedom that it
\nhas, has to act in a manner that it may not be in conflict with or against the
\nfiscal policies of the State and for such purposes, guidelines are provided by
\nthe Reserve Bank so that a proper fiscal discipline, to conduct its affairs in
\ncarrying on its business, is maintained.  So as to ensure adherence to such
\nfiscal discipline, if need be, at times even the management of the company can
\nbe taken over.  Nonetheless, as observed earlier, these are all regulatory
\nmeasures to keep a check and provide guidelines and not a participatory
\ndominance or control over the affairs of the company.  For other companies in
\ngeneral carrying on other business activities, may be manufacturing other
\nindustries or any business, such checks are provided under the provisions of the
\nCompanies Act, as indicated earlier.  There also, the main consideration is that
\nthe company itself may not sink because of its own mismanagement or the interest
\nof the shareholders or people generally may not be jeopardized for that reason.
\nBesides taking care of such interest as indicated above, there is no other
\ninterest of the State to control the affairs and management of the private
\ncompanies.  The care is taken in regard to the industries under the Industries
\n(Development and Regulation)) Act, 1951 that their production which is important
\nfor the economy may not go down yet the business activity is carried on by such
\ncompanies or corporations which only remains a private activity of the
\nentrepreneurs\/ companies.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.\tSuch private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.  But in certain
\ncircumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be
\nstatues which need to be complied with by all concerned including the companies.
\nFor example, there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act,
\nthe Minimum Wages Act, the Factories Act or for maintaining proper environment
\nThe Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act 1981 or Water (Prevention and
\nControl of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc., or statues of the like nature which fasten
\ncertain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which
\nthey are bound to comply with.  If they violate such a statutory provision a
\nwrit would certainly be issued for compliance of those provisions.  For
\ninstance, if a private employer dispense with the service of its employee in
\nviolation of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, in
\ninnumerable cases the High Court interfered and have issued the writ to the
\nprivate bodies and the companies in that regard.  But the difficulty in issuing
\na writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance or violation of any
\nstatutory provisions by the private body.  In that event a writ may not be
\nissued at all.  Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted
\nto.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tIn the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported
\nin (Formation of Indian Network Marketing Association, represented by is
\nPresident Mr. P.J. Karthikeyan, Chennai vs. M\/s. Apple F.M.C.G. Marketing
\nPrivate Limited,<\/a> represented by its Chief Executive Officer Mr. R. Eric, Chennai
\nand others), it was held inPara Nos. 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“5.\tIn our opinion, this writ appeal is not maintainable as the
\nappellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter, and at best only its
\nmembers can have any grievance.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\t In Indian Sugar Mills Association v. Secretary to Government, AIR
\n1951 All (FB), a full bench of the Allahabad High Court held (vide paras, 10 and\n<\/p>\n
11)<\/p>\n
\t“para 10. The further argument is that any person, whether his interests
\nare directly affected or not, can file an application challenging any Act of the
\nLegislature or the order of the Government on the ground that it is ultra vires.
\nIn this connection we cannot do better than quote the decision of the learned
\nJudges of the Supreme Court of the United States in Commonwealth of
\nMassachusetts vs. Andrew W. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447:67 Lawyers Education 1078,
\nSutherland, J. who delivered the opinion of the Court quoted with approval the
\nremarks of Thomson, J. with whom Story, J concurred which were as follows:-
\n\t“It is only where the rights of persons or property are involved, and when
\nsuch rights can be presented under some judicial form of proceedings, that
\nCourts of justice can interpose relief.”\n<\/p>\n
Dealing with the question whether a single tax payer can challenge the
\nenforcement of a Federal Appropriation Act on the ground that it was invalid and
\nwould increase the burden of his taxes, the learned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“His interest in the moneys of the treasury partly realised from taxation
\nand partly from other sources-is shared with millions of others; is
\ncomparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon further taxation on
\nany payment out of the funds so remote, fluctuating, and uncertain that no basis
\nis afforded for an appeal to the preventive powers of a Court of equity… If
\none tax-payer may champion and litigate such a cause, then every other tax-payer
\nmay do the same, not only in respect to the statute hereunder review, but also
\nin respect of every other appropriation Act and Statute whose administration
\nrequires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be questioned.  The
\nbare suggestion of such a result, with its attendant inconveniences, goes far to
\nsustain the conclusion which we have reached, that a suit of this character
\ncannot be maintained.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPara.11: Those remarks are with reference to a suit.  They are much more
\napplicable to proceedings under Article 226 which are of a summary and of a
\ncoercive nature without providing for a normal trial or a right of appeal except
\nin those cases where a substantial question of interpretation of the
\nconstitution arises.  This Court is being flooded with applications under
\nArt.226 of the Constitution which is seriously affecting the normal work of the
\nCourt.  We feel that the time has come when we may point out that Art. 226 of
\nthe Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative method of redress to
\nthe normal process of a decision in an action brought in the usual courts
\nestablished by law.  The powers under this Article should be sparingly used and
\nonly in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously
\ninfringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn Vinoy Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1739, the Supreme
\nCourt observed (vide para-2):\n<\/p>\n
\t“para-2: Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a
\nwrit petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his
\nfundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is
\nthere any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests
\nhave been violated ignoring the applicable rules.  The relief under Art.226 of
\nthe Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person
\ninvoking the jurisdiction.  The exception to the general rule is only in cases
\nwhere the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed
\nin public interest.  It is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the
\nexercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries
\ncaused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to
\nentertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party
\nwhere there is an effective legal aid organization which can take care of such
\ncases.  Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ
\njurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the
\nlegal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and suchperson or
\ndetermined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability
\nor socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court
\nfor relief.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tIn State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev and<\/a> another, AIR 1964 SC 685,
\nthe Supreme Court observed (vide para;8)<\/p>\n
\t“But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 is wide in
\nthat sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a
\nwrit or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be
\nestablished that the party has a right and the said right is legally invaded or
\nthreatened.  The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under
\nArt. 226”.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tSimilarly, in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh,<\/a>
\n(1996) 2 MLJ (SC) 87: (1966) 2 An.W.R (SC) 87: AIR 1966 SC 828 (vide para.8) the
\nSupreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The right that can be enforced under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be
\nthe personal or individual right of the petitioner himself though in the case of
\nsome of the writs like habeas corpus or Quo warranto this rule may have to be
\nrelaxed or modified.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tThe writ petition filed by the appellant cannot have any personal
\ngrievance in the matter and at best only its members can have any grievance.  It
\nis well settled that ordinarily a writ petition can only be filed by someone who
\nis personally aggrieved.  The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of
\na person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific
\nremedy available to him.  The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia is based on the existence of a right in favour of a person invoking the
\nwrit jurisdiction.  The exception to the General Rule is only in cases where the
\nwrit applied for is Writ of Habeas Corpus or Quo warranto or filed in public
\ninterest.  Even assuming the members of the appellant’s association is affected
\nby an act of the second respondent, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights
\nof the members, writ petition at the instance of the association is not
\nmaintainable.  Ordinarily, the personal or individual right of the petitioner
\nhimself be enforced under Article 226 of the constitution of India.  Merely
\nbecause the first respondent\/Reserve Bank of India has been arrayed as a party,
\nthe Court does not get jurisdiction to hear the writ petition since the main
\nwrit petition is against the second respondent, which is a private bank.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tIn view of the above discussion, we confirm the findings of the
\nlearned single Judge that the appellant herein has no locus standi to file the
\nwrit petition.  Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.  No costs. Connected
\nWAMPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n
rsh<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08\/02\/2006 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Appeal No. 87 of 2005 and W.A.M.P. No. 106 and 167 of 2005 […]<\/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-247102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 - 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\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-22T15:35:59+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-22T15:35:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3376,\"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\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-22T15:35:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 - 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\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-22T15:35:59+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-22T15:35:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006"},"wordCount":3376,"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\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006","name":"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-22T15:35:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nadar-mahajana-sangam-vs-reserve-bank-of-india-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nadar Mahajana Sangam vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/247102","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=247102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}