{"id":24741,"date":"2009-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-01T16:18:50","modified_gmt":"2016-03-01T10:48:50","slug":"shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.L.P..No. 36 of 2009()\n\n\n1. SHAJI MARNADIYAN, S\/O.N.KORAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. T.SUBRAHMANIAN, M.S.HAIR CUTTING CENTRE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :06\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                ---------------------------------------------\n                      Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009\n                ---------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
              Having failed in a prosecution for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short<\/p>\n
‘the N.I.Act’), the petitioner\/complainant approached this court<\/p>\n
by filing the present petition seeking special leave to prefer an<\/p>\n
appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the court<\/p>\n
below under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., an order in favour of<\/p>\n
the accused who faced the trial under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
N.I.Act.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     The case of the petitioner\/complainant is that the<\/p>\n
accused issued a cheque bearing No.17573 to discharge the<\/p>\n
debt for Rs.80,000\/- to the complainant and when the same<\/p>\n
was presented for encashment, it was returned with a memo<\/p>\n
stating ‘funds insufficient’. Consequently, at the instance of<\/p>\n
the petitioner\/complainant, a lawyer notice was sent and<\/p>\n
though the same was received by the accused, no reply was<\/p>\n
given and no amount was paid.                 Hence, the complainant<\/p>\n
approached the court below by filing a complaint for the said<\/p>\n
offence.    On the basis of the sworn statement of the<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                  :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
complainant and the averments in the complaint, the case was<\/p>\n
received on file as S.T.C.No.3331 of 2005 in the court of the<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba. When the accused<\/p>\n
appeared, the particulars of the allegations were read over and<\/p>\n
explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty which resulted in<\/p>\n
further trial during which the complainant himself was examined<\/p>\n
as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked from his side.            No<\/p>\n
evidence either documentary or oral is adduced by the defence.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the pleadings, appropriate issues were framed<\/p>\n
and the court finally found that the complainant had not<\/p>\n
succeeded in proving the drawal of the cheque by the accused in<\/p>\n
favour of him and so it couldnot be presumed that the cheque is<\/p>\n
drawn by the accused for discharge of debt or liability. Thus,<\/p>\n
according to the court below, mere possession is not sufficient to<\/p>\n
launch a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and it was<\/p>\n
concluded that the accused is not guilty and accordingly he is<\/p>\n
acquitted. It is the above finding and order of acquittal sought to<\/p>\n
be challenged by preferring an appeal for which leave of this<\/p>\n
Court is sought for in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     I have heard Sri.Viju Abraham, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the<\/p>\n
complainant has, by filing proof affidavit as well as by adducing<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
oral evidence, proved that the accused issued the cheque and<\/p>\n
therefore, the presumption under Section 139 is available in<\/p>\n
favour of the complainant which the trial court failed to take note<\/p>\n
of.   It is also the case of counsel that when the statutory<\/p>\n
presumption is available in favour of the complainant, especially<\/p>\n
when the defence did not adduce any evidence, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that the accused has rebutted the presumption. Thus, according<\/p>\n
to the learned counsel, the order of the court below is liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     I have repeatedly perused the judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
court which is sought to be impugned. Learned counsel also<\/p>\n
made available to me the proof affidavit as well as the deposition<\/p>\n
of PW1. There is no averment either in the complaint or in the<\/p>\n
proof affidavit regarding the details of the debt or financial liability<\/p>\n
which is due to the complainant from the side of the accused. In<\/p>\n
the proof affidavit as well as in the complaint, it is stated that the<\/p>\n
accused borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000\/- for which he issued the<\/p>\n
cheque in question.        There are no details regarding the<\/p>\n
circumstances under which the accused demanded the amount<\/p>\n
from the complainant and other details. Only during the cross-<\/p>\n
examination, the complainant has stated that the accused is<\/p>\n
conducting a barber shop very near to the Mavila Paints and he<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
had acquaintance with the accused for the last 5 to 8 years as he<\/p>\n
was also working in the shop named as Mavila Paints, Pilathara.<\/p>\n
It is also his case, during cross-examination that the barber shop<\/p>\n
of the accused is very close to the Mavila Paints. On the basis<\/p>\n
of the above facts stated or admitted by the complainant, the trial<\/p>\n
court posed a question as to why PW1 stated that the transaction<\/p>\n
is made at Taliparamba. According to PW1, he is residing at<\/p>\n
Kuttoor and from Kuttoor, he came to Pilathara and then came to<\/p>\n
Taliparamba and thereafter, he had called the accused to<\/p>\n
Taliparamba and given the amount to the accused in a hotel at<\/p>\n
Taliparamba.       According to PW1, his explanation is that his<\/p>\n
brother is residing at Taliparamba. His further explanation is that<\/p>\n
in order to make up the deficiency of the required amount, he<\/p>\n
came to Taliparamba and borrowed the remaining amount from<\/p>\n
his brother. Then, it was given to the accused. It is also stated<\/p>\n
by PW1 that the accused had handed over the cheque to him<\/p>\n
from Taliparamba. It is claimed by the complainant\/PW1 that the<\/p>\n
accused had informed him that he would get the amount from<\/p>\n
Taliparamba and will return to him. Thus, when he reached at<\/p>\n
Taliparamba, the accused had given a cheque to him. The above<\/p>\n
explanation offered by PW1 is not acceptable to the court below,<\/p>\n
who got an opportunity to observe the demeanour of PW1.<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                  :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The trial court has also found that PW1 had admitted<\/p>\n
that the accused is hailing from Tamil Nadu and the cheque was<\/p>\n
brought after filling it. According to PW1, the accused had put his<\/p>\n
signature at the front bottom side of the cheque alone. He had<\/p>\n
particularly and categorically stated that accused has not put his<\/p>\n
signature in any other part of the cheque. It is also the case of<\/p>\n
PW1 that the accused had written his name in Malayalam and<\/p>\n
thereafter, put his signature in the cheque. The trial court found<\/p>\n
that the cheque in question contained the signature on both<\/p>\n
sides. It is also observed by the trial court that the name is seen<\/p>\n
written in English, thereafter, he put his signature.           The<\/p>\n
contention of the accused is that the accused does not know<\/p>\n
Malayalam either to read or to write. After analysis of the above<\/p>\n
evidence especially in the light of the version given by the<\/p>\n
accused, the trial court found that the complainant is not the<\/p>\n
holder of the cheque. Thus, according to the trial court, there is<\/p>\n
no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. Thus, the<\/p>\n
trial court further held that it cannot be said that the accused had<\/p>\n
drawn the cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge any<\/p>\n
debt or liability.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     Going by the judgment, it can be seen that the case<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
put up by the defence is to the effect that the present complainant<\/p>\n
is the binami of one Mavila Damodaran. PW1 has admitted that<\/p>\n
he is the Salesman in Mavila Paints, Pilathara. The case<\/p>\n
suggested by the defence is that the cheque in question was<\/p>\n
given to Damodaran and the same was misused for filing a<\/p>\n
complaint by the complainant or the complainant preferred the<\/p>\n
complaint as a binami of the said Damodaran. The trial court<\/p>\n
after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque in question<\/p>\n
was executed in favour of the complainant.<\/p>\n
       7.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as<\/p>\n
and when the complainant is the holder of the cheque in question<\/p>\n
and the signature contained in the same is not disputed by the<\/p>\n
defence and especially, when no positive evidence is adduced<\/p>\n
from the side of the defence, the approach of the court below is<\/p>\n
arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the finding is liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside. On the basis of Section 139 of the N.I.Act, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel submits that the presumption is in favour of the<\/p>\n
complainant and the complainant has established a prima facie<\/p>\n
case to avail such presumption. Therefore, in the absence of the<\/p>\n
rebuttal of the presumption, the trial court ought to have accepted<\/p>\n
the case as such and       instead of acquitting the accused, he<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
should have been convicted, learned counsel submits.<\/p>\n
       8.     As I have already observed and indicated above,<\/p>\n
there is no positive averment in the complaint regarding the debt<\/p>\n
or liability and the circumstances and details which led to the<\/p>\n
alleged borrowal of the amount by the accused from the<\/p>\n
complainant and absolutely, no evidence is also adduced in this<\/p>\n
regard. In the decision reported in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v.<\/p>\n
Dattatraya Hegde<\/a> [2008(1) KLT 425 (SC)], the Apex Court has<\/p>\n
held that existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of<\/p>\n
presumption under Section 139 and it does not raise a<\/p>\n
presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. In the very<\/p>\n
same decision, the Apex Court has further held that the accused<\/p>\n
for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a<\/p>\n
statute need not examine himself but he may discharge burden<\/p>\n
on the basis of materials already brought on record. It is also<\/p>\n
held that furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt<\/p>\n
of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof<\/p>\n
so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is<\/p>\n
‘preponderance of probabilities’. In that juncture, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
has held that inference of preponderance of probabilities can be<\/p>\n
drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                                  :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he<\/p>\n
relies. This Court in a decision reported in Johnson Scaria v.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala<\/a> [2006(4) KLT 290] has held that admission of<\/p>\n
signature in a cheque goes a long way to prove due execution<\/p>\n
and possession of the cheque by the complainant similarly goes<\/p>\n
a long way to prove issue of the cheque. The burden rests on the<\/p>\n
complainant to prove execution and issue. It is also held in the<\/p>\n
same decision that under Section 114 of the Evidence Act,<\/p>\n
appropriate inferences and presumptions can be drawn in each<\/p>\n
case on the question of execution and issue of the cheque<\/p>\n
depending on the evidence available and explanations offered.<\/p>\n
In the present case, as held by the Apex Court in the decision<\/p>\n
cited supra, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the<\/p>\n
prior debt or financial liability. Apart from that, he has also failed<\/p>\n
to prove the execution and issue of cheque as held by this Court<\/p>\n
in the decision reported in Johnson Scaria’s case (cited supra).<\/p>\n
Thus, going by the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the<\/p>\n
trial court has considered all the relevant aspects and came into<\/p>\n
a judicial conclusion and there is no case that the trial court has<\/p>\n
overlooked or failed to consider any material or evidence on<\/p>\n
record. In the decision reported in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No.<\/a> 36 of 2009
\n                                   :-9-:\n<\/p>\n
[2008(4) KLT SN 17 (C.No.17) SC] , the Supreme Court laid<\/p>\n
down certain circumstances under which the appellate court can<\/p>\n
interfere with the order of acquittal. In the above decision, the<\/p>\n
Apex Court has categorically held that appellate court can<\/p>\n
interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons with an<\/p>\n
order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
              In the light of the above discussion, I find that there is<\/p>\n
no substantial and compelling reason to interfere with the order of<\/p>\n
acquittal and there is not even a remote scope to interfere with<\/p>\n
the order of acquittal even in case the appeal is entertained.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has miserably<\/p>\n
failed to make out a case to grant the relief sought for in this<\/p>\n
petition and therefore, special leave is denied.<\/p>\n
              In the result, the Crl.L.P. is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              V.K.Mohanan,
\n                                                  Judge
\nMBS\/<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                          :-10-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                           ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                   Crl.A.NO. OF 200<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                          ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                       J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Crl.L.P.No. 36 of 2009
\n                          :-11-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                DATED: -1-2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.L.P..No. 36 of 2009() 1. SHAJI MARNADIYAN, S\/O.N.KORAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. T.SUBRAHMANIAN, M.S.HAIR CUTTING CENTRE, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble […]<\/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-24741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 - 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\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-01T10:48:50+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T10:48:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2059,\"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\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T10:48:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 - 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\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-01T10:48:50+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T10:48:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009"},"wordCount":2059,"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\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009","name":"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T10:48:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-marnadiyan-vs-t-subrahmanian-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shaji Marnadiyan vs T.Subrahmanian on 6 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/24741","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=24741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}