{"id":247471,"date":"2009-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-11T01:08:56","modified_gmt":"2017-05-10T19:38:56","slug":"chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 06\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.799 of 2007\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007\n\t\nChidambaram\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\t \t\t\nChandra\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of\nIndia, to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order and\ndecreetal order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi passed in\nI.A.No.95 of 2006 in O.S.No.45 of 2002 dated 21.12.2006.\n\n!For Petitioner    : Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana\n^For Respondent    : Mr.K.Srinivasan\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThis Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant against<br \/>\nthe order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi in<br \/>\nI.A.No.95 of 2006 in O.S.No.45 of 2002 dated 21.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. The background facts need to be noted in brief are as follows:<br \/>\n\tThe respondent has filed the suit for specific performance of contract in<br \/>\nO.S.No.45 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi against the<br \/>\npetitioner\/1st defendant and his brothers who are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit<br \/>\non an agreement of sale dated 29.01.2001 and for arrears of rent.  The<br \/>\ndefendants inter alia contended that the said agreement of sale is only a<br \/>\nsecurity arrangement for the loan obtained by them from the respondent\/plaintiff<br \/>\nand denied the execution of rental agreement as well.  After settlement of<br \/>\nissues, the trial had commenced and the respondent&#8217;s husband by name<br \/>\nShanmughavel has filed the proof affidavit and the case has been posted for<br \/>\ncross examination of the plaintiff&#8217;s witness. At that stage the petitioner\/1st<br \/>\ndefendant has filed an application in I.A.No.95 of 2006 to amend the written<br \/>\nstatement filed by them and to include the earlier transaction between the<br \/>\ndefendant and the  plaintiff&#8217;s husband. The sum and substance of the amendment<br \/>\nsought for is given below.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3. That the respondent&#8217;s husband Shanmughavel had given a loan of<br \/>\nRs.1,00,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)  to the defendants and obtained a similar<br \/>\ndocument styled as agreement of sale and as the defendants were unable to pay<br \/>\nthe interest, he cancelled the said document and obtained a fresh sale agreement<br \/>\nand rental agreement in the name of his wife based on which the present suit is<br \/>\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t\t4. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that<br \/>\nthe same is filed belatedly and further no reason assigned in the application<br \/>\nfor amendment to the effect that in spite of due diligence the said matter could<br \/>\nnot be raised by the petitioner.  Incidentally, the trial Court has referred to<br \/>\nthe ex-parte decree passed against the defendants on two occasions and held that<br \/>\nthis application is filed only to delay the proceedings.  Aggrieved against the<br \/>\nsame, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner\/1st<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t\t5. Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted that the defence even in the original written statement was that the<br \/>\nagreement of sale was executed only as a security arrangement and it is not a<br \/>\ntransaction of agreement of sale. He would contend that in order to substantiate<br \/>\nthe said plea additional facts were sought to be incorporated  by way of<br \/>\namendment to show the modus operandi of the respondent\/plaintiff and her husband<br \/>\nwho has got the agreement of sale in the name of plaintiff&#8217;s husband and after<br \/>\ncancelling it, obtained a fresh sale agreement in the name of the plaintiff.  He<br \/>\nwould further contend that by allowing the amendment, the nature and character<br \/>\nof the defence does not change and rejection of the said amendment would only<br \/>\namount to denial of opportunity and violative of principle of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t\t6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the principle<br \/>\nenunciated by the Full Bench of this Court governing amendment of pleading<br \/>\nreported in  Hi Sheet Industries, a partnership firm, carrying on business at<br \/>\n61-D, D.V.Road, Ambur Town, Vellore District Vs. Litelon Ltd., having its office<br \/>\nat No.68, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosur, rep. by its Managing Partner,<br \/>\nS.Gokul and others (2006 (5) CTC 609). The Full Bench of this Court after<br \/>\nreferring to various decision in this regard has held thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Oldest Golden Case Law and Modern Case Law on interpretation of law<br \/>\nrelating to amendment states that amendments of pleadings can be allowed at any<br \/>\nstage of proceedings provided it is even such amendment is barred by time only<br \/>\nfactors to be taken consideration are: a) As to whether amendment should be<br \/>\nallowed or not; b)when it does not affect cause of action; c) it does not<br \/>\nintroduced new cause of action; d) it would not cause serious prejudice to<br \/>\nopposite party; and e) when such amendment is required prejudice to opposite &#8211;<br \/>\nplea that amendment is barred by limitation is also not ground for rejecting<br \/>\namendment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t\t7. In the same decision the Full Bench has emphazised that while<br \/>\nconsidering the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Court should not forget its<br \/>\nunfettered discretion to allow the amendment after applying the judicial<br \/>\ndiscretion provided that if there is no negligence on the part of the party<br \/>\nseeking amendment (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t\t8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of<br \/>\nthis Court to the decision reported in Usha Balashaheb Swami &amp; others Vs. Kiran<br \/>\nAppaso Swami &amp; others (2007 (5) SCC 602) in support of his contention that<br \/>\naddition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or<br \/>\ntaking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can be allowed as long as the<br \/>\namended pleading do not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable<br \/>\nprejudice to the plaintiff or disabling him completely.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t\t9. On the other hand, Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent contended that the defendants were not entitled to set up such<br \/>\nconflicting cases as the proposed amendment would change the very complexion of<br \/>\nthe defence.  He further contended that under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of<br \/>\nthe Civil Procedure Code as substituted in 2002, no application for amendment<br \/>\nshould be allowed after the commencement of the trial, unless the court comes to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not raise the<br \/>\nmatter earlier.  He would place reliance on the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt reported in the case of Ajendraprasadhi N. Pandey and another Vs. Swami<br \/>\nKeshavprakeshdasji N. and others (2006 (12) SCC 1), a passage has been extracted<br \/>\nhereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\tNo facts were pleaded nor were any grounds raised in the amendment<br \/>\napplication to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence<br \/>\nthose matters could not be raised by the appellants.  Under these circumstances,<br \/>\nthe case is covered by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, relief<br \/>\ndeserves to be denied.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">A mere averment in the amendment application that the same &#8220;could not be<br \/>\nsubmitted before the court in spite of utmost care taken by the defendant<br \/>\napplicants&#8221; does not satisfy the requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 without giving<br \/>\nthe particulars which would satisfy the requirement of law that the matters now<br \/>\nsought to be introduced by the amendment could not have been raised earlier in<br \/>\nspite of due diligence.  The trial is deemed to commence when the issues are<br \/>\nsettled and the case is set down for recording of evidence.  In the impugned<br \/>\norder the appellants have admitted that all the issues raised by way of proposed<br \/>\namendment in the written statement were taken before the Supreme Court in the<br \/>\nappeal from order filed by the present defendants in the civil appeal filed<br \/>\nbefore the Supreme Court and again in the special leave petition filed<br \/>\nsubsequently.  As rightly pointed out by respondent 2, any section should not be<br \/>\nso interpreted that part of it becomes otiose and meaningless and very often a<br \/>\nproviso itself is read as a substantive provision it has to be given full<br \/>\neffect.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t\t10. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court speaking<br \/>\nthrough Ray, C.J. in Modi Spg. &amp; Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. Ladha Ram &amp; Co.<br \/>\nopined: (SCC P.321, para 10) has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t&#8220;10.It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings  but the<br \/>\neffect of substitution of paras 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and<br \/>\nalternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely<br \/>\nfrom the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement.  If such<br \/>\namendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being<br \/>\ndenied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the<br \/>\ntrial Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t\t11. This Court in the case of D.Ramanujam Vs. R.Panneerselvam (2006<br \/>\n(3) LW 141) has held that when the trial has already commenced, the present<br \/>\namendment petition filed without giving any valid reason for not filing the<br \/>\namendment before the Commencement of the trial and even after the trial, the<br \/>\nCourt cannot allow the amendment petition unless the court is satisfied that<br \/>\ninspite of due diligence, the party cannot raise the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t\t12. In yet another decision reported in Kamatchi Ammal Vs.<br \/>\nLakshmanan (2006 (4) CTC 135), this Court has reiterated that if the amendment<br \/>\nsought by way of additional written statement would result in putting<br \/>\ninconsistent or alternative plea that would displace plaintiff&#8217;s case and cause<br \/>\nhim irretrievable prejudice cannot be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t\t13. In R.S.Nagarajan Vs. R.S.Gopalan and others (2007 (1) CTC 586),<br \/>\nthis Court has held that the defendant cannot introduce new case or mutually<br \/>\ndestructive pleas by way of additional written statement.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t\t14. In the present case, it is relevant to refer to certain facts<br \/>\nfor better appreciation. The suit has been posted for trial on 03.03.2004 and<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s husband has filed the proof affidavit on 04.03.2004 and since,<br \/>\nthe counsel for the defendants have reported no instructions, the suit has been<br \/>\ndecreed ex-parte.  Subsequently, the petitioners have filed an application in<br \/>\nI.A.No.34 of 2006 and the ex-parte decree has been set aside on 05.06.2006.  At<br \/>\nrequest by the defendants, the case has been posted to 17.07.2006 for cross<br \/>\nexamination of plaintiff&#8217;s witness and again on 18.07.2006, the defendants<br \/>\nfailed to appear and hence, an ex-parte decree has been passed for the second<br \/>\ntime.  Thereafter, an application has been filed by the defendants in I.A.No.86<br \/>\nof 2006 and the ex-parte decree has been set aside and the case had been posted<br \/>\nto various dates and finally on 18.10.2006.  On the said date, the petitioners<br \/>\nhave come forward with this application.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t\t15. When the trial has already commenced the present amendment<br \/>\npetition has been filed without giving any valid reason for not filing the<br \/>\namendment before the commencement of the trial.  In the affidavit filed in<br \/>\nsupport of the petition for amendment, it is merely stated that they have<br \/>\nomitted to mention the said details by inadvertence and it is not wilful or<br \/>\nwanton.  The various dates of hearing with reference to the proceedings taken<br \/>\nbefore the Court which has been elaborately spelt out by the trial Court would<br \/>\nshow that they were lacking in bonafides in filing the said amendment petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t\t16. After the commencement of trial, the Court cannot allow the<br \/>\namendment petition unless the Court is satisfied that inspite of the due<br \/>\ndiligence the parties could not raise the matter.  No facts are pleaded nor are<br \/>\nany grounds raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that<br \/>\ndespite exercise of due diligence those matter could not be raised by the<br \/>\npetitioners.  It is apparent that the said matters were well within their<br \/>\nknowledge and the amendment sought at the belated stage that too when the trial<br \/>\nhas commenced and prior to that, the suit has been allowed to be decreed ex-<br \/>\nparte twice, certainly the grant of amendment would cause serious prejudice to<br \/>\nthe contesting respondent\/plaintiff and hence, it is in the interest of justice<br \/>\nthat the amendment sought for has to be denied.  In this case, the trial Court<br \/>\nhas correctly applied the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and had come to a<br \/>\ncorrect conclusion that the defendants have not stated any reason in the<br \/>\namendment petition for belated filing.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t\t17. In the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there<br \/>\nis no error or infirmity in the order of the lower Court.  Also, there is no<br \/>\nimproper exercise of discretion in dismissal of the amendment petition and<br \/>\nhence, the order does not require interference.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t\t18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  There shall be no<br \/>\norders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">SRCM<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nTenkasi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.799 of 2007 M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 Chidambaram &#8230; Petitioner Vs Chandra &#8230; Respondent Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-10T19:38:56+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\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T19:38:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1995,\"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\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T19:38:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 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":"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-10T19:38:56+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\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T19:38:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009"},"wordCount":1995,"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\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009","name":"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T19:38:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambaram-vs-chandra-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chidambaram vs Chandra on 6 October, 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\/247471","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=247471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}