{"id":25000,"date":"2007-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-29T20:16:09","modified_gmt":"2014-06-29T14:46:09","slug":"ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                            \n                    DATED : 05.12.2007\n                            \n                          CORAM\n                            \n       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN\n                            \n            \t  W.P. No.2431 of 2007 \n\t\t          AND \n\t\t    M.P. No.1 of 2007\n                            \n\n\n\nM\/s.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company\nRepresented by its Managing partner Mr.K.Iqbal Ahmed\nVellore 632 004.                        \t\t..Petitioner\n\n\n          Vs\n\n                            \n1.\tIndian Bank\n  \tRepresented  by its Authorised Officer\n  \tTKM Complex\n\tKatpadi Road\n  \tVellore 632 004.\n\n2.\tThe Branch Manager,\n  \tIndian Banck\n\tVellore Main Road\n  \tKatpadi Road\n  \tVellore 632 004.                    \t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n     Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof  India  praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus,\ncalling  for  the  records  on  the  file  of  the  First\nrespondent   relating  to  the  impugned   notice   dated\n16.12.2006  bearing  Ref.No.Nil and quash  the  same  and\nconsequently  forbear  the  respondents  from  initiating\nfurther action under SARFAESI Act.\n\n\n\n\n     For Petitioner :    Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy\n                         for M\/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan\n\n     For Respondents:    Mr.Kalyanaraman for\n                         M\/s.Aiyar and Dolia\n\n\n\n                          ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Contending that the first respondent has  issued  a<\/p>\n
fresh  notice  under section 13[2] of the  SARFAESI  Act,<\/p>\n
when  proceedings are pending before the  Debts  Recovery<\/p>\n
Tribunal  in respect of the earlier notice under  section<\/p>\n
13[2],  the petitioner has come up with the present  writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.Heard  Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned  counsel<\/p>\n
for  the petitioner and Mr.Kalyanaraman,  learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.Admittedly,  a  notice under  section  13[2]  was<\/p>\n
issued  on  21.10.2002 and a possession notice  was  also<\/p>\n
issued under section 13[4] on 01.07.2004.  As against the<\/p>\n
said   possession  notice,  the  petitioner  has  already<\/p>\n
approached  the  Debts Recovery Tribunal  by  way  of  an<\/p>\n
appeal   under  section  17  of  the  SARFAESI  Act.    A<\/p>\n
conditional  order of stay is stated to have been  passed<\/p>\n
in  the  said  appeal and the petitioner claims  to  have<\/p>\n
complied  with  the  conditional order.   The  appeal  is<\/p>\n
pending  consideration still before  the  Debts  Recovery<\/p>\n
Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.At this stage, the first respondent has issued  a<\/p>\n
second  notice  under  section  13[2].   Therefore,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  has  come up with the present  writ  petition<\/p>\n
challenging the notice under section 13[2] on  the  short<\/p>\n
ground that the first respondent is not entitled to  keep<\/p>\n
on   issuing  notices  under  section  13[2]  repeatedly,<\/p>\n
especially  when the previous notice under section  13[2]<\/p>\n
and  the possession notice under section 13[4] are  under<\/p>\n
challenge  in a regularly filed appeal before  the  Debts<\/p>\n
Recovery Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     5.I have carefully considered the submissions of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.The  first notice under section 13[2]  issued  on<\/p>\n
21.10.2002,  contained  two  schedules,  with  Schedule-1<\/p>\n
containing  the  description  of  8  items  of  immovable<\/p>\n
properties   and  Schedule-2  containing  the   list   of<\/p>\n
hypothecated movable properties.  When possession  notice<\/p>\n
under  section 13[4] was issued on 01.07.2004,  the  said<\/p>\n
possession notice contained only the description of  four<\/p>\n
immovable properties leaving out the remaining  four  out<\/p>\n
the  total of 8 items of immovable properties covered  by<\/p>\n
the  notice  under section 13[2].  As against  possession<\/p>\n
notice  dated 01.07.2004, covering only four  properties,<\/p>\n
the petitioner has already gone before the Debts Recovery<\/p>\n
Tribunal and obtained a conditional order not to  proceed<\/p>\n
with   the   auction   sale  of  those   properties,   in<\/p>\n
S.A.No.20\/2004  dated  13.12.2004 [later  re-numbered  as<\/p>\n
S.A.No.15\/2007 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-<\/p>\n
III, Chennai].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.When  the  appeal is still pending  consideration<\/p>\n
before  the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the first respondent<\/p>\n
has issued the notice impugned in the writ petition under<\/p>\n
section  13[2],  dated  16.12.2006  in  respect  of   the<\/p>\n
remaining  four properties which were left out under  the<\/p>\n
possession notice dated 01.07.2004.<\/p>\n
      8.Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned  counsel  for<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  contended  that  section  13[2]  of  the<\/p>\n
SARFAESI  Act  speaks only about ‘notice’ and  not  about<\/p>\n
‘notices’ and that therefore, it is not open to the first<\/p>\n
respondent to keep on issuing notices under section 13[2]<\/p>\n
in a piecemeal manner.  Section 13[2] reads as follows:<\/p>\n
        “13[2]:Where any borrower, who is under a
\n        liability to a secured creditor  under  a
\n        security agreement, makes any default  in
\n        repayment   of  secured   debt   or   any
\n        instalment  thereof, and his  account  in
\n        respect of such debt is classified by the
\n        secured creditor as non-performing asset,
\n        then,  the  secured creditor may  require
\n        the  borrower  by notice  in  writing  to
\n        discharge in full his liabilities to  the
\n        secured  creditor within sixty days  from
\n        the  date  of  notice failing  which  the
\n        secured  creditor shall  be  entitled  to
\n        exercise  all or any of the rights  under
\n        sub-section [4].”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
       9.According  to  the  learned  counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  when the plain language used in the  section<\/p>\n
refers only to “notice in writing”, there is no scope for<\/p>\n
enlarging the same to mean “notices in writing”.<\/p>\n
      10.However,  I  am unable to countenance  the  said<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner  for<\/p>\n
the simple reason that under section 13[2] of the General<\/p>\n
Clauses  Act,  1897,  the words  in  the  Singular  would<\/p>\n
include the plural and vice-cersa in all Central Acts and<\/p>\n
Regulations.  Section 13 of the General Clauses Act reads<\/p>\n
as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “13.GENDER  AND NUMBER:-In  all  [Central
\n        Acts]  and Regulations, unless  there  is
\n        anything  repugnant  in  the  subject  or
\n        context,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              [1]words  importing  the  masculine
\n        gender shall be taken to include females;
\n        and<\/p>\n
               [2]words  in  the  singular  shall
\n        include the plural and vice versa.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.Therefore, unless there is anything repugnant in<\/p>\n
the  subject  or context, words in singular would  always<\/p>\n
include plural.  I do not find anything repugnant  either<\/p>\n
in  section 13 or in any other section of SARFAESI Act to<\/p>\n
exclude   the  plural,  when  section  13[2]  refers   to<\/p>\n
“notice”.   Therefore, there is no embargo for the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  to issue a fresh notice under section  13[2],<\/p>\n
in  respect of properties, which were not covered by  the<\/p>\n
earlier  possession  notice  under  section  13[4]  dated<\/p>\n
01.07.2004.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.Learned  counsel for the petitioner relied  upon<\/p>\n
the  decision  of  the Hon’ble Apex Court  in  NEWSPAPERS<\/p>\n
LIMITED V. STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL<\/a> reported in AIR 1957<\/p>\n
SC  532, for the preposition that the provisions  of  the<\/p>\n
General  Clauses  Act,  cannot always  be  imported  into<\/p>\n
provisions of all the Acts.  But, the said decision is of<\/p>\n
no  assistance  to the petitioner for the  simple  reason<\/p>\n
that,  that  decision  arose out  of  the  U.P.Industrial<\/p>\n
Disputes Act,1947.  Under the said Act, unless a group of<\/p>\n
workmen  joined together and raised a dispute,  it  would<\/p>\n
not  come  within the definition of the term  “industrial<\/p>\n
dispute”.   At  the time when the aforesaid decision  was<\/p>\n
rendered,   the  U.P.Industrial  Disputes  Act   had   no<\/p>\n
provision  to  enable  individual  workman  to  raise  an<\/p>\n
industrial   dispute.    Hence,   the   word   “workmen”,<\/p>\n
indicating  the  plural,  was held  not  to  include  the<\/p>\n
singular,  since such an interpretation on the  basis  of<\/p>\n
section  13[2] of the General Clauses Act was beyond  the<\/p>\n
object  and scope of U.P.I.D. Act, 1947 at that point  of<\/p>\n
time.   In  other words there was something repugnant  to<\/p>\n
the  context in the U.P. Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947,<\/p>\n
for  invoking  the  provisions of section  13[2]  of  the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.But,  insofar as the SARFAESI Act is  concerned,<\/p>\n
the  scope of the Act, does not prohibit the issue of any<\/p>\n
number  of  notices under section 13[2].  Therefore,  the<\/p>\n
application  of the provisions of section  13[2]  of  the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act to the word “notice” found in section<\/p>\n
13[2] of the SARFAESI Act, is justified.<\/p>\n
       14.Moreover,  the  original  notice  issued  under<\/p>\n
section  13[2] dated 21.10.2002, covered eight  items  of<\/p>\n
immovable properties. The possession notice issued  under<\/p>\n
section  13[4]  on 01.07.2004 covered only  four  out  of<\/p>\n
eight items of properties. There is no embargo under  any<\/p>\n
of the sub-sections of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act for<\/p>\n
the   first  respondent  even  now  to  merely  issue   a<\/p>\n
possession notice under section 13[4], in respect of  the<\/p>\n
four  items  of  properties not covered  by  the  earlier<\/p>\n
notice  under section 13[4] dated 01.07.2004.   If  there<\/p>\n
can  be  no  embargo for the issue of a fresh  possession<\/p>\n
notice,  under section 13[4] in respect of the  left  out<\/p>\n
properties, there cannot be any embargo for the issue  of<\/p>\n
a  fresh notice under section 13[2].  Therefore, even  on<\/p>\n
this ground the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     15.In any event, a writ petition as against a notice<\/p>\n
under  section 13[2] is not maintainable.  It  is  always<\/p>\n
open  to  the petitioner to give a reply and it  is  only<\/p>\n
when  the  first  respondent issues a  possession  notice<\/p>\n
under  section 13[4] that the petitioner is  entitled  to<\/p>\n
approach  the Debts Recovery Tribunal under  section  17.<\/p>\n
In  this case, the petitioner has already filed an appeal<\/p>\n
in  S.A.No.15  of 2007 on the file of the Debts  Recovery<\/p>\n
Tribunal-III,  Chennai.   Therefore,  if   and   when   a<\/p>\n
possession  notice  is  issued under  section  13[4],  in<\/p>\n
pursuance of the notice impugned in ths writ petition, it<\/p>\n
is always open to the petitioner either to seek relief in<\/p>\n
the  appeal  already  pending before the  Debts  Recovery<\/p>\n
Tribunal or to file a separate appeal as against the said<\/p>\n
order.   In  other  words,  the  remedies,  open  to  the<\/p>\n
petitioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,  are<\/p>\n
not lost to him since that stage has not even come.<\/p>\n
      16.Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner  to<\/p>\n
challenge  any possession notice, as and when  issued  by<\/p>\n
the first respondent under section 13[4] in pursuance  of<\/p>\n
the impugned notice, either in the same appeal pending on<\/p>\n
the  file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or by way  of  a<\/p>\n
separate  appeal,  this writ petition is  dismissed.   No<\/p>\n
costs.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is<\/p>\n
also dismissed,<\/p>\n
ap<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Authorised Officer
\n  \tIndian Bank
\n\tTKM Complex
\n\tKatpadi Road
\n  \tVellore 632 004.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Branch Manager
\n  \tIndian Banck
\n\tVellore Main Road
\n  \tKatpadi Road
\n\tVellore 632 004.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.12.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P. No.2431 of 2007 AND M.P. No.1 of 2007 M\/s.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company Represented by its Managing partner Mr.K.Iqbal Ahmed Vellore 632 004. […]<\/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-25000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-29T14:46:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T14:46:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1399,\"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\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-29T14:46:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-29T14:46:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T14:46:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007"},"wordCount":1399,"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\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007","name":"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-29T14:46:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-abdul-azeez-sons-company-vs-indian-bank-on-5-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Abdul Azeez Sons & Company vs Indian Bank on 5 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25000","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=25000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}