{"id":250573,"date":"2009-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-01T11:07:54","modified_gmt":"2017-12-01T05:37:54","slug":"saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 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: 01\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP.No.2340 of 2008\nMP.Nos.1\/2009 and 2\/2008\n\nSaminathan\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioner\/Respondent\/Defendant\n\nVs\n\n1.The Manager, State Bank of India\n  Chinnadharapuram, Aravakuruchi Taluk\n  Karur District\t\t\t\t\t     \t1st respondent\/petitioner\/plaintiff\n\n2.Gopalakrishnan\t\t\t\t\t\t2nd Respondent\/3rd party\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the decree and order\ndated 29.10.2008 in EP.No.6\/2006 in OS.No.677\/1998 passed by the learned\nDistrict Munsif, Karur.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...\tMr.Balaji Srinivasan\n^For Respondent\t...\tMr.Sethuraman - R1\n\t\t\tMr.M.Vallinayagam - R2\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> \t\tThis Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendant to set aside<br \/>\nthe order dated 29.10.2008 in EP.No.6\/2006 in OS.No.677\/1998 passed by the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif, Karur, confirming the sale and issuance of sale<br \/>\ncertificate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\t2.  The back ground facts need to be noted in brief are as follows:-<br \/>\n\t\tThe above said suit was filed by the 1st Respondent Bank\/ Plaintiff<br \/>\nfor recovery of money and the suit was decreed exparte.  In the proceedings for<br \/>\nexecution of the decree in EP.No.6\/2006, the 2nd Respondent purchased the<br \/>\nPetitioner\/judgement debtor&#8217;s property for a sum of Rs.45700\/- and the sale was<br \/>\nconfirmed on 29.10.2008. As against the confirmation of sale, the<br \/>\nPetitioner\/Judgement debtor has filed this Civil Revision Petition contending<br \/>\nthat the executing court ought not to have proceeded with the sale of entire six<br \/>\nitems of the properties and it is obligatory on the part of the executing court<br \/>\nto bring only such portion as would satisfy the decree at the first instance.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t\t3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that it is<br \/>\nthe bounden duty of the court to first decide as to whether it is necessary to<br \/>\nbring the entire properties  to sale or such portion thereof as may deem<br \/>\nnecessary to satisfy the decree and would vehemently contend that the sale of<br \/>\nthe property of the Petitioner conducted by the executing court is clearly<br \/>\nillegal and placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court<br \/>\nrendered in the cases of Lal Chand Vs. VIII Additional District Judge and others<br \/>\n[1997-4-SCC-356], Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi Vs. Pujari Padmavathamma [1977-3-<br \/>\nSCC-337] and L.Balu Vs. Periasami and others [AIR-1988-Madras-114].\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t\t4.  Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent would<br \/>\nsubmit that  when there is no collusion between the parties or suppression of<br \/>\nfacts and the judgement debtor has also not raised any objection regarding the<br \/>\nupset price fixed by the court, the court auction sale cannot be set aside on<br \/>\nthe ground of any irregularity in conducting the sale.  In support of the said<br \/>\ncontention, the decision of this court rendered in the case of  Marimuthammal<br \/>\nand others Vs. Vaithi and others [2007-4-MLJ-796] was relied on by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the 1st Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t\t5.  The learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of<br \/>\nthis court to the deposit of the decree amount made by him pursuant to the order<br \/>\nof this court granting interim stay in this Civil Revision Petition in<br \/>\nMP.NO.2\/2008 and pleaded that notwithstanding confirmation of sale, due to<br \/>\npendency of this Civil Revision Petition and stay granted, the sale in favour of<br \/>\nthe auction purchaser has not become absolute and hence appropriate relief could<br \/>\nbe granted to the Petitioner\/judgement debtor.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t\t6.  It is one of the contentions of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nPetitioner that there was no notice of sale to the judgement debtor and behind<br \/>\nhis back the sale was conducted at throw away price and therefore, the sale is<br \/>\nnot valid.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t\t7.  It is pertinent to refer to certain facts for better<br \/>\nappreciation. The decree dated 2.11.1998 had become final as no appeal was filed<br \/>\nby the judgement debtor. On 25.1.2000, EP.NO.73\/1999 for arrest had been filed,<br \/>\nbut the same was dismissed since the judgement debtor was not found for arrest.<br \/>\nAnother EP in EP.No.137\/2001 for arrest of the judgement debtor was also<br \/>\ndismissed for the same reason.  Thereafter, EP.NO.166\/2003 had been filed for<br \/>\nattachment and sale and the properties had been attached on 23.12.2003.  On<br \/>\n20.4.2004, EP.NO.166\/2003 had been closed with a direction to continue the<br \/>\nattachment for two months.  Thereafter, EP.NO.6\/2006 had been filed within two<br \/>\nmonths from the closure of previous EP and sale notice has been ordered to the<br \/>\njudgement order by 10.2.2006 and notice has been served on the judgement debtor<br \/>\non 21.2.2006 through court and post. He had been set exparte on 21.2.2006 and<br \/>\nupset price has been fixed on 22.9.2006. As there was no bidder and the upset<br \/>\nprice was also very high, at the instance of the decree holder in EA.NO.18\/2007<br \/>\nupset price had been reduced.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t\t8.  As there was no bidder in the auction held on 16.6.2007, again<br \/>\non the application filed by the decree holder in EA.NO.172\/2007, upset price has<br \/>\nbeen further reduced. ON the above two occasions, notice has been served on the<br \/>\njudgement debtor before allowing those applications.  Again the property has<br \/>\nbeen brought to sale on 31.10.2007 which necessitated for further reduction of<br \/>\nupset price at the instance of the decree holder in EP.No.81\/2008. Even then the<br \/>\njudgement debtor failed to appear in spite of notice.  The properties were<br \/>\nbrought to sale on 18.6.2008. As no one came forward to bid in the court auction<br \/>\non the memo filed by the decree holder the property was brought to sale on<br \/>\n27.8.2008 on the same upset price on 27.8.2008 in which one Gopalakrishnan, the<br \/>\n2nd Respondent had purchased the property for Rs.45700\/- and the sale has been<br \/>\nconfirmed since no petition either under Order 21 Rule 89 or 90 was filed and<br \/>\nthe entire sale amount was deposited in time.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t\t9.  It may be mentioned here that notice has been served on the<br \/>\njudgement debtor on every occasion and in spite of it, he has not availed the<br \/>\nrelevant provisions for seeking to set aside the sale either under Rule 89 or 90<br \/>\nof Order 21 of CPC.  At this juncture, it is relevant to point out to the<br \/>\nobservations made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vummethala<br \/>\nSomamma Vs. Thameeru Balanagamma [AIR-2003-AP-45] in similar set of facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, which read thus:-<br \/>\n&#8220;5. It is obvious that, if this revision petition is entertained for any reason<br \/>\nand the impugned docket order is set aside, it would tantamount to setting aside<br \/>\nthe sale itself.  That apart, it is now represented that the sale has been<br \/>\nsubsequently confirmed by the executing court.  A fortiori when the sale has<br \/>\nbeen confirmed, it cannot be sought to be set aside by filing a revision as<br \/>\nagainst the impugned order, where under the sale has been knocked down in favour<br \/>\nof the decree holder, he being the highest bidder.  It is always open to the<br \/>\njudgement debtor or the third party auction purchaser to seek to set aside the<br \/>\nsale under the relevant provisions as discussed herein above of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code.  When the Petitioner failed to avail such remedies available<br \/>\neither under Rule 89 or Rule 90 of Order 21 of CPC the Petitioner cannot be<br \/>\npermitted to circumvent the said provisions by filing this revision to<br \/>\nindirectly achieve the object.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">6. Yet another aspect to be considered in this regard is the point of<br \/>\nlimitation.  Under <a href=\"\/doc\/1688766\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 127<\/a> of the <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_1\">Limitation Act<\/a>, time is prescribed for<br \/>\nfiling the application seeking to set aside the sale.  Obviously that time has<br \/>\nbeen elapsed by now.  What is not available having been barred by limitation,<br \/>\ncannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly, as it would tantamount to<br \/>\ncircumventing the specific provisions incorporated in the statute in regard<br \/>\nthereto.  Therefore, it is a clear case where the judgement debtor having not<br \/>\navailed the remedies available either under Rule 89 or 90 of Order 21 of CPC<br \/>\ncannot now be permitted to achieve the same by maintaining this revision<br \/>\npetition indirectly to set aside the sale. In my considered view, therefore, the<br \/>\npresent revision petition is misconceived and is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">7. Another aspect to be considered is the absolute prohibition incorporated in<br \/>\nsub rule (3) of Rule 92 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.  This prohibits<br \/>\nany other remedy when once the sale is confirmed.  In any view of the matter,<br \/>\nthe present revision petition cannot be maintained.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t\t10. From the above said decision, it is clear that when the<br \/>\nexecuting court was not asked to act under Order 21 Rule 64 of CPC by exercising<br \/>\nits discretion to sell only part of the property attached, it is not open to the<br \/>\nPetitioner\/judgement debtor to raise that point in this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t\t11. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in<br \/>\nthe case of Balakrishnan Vs. Malayandi Konar [2006-3-SCC-49] the Honourable<br \/>\nSupreme Court referring to Order 21 Rule 64 of CPC has held that the expression<br \/>\nin Order 21 Rule 64 that &#8220;such portion thereof as may deem necessary to satisfy<br \/>\nthe decree&#8221; indicates the legislative intent that no sale can be allowed beyond<br \/>\nthe decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation.  The sale without<br \/>\nexamining the said aspect and not in conformity with this mandatory requirement<br \/>\nwould be illegal and without jurisdiction.  But however it was observed that<br \/>\nwhen the question regarding the legality of the sale had attained finality<br \/>\nbecause of the confirmation of sale, no interference could be called for.  The<br \/>\nrelevant observation is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">&#8220;Therefore, on the back ground facts noted by the High Court, the auction sale<br \/>\ndid not meet the requirements of law.  But, at the same time it appears that the<br \/>\nquestion regarding the legality of the sale had attained finality because of the<br \/>\nconfirmation of sale on 22.8.1983.  Though it is contended by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the Respondent that the order dated 10.9.1987 passed by the High<br \/>\nCourt rejecting CRP.No.3963\/1983 filed by the judgement debtor seeking relief<br \/>\nwas relatable to the Debt Relief Act, that did not have the effect of reviving<br \/>\nthe question relating to violation of Order 21 Rule 64 of the Code.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t\t12. In the instant case, the judgement debtor having kept quiet<br \/>\nwithout availing any of the provisions in spite of the notice served on him and<br \/>\nallowing the sale to be confirmed, it cannot be set aside contending that Order<br \/>\n21 Rule 64 of CPC is violated. When the Petitioner has failed to avail such<br \/>\nremedies available either under Rule 89 or 90 of Order 21 of CPC, the Petitioner<br \/>\ncannot be permitted to circumvent the said provisions by filing  this revision<br \/>\nto indirectly achieve the object.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t\t13.  For the reasons aforesaid, this Civil Revision Petition is<br \/>\ndismissed. No costs.  Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\tThe  District Munsif, Karur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP.No.2340 of 2008 MP.Nos.1\/2009 and 2\/2008 Saminathan Petitioner\/Respondent\/Defendant Vs 1.The Manager, State Bank of India Chinnadharapuram, Aravakuruchi Taluk Karur District 1st respondent\/petitioner\/plaintiff 2.Gopalakrishnan 2nd Respondent\/3rd party Prayer This [&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-250573","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>Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 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\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-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=\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T05:37:54+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T05:37:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1672,\"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\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T05:37:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 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":"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 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\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-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":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-01T05:37:54+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T05:37:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009"},"wordCount":1672,"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\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009","name":"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T05:37:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saminathan-vs-the-manager-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saminathan vs The Manager on 1 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\/250573","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=250573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}