{"id":48545,"date":"2009-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-07T21:13:21","modified_gmt":"2015-11-07T15:43:21","slug":"ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 24\/11\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.11582 of 2009\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2009\n\nGanapathy\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner.\n\nVersus\n\n1.The Branch Manager,\nState Bank of India,\nPalayamkottai,\nTirunelveli District.\n\n2.State Bank of India\nrepresented by its Regional Manager,\nTirunelveli,\nTirunelveli District.\n\n3.The Union of India,\nrepresented by its Secretary,\nMinistry of Finance,\nNew Delhi.\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents.\n\nPRAYER\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying\nfor a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the\nproceedings of the first respondent in their letter, dated 8.10.2009, and to\nquash the same and directing the first respondent to disburse the loan amount in\npursuant of the educational loan sanctioned for my son Ramanathan to pursue his\nB.E. Degree course in Noorul Islam College of Engineering, Thuckalay,\nKanyakumari District.\n\t\n!For Petitioner \t... Mr.V.Kannan\n^For Respondents \t... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar (R1 and R2)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified<br \/>\nMandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated<br \/>\n8.10.2009, and to direct the first respondent to disburse the educational loan<br \/>\nsanctioned in favour of the petitioner&#8217;s son. It has been stated that the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s son, Ramanathan, is pursuing his B.E., Aeronautical Engineering<br \/>\nDegree course in Noorul Islam College of Engineering, Thuckalay, in Kanyakumari<br \/>\nDistrict,<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The petitioner had approached the first respondent to avail an<br \/>\neducational loan, in favour of his son, to pursue his B.E.Degree course. All the<br \/>\nrequired documents had been enclosed, along with the application. The petitioner<br \/>\nhad requested for a loan of Rs.4,00,000\/-. After the verification of the<br \/>\ndocuments submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent had sanctioned the<br \/>\neducational loan and he had further instructed the petitioner to open a savings<br \/>\nbank account in the State Bank of India, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It has also been stated that the first respondent had sanctioned an<br \/>\namount of Rs.3,06,000\/- and credited a sum of Rs.59,100, in the savings bank<br \/>\naccount of the petitioner, on 21.9.2006, towards the first instalment of the<br \/>\nloan. The loan amount of RS.3,06,000\/- is repayable in 54 equated monthly<br \/>\ninstalments of Rs.5,280\/-, per instalment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It has been further stated that a further sum of Rs.8,000\/- and<br \/>\nRs.49,700\/-, on 5.1.2007 and 19.6.2007, respectively, had been granted by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, to pay the college fees and the hostel tution fees. The<br \/>\ninterest for the loan was being paid by the petitioner, regularly.  Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe petitioner had requested the first respondent, on 25.12.2007, to grant a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.10,000\/- to remit the hostel fees for the fourth semester, which was due<br \/>\nto be paid, on or before 10.1.2008. However, the respondent had evaded the grant<br \/>\nof the loan amount stating that the petitioner&#8217;s son had failed in some<br \/>\nsubjects, in the examinations conducted during the previous semester. The<br \/>\npetitioner has stated that his son has been a good student. However, since he<br \/>\nhad fallen ill he could not perform well in the examinations conducted during<br \/>\nthe previous semester. Medical certificates were also available to show that the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s son was unwell. The head of the department concerned and the<br \/>\nPrincipal of the College had also certified. With regard to the conduct,<br \/>\nattendance and the performance of the petitioner&#8217;s son. In such circumstances,<br \/>\nthe refusal of the first respondent to grant the amount of Rs.10,000\/-, being a<br \/>\npart of the sanctioned educational loan amount, to the petitioner, is arbitrary<br \/>\nand illegal. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition<br \/>\nbefore this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Relying on Clause V of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel Mr.K.M.Vijaya Kumar, appearing on behalf of the first and the<br \/>\nsecond respondents, had submitted that the performance of the student should be<br \/>\nsatisfactory and if the student fails in any one of the examinations conducted<br \/>\nby the institution, the Bank concerned would be at liberty to recall the loan<br \/>\namount. Clause V of the agreement reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The Student is expected to take up his studies seriously and shall work<br \/>\nhard and try his best to maintain a good academic record and shall intimate to<br \/>\nthe Bank the results of periodical tests\/examinations conducted by the<br \/>\ninstitution. The Student shall not participate in any unlawful activity which<br \/>\nwill debar him from prosecuting his   studies and shall follow all the rules and<br \/>\nregulations for the time in force and maintain such dignity and decorum as is<br \/>\nexpected of the student by the institution. If the performance of the student is<br \/>\nnot satisfactory or if he fails in any one of the examinations conducted by the<br \/>\ninstitution or if any adverse report in respect of the progress\/conduct of the<br \/>\nstudent comes to Bank&#8217;s knowledge, the Bank will be at liberty to recall the<br \/>\nloan amount and the Student and\/or the Guardian shall be liable to repay<br \/>\nimmediately the outstanding due together with interest and other costs.&#8221;<br \/>\nIn such circumstances, the first respondent had refused to pay the sum of<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/-, as requested by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties concerned<br \/>\nand on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the first respondent<br \/>\nhad sanctioned the educational loan of Rs.3,06,000\/-, in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s son, to pursue his B.E. Degree course in Aeronautical Engineering.<br \/>\nThough a substantial portion of the loan amount had been disbursed, the request<br \/>\nof the petitioner for the grant of Rs.10,000\/-, on 25.12.2007, for payment of<br \/>\nthe hostel fees, for the fourth semester of the course, had been refused by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent. The only reason stated in the impugned communication of the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, dated 8.10.2009, is that, since the petitioner&#8217;s son,<br \/>\nRamanathan, had failed in certain subjects during his engineering degree course,<br \/>\nthe loan amount could not be paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Even though it is seen from Clause V of the agreement signed by the<br \/>\npetitioner, while availing the educational loan, that if the performance of the<br \/>\nstudent is not satisfactory or if he fails in any one of the examinations<br \/>\nconducted by the institution, the Bank will be at liberty to recall the loan<br \/>\namount and the student and the guardian shall be liable to repay, immediately,<br \/>\nthe outstanding dues, together with interest and other costs, it may not be<br \/>\nappropriate for the first respondent to refuse to grant the sanctioned loan<br \/>\namount to the petitioner&#8217;s son to pursue his B.E. Degree course.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner&#8217;s son belongs to a poor family<br \/>\nand that he belongs to an underprivileged class of the society. As such, the<br \/>\nrefusal of the first respondent to grant a part of the educational loan, which<br \/>\nhad already been sanctioned by him, for the payment of hostel fees, cannot be<br \/>\nsaid to be proper or correct. Further, a reading of Clause V of the agreement<br \/>\nwould only show that if the performance of the petitioner is not satisfactory or<br \/>\nif he fails, in any one of the examinations conducted by the institution, the<br \/>\nBank will be at liberty to recall the loan amount. However, it is within the<br \/>\ndiscretion of the Bank concerned to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Even though it is for the concerned Bank to use its discretion to<br \/>\nrecall the loan amount, such discretion should be exercised taking into<br \/>\nconsideration, the various factors, including the economic and social conditions<br \/>\nof the student concerned. Further, the petitioner has stated that his son could<br \/>\nnot perform well, in certain examinations conducted by the College concerned,<br \/>\ndue to his illness and that sufficient evidence is available in support such a<br \/>\nclaim. Further, it has also been pointed out that both the head of the<br \/>\ndepartment and the Principal of the College have also certified in favour of the<br \/>\nstudent. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the first<br \/>\nrespondent is directed to grant the sum of Rs.10,000\/-, to the petitioner, as<br \/>\nprayed for by him, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a<br \/>\ncopy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>csh<\/p>\n<p>1.The Branch Manager,<br \/>\nState Bank of India,<br \/>\nPalayamkottai,<br \/>\nTirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.State Bank of India<br \/>\nrepresented by its Regional Manager,<br \/>\nTirunelveli,<br \/>\nTirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Union of India,<br \/>\nrepresented by its Secretary,<br \/>\nMinistry of Finance,<br \/>\nNew Delhi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24\/11\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.(MD)No.11582 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Ganapathy .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2.State Bank of India represented by its [&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-48545","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 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\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-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=\"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-07T15:43:21+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-07T15:43:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1289,\"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\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-07T15:43:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 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":"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 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\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-07T15:43:21+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-07T15:43:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009"},"wordCount":1289,"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\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009","name":"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-07T15:43:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-vs-the-branch-manager-on-24-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganapathy vs The Branch Manager on 24 November, 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\/48545","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=48545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}