{"id":53066,"date":"2003-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003"},"modified":"2018-10-28T14:41:10","modified_gmt":"2018-10-28T09:11:10","slug":"sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 25\/04\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nCIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) No.3665 of 2001\nand\nC.M.P.No.19550 of 2001\n\n1. Sree Madura Enterprises,\n   Rep. by its Partner S.Murthy\n\n2. V.R. Subbaraya Gounder &amp; Sons\n   Rep. by its Partner S.Sadasivam              ..Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. C. Thangavel\n\n2. S.K.Samy &amp; Sons Ware House,\n   Rep. by its Partner K.Duraisamy              ..Respondents\n\n\n        Civil Revision Petition against the  fair  and  decretal  order  dated\n6.11.2001  made in I.A.No.895 of 2001 in O.S.No.188 of 2001 on the file of the\nI Additional Subordiante Judge's Court, Erode.\n\n\n!For Petitioners :  Mr.  R.  Sekar for\n                M\/s.Sarvabauman Associates.\n\n^For Respondent-1 :  Mr.A.K.  Kumarasamy\n\nFor Respondent-2 :  Mr.  V.K.  Muthusamy, S.C.for\n                Mr.B.  Parthasarathy\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Sree Madura Enterprises  and  V.R.    Subbaraya  Gounder  &amp;  Son,  the<br \/>\npetitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      C.   Thangavel,  the  first  respondent  herein  filed  a suit<br \/>\nagainst S.K.Samy &amp; Sons Warehouse, the second respondent\/first  defendant  and<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  as defendants 2 and 3 for mandatory injunction directing the<br \/>\nfirst respondent to deliver the goods deposited by the defendants 2 and 3, the<br \/>\npetitioners herein to them under deposit receipts under which they  have  been<br \/>\nauthorised  by  the  petitioners  to  receive  the  said  goods from the first<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   Pending  the  suit,  the  petitioners  filed  an  application  in<br \/>\nI.A.No.924 of  2001 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.  requesting the Court to hold<br \/>\nthat the suit is not maintainable, since the valuation  of  the  suit  is  not<br \/>\ncorrect,  inasmuch as the worth of the suit goods is about Rs.23 ,12,100\/- and<br \/>\npraying to decide the  value  of  the  suit  and  the  Court  fee  paid  as  a<br \/>\npreliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   While  that  being  so,  C.Thangavel,  the  plaintiff,  the first<br \/>\nrespondent filed an application in I.A.No.895 of 2001 to appoint  an  Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner  to  sell  the  goods  deposited  with the first defendant by the<br \/>\ndefendants 2 and 3 on the ground that the goods are perishable in nature.  The<br \/>\nsaid application was opposed by  the  defendants  2  and  3,  the  petitioners<br \/>\nherein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  After enquiry in both these petitions, the trial Court allowed the<br \/>\napplication  in  I.A.No.924  of  2001  and  decided  to  take  the question of<br \/>\nmaintainability of the suit and value of the  suit  as  a  preliminary  issue.<br \/>\nAfter deciding so, the trial Court on the same date, ie.  on 6.11.2001 allowed<br \/>\nthe  application in I.A.No.895 of 2001 filed by the first respondent\/plaintiff<br \/>\npermitting the goods to  be  sold  by  appointing  Advocate  Commissioner  and<br \/>\ndirecting  him to sell the goods in public auction and to deposit the value of<br \/>\nthe goods in the Court.  The defendants 2 and 3  challenging  the  said  order<br \/>\nhave filed this civil revision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   According  to the petitioners, the suit filed by C.Thangavel, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent herein is in pursuance of the collusive act  with  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant  M\/s.S.K.Samy  &amp;  Sons Warehouse to whom the goods were entrusted by<br \/>\nthe petitioners and having failed in the  efforts  of  M\/  s.S.K.Samy  &amp;  Sons<br \/>\nWarehouse  in  illegally disposing of the goods had set up C.Thangavel to file<br \/>\nthe suit for mandatory injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It is further contended that when the jurisdiction was  questioned<br \/>\nand  payment  of  Court  fee  was  challenged  in the application filed by the<br \/>\npetitioners in I.A.No.924 of 2001, the trial Court, having  decided  that  the<br \/>\nsaid  question  of  maintainability  and  jurisdiction  must  be  decided as a<br \/>\npreliminary issue before proceeding further, ought not to have allowed to sell<br \/>\nthe goods in question in  public  auction  which  was  done  by  the  Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner  hurriedly  without  following the procedure in spite of the fact<br \/>\nthat the petitioners requested the trial  Court  not  to  allow  the  Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner  to  proceed  further  in  view  of  the  fact that they had made<br \/>\narrangements to file a revision against that order before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The said contention is opposed by the counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent as well as the second respondent contending that in pursuance<br \/>\nof  the  order  passed by the trial Court dated 6.11.2001, tenders were called<br \/>\nfor and the Advocate Commissioner sold the goods to the highest bidder and the<br \/>\nsale proceeds were deposited in the Court on 20.11.2001 itself  and  as  such,<br \/>\nthis revision becomes infructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   I have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully considered<br \/>\ntheir submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  On a perusal of the records and  the  entire  typed  set  and  on<br \/>\nconsideration  of  the  history  of  the  case which is a chequered one, it is<br \/>\nobvious that the order impugned suffers from various infirmities.  It is  also<br \/>\nnoticed  that the trial Court has unduly directed the Advocate Commissioner to<br \/>\nproceed with the sale of the goods in a hasty manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  The brief history of the case would be relevant in order to point<br \/>\nout the invalidity of the order impugned:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The petitioners\/defendants 2 and 3 deposited the suit goods,  namely,<br \/>\n4048 bags  of  Bengal  gram  weighing  100  kg.  each, 2695 bags of gram dhall<br \/>\nweighing 100 kg.  each, 1351 bags of gram dhall weighing 50 kg.    each,  3239<br \/>\nbags of  Bengal  gram  weighing 100 kg.  each, 738 bags of gram dhall weighing<br \/>\n100 kg.  each and 2445 bags of gram dhall weighing 50 kg.  each with  S.K.Samy<br \/>\n&amp;  Sons  Warehouse,  the  first  defendant, the second respondent herein under<br \/>\nExs.A1 to A8 deposit receipts.  The petitioners demanded the said Warehouse to<br \/>\nreturn the goods on receipt of warehouse charges.  However,  S.K.Samy  &amp;  Sons<br \/>\nWarehouse, the  second  respondent  herein  did  not  oblige.   Therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioners gave  a  police  complaint  against  the  Warehouse.    When   the<br \/>\ninvestigation  was  on, S.K.Samy &amp; Sons Warehouse filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of<br \/>\n2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode  against  the  police<br \/>\nofficials and  the  petitioners  for  injunction.  Though the petitioners were<br \/>\nimpleaded as defendants in that suit, the second respondent\/  Warehouse  filed<br \/>\nan application  for exonerating the petitioners in that suit.  The petitioners<br \/>\nfiled an application  thereafter  to  implead  them,  but  it  was  dismissed.<br \/>\nTherefore, they  filed  a  revision  in  C.R.P.No.   296 0 of 2001 before this<br \/>\nCourt.  At that point of time,  the  second  respondent\/Warehouse  collusively<br \/>\nfiled  the  present  suit  in O.S.No.188 of 2 001 through Thangavel, the first<br \/>\nrespondent for mandatory injunction to deliver the goods  entrusted  with  the<br \/>\nWarehouse  by  the  petitioners  as if he was authorised by the petitioners to<br \/>\nreceive the goods from the Warehouse.  Though the value of the suit go ods  is<br \/>\nRs.20,12,100\/-,  the suit was undervalued as if the value is only Rs.30,100\/-.<br \/>\nTherefore, the petitioners filed an  application  in  I.A.No.924  of  2001  to<br \/>\ndecide   the  value  of  the  suit  and  the  maintainablity  with  regard  to<br \/>\njurisdiction as a preliminary issue.  Thangavel, the first  respondent  herein<br \/>\nfiled an application in I.A.No.895 of 2001 seeking for direction to appoint an<br \/>\nAdvocate Commissioner to sell the goods as they are perishable in nature.  The<br \/>\ntrial  Court,  as  indicated  above,  allowed  the  application  filed  by the<br \/>\npetitioners holding that the jurisdictional issue can be decided  first  as  a<br \/>\npreliminary issue before proceeding further.  At the same time, it allowed the<br \/>\napplication  filed  by  the  first respondent as well in I.A.No.895 of 2001 to<br \/>\nsell the goods through the Advocate Commissioner.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  On the face of it, the order of the trial Court which is  in  the<br \/>\nnature of &#8216;oxymoron&#8217; is illegal for the following reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.   When  the  question  of jurisdiction and payment of Court fee is<br \/>\ndirected to be decided as a preliminary issue through the order passed by  the<br \/>\ntrial Court on the application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.924 of 2001,<br \/>\nall the  other further proceedings cannot be allowed to go on.  Having decided<br \/>\nto take up the question regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit<br \/>\nfirst as a preliminary issue, the trial Court ought to have conducted  enquiry<br \/>\nin that  matter  and decided the said issue speedily.  The act of allowing the<br \/>\napplication filed by the petitioners to decide the maintainability of the suit<br \/>\nas a preliminary issue as well as  allowing  the  application  appointing  the<br \/>\nAdvocate Commissioner to sell the goods would amount to blowing hot and cold.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.   Even  though  the  trial Court has decided in I.A.No.924 of 2001<br \/>\nthat the jurisdictional issue will be taken as  a  preliminary  issue  and  it<br \/>\nshould  be  decided first, unfortunately, the trial Court held in the impugned<br \/>\norder in I.A.No.895 of 2001, which was passed on the same day,  that  all  the<br \/>\nissues  relating  to the entitlement of the relief sought for by the plaintiff<br \/>\nwould be decided only at the conclusion of trial and therefore, sale  of  suit<br \/>\ngoods is  essential.    This  would  indicate that the trial Court has already<br \/>\npre-judged the preliminary issue and indicated in the impugned order that  the<br \/>\ntrial  will  go  on  in this case and in that event, it would take time and as<br \/>\nsuch, the suit goods which are perishable in nature are to be sold.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  The reading of the order  passed  in  I.A.No.924  of  2001  would<br \/>\nclearly  reveal  that  the  trial Court wanted to decide the preliminary issue<br \/>\nfirst because if the same is decided in favour of the defendants 2 and 3,  the<br \/>\npetitioners herein,  the  suit  will  be  dismissed.   But, the perusal of the<br \/>\nimpugned order in I.A.No.895 of 2001 would indicate  the  mind  of  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt  that  the  trial  in  the  suit would go on and all the issues would be<br \/>\ndecided only at the conclusion of trial.  This shows that the trial Court  has<br \/>\ntaken  a  decision  in I.A.No.895 of 20 01 which is quite contradictory to the<br \/>\nspirit of the order in I.A.No.924 of 2001 passed on the same day.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.  Furthermore,  the  trial  Court  by  the  order  dated  6.11.2001<br \/>\nappointed  one Devarajan as Advocate Commissioner to sell the suit goods after<br \/>\nproper notice to the parties concerned and directed the report to be filed  on<br \/>\n6.12.2001.   In order to challenge this order, the petitioners applied for the<br \/>\ncertified copies and got them delivered only on 13.11.2001.  In the  meantime,<br \/>\nthe  Advocate  Commissioner  inspected the premises and made paper publication<br \/>\nabout the proposed auction on 13.11.2001, 14.11.2001 and 15.11.2001  and  h  e<br \/>\nfixed the  date  as  19.11.200  1  for  receiving  the  sealed  tenders.    On<br \/>\n19.11.2001, the petitioners  filed  an  application  before  the  trial  Court<br \/>\nseeking  for  stay and to adjourn the matter to enable them to file a revision<br \/>\nbefore this Court.  However, the trial  Court  orally  directed  the  Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner  to  conclude  the auction sale on 20th itself and to deposit the<br \/>\namount in the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.  Then, on 20.11.2001, this revision has been filed and this  Court<br \/>\npassed an  order of stay on 22.11.2001.  On behalf of the first respondent\/the<br \/>\nCaveator, A.K.Kumarasamy requested time for filing counter.    Permitting  the<br \/>\npetitioners  to  take  private  notice  on  the  second respondent, this Court<br \/>\nadjourned the matter to 3.12.2001.  On 22.11.200 1, it was  not  intimated  to<br \/>\nthis  Court  by  the  counsel  for  the  first  respondent that it was sold on<br \/>\n20.11.2001 itself.  However, it is now brought to the  notice  of  this  Court<br \/>\nthat  as  per the oral direction by the trial Court on 19.11.2001, the auction<br \/>\nsale was held on 20.11.200 1 and the amount of  Rs.22,00,000\/-  was  deposited<br \/>\nafter  deducting the sum of Rs.66,328\/- to clear the warehouse charges and the<br \/>\nbill for paper publication.  On this representation made by  the  counsel  for<br \/>\nthe first respondent, the commission report filed by the Advocate Commissioner<br \/>\nhas been  called  for  from  the  trial  Court.    Accordingly, the report was<br \/>\nreceived.  On perusal of the same, it is noticed that  the  sale  proceeds  of<br \/>\nRs.22,86,328\/-  was  collected  on  21.11.2001  and  after deducting the other<br \/>\ncharges, Rs.22,00,000\/- was deposited on 23.11.2001.  As a matter of fact, the<br \/>\norder of stay was directed to be communicated through wire to the trial  Court<br \/>\non the very same date, i.e.  on 22.11.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>        18.   The  fact  that  the  trial  Court  orally directed the Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner to finish the sale on 20th itself in spite of the fact  that  the<br \/>\npetitioners  filed  a  petition  before  the  trial Court intimating that they<br \/>\nwanted to go to High Court by filing a revision and the act  of  the  Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner  in  hurriedly  finishing  the  auction process and selecting the<br \/>\nhighest bidder and collecting the sale amount from the said highest bidder  on<br \/>\n20.11.2001 itself and Advocate Commissioner deposited the amount on 23.11.2001<br \/>\ndespite  the stay order dated 2 2.11.2001 by this Court would indicate that it<br \/>\ndoes not sound well and on the other hand, the trial Court on some  reason  or<br \/>\nthe other wanted to see that the goods must be sold hurriedly.\n<\/p>\n<p>        19.   It  is to be noted in this context that the impugned order dated<br \/>\n6.11.2001 would show that the Advocate Commissioner was given one  month  time<br \/>\nto sell  the  suit  goods  directing to file the report on 6.12.2 001.  Having<br \/>\ngiven one month time and fixed the date to file the report as 6.12.2001, it is<br \/>\nnot known as to why the trial Court had to give oral direction to the Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner  on  19.11.2001  to  finish  the  sale  on   20.11.2001   itself.<br \/>\nStrangely,  it  is  noticed from the Commissioner&#8217;s report that the report was<br \/>\nfiled only on 13.2.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        20.  The questions which have not been answered by the counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent in this case are two fold:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (1) Why the trial Court having decided to  consider  the  question  of<br \/>\nmaintainability  of the suit as a preliminary issue should appoint an Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner to sell the goods holding that all the issues  would  be  decided<br \/>\nonly at the time of conclusion of trial and as such, it would take long time?\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)  Having  given one month time through the impugned order dated 6.1<br \/>\n1.2001, why the trial Court directed the Advocate Commissioner to  finish  the<br \/>\nsale  on 20.11.2001 itself, that too orally, and that too when the petitioners<br \/>\nfiled an application on 19.11.2001 before the trial Court seeking for stay  of<br \/>\nthe order and informed the Court that they intend to file a revision?\n<\/p>\n<p>        21.   The  mere fact that this sale was over on 20.11.2001 itself even<br \/>\nbefore the stay order passed by this Court on 22.11.2001 would not be a ground<br \/>\nto ask the Court to hold that the revision is infructuous and  as  such,  this<br \/>\nCourt would  not  go  into  the  merits  of  the  impugned  order.   If such a<br \/>\ncontention is accepted, it would amount to abdication of duty by the Court  by<br \/>\nshutting its eyes over the impugned order which is totally unjustified.\n<\/p>\n<p>        22.   Even according to the plaintiff, the petitioners are the owners.<br \/>\nIt is settled law that once this Court comes to the conclusion that the  trial<br \/>\nCourt has committed a patent error and the order is liable to be set aside, it<br \/>\nis  the  duty  of  the trial Court to put back the parties into their original<br \/>\nposition.  It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is an  agent  of  the<br \/>\npetitioners to receive the goods.  The petitioners have produced the documents<br \/>\nExs.B6  and  B7  terminating  the  said  agency  and  requesting the Warehouse<br \/>\nCorporation to hand over the goods to the owners, the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>        23.  As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners,  the<br \/>\nplaintiff, the first respondent herein though claims to be an authorised agent<br \/>\nas he is a creditor, has not chosen to mention what was the actual amount lent<br \/>\nto the  petitioners  by  him.    In those circumstances, this Court feels that<br \/>\nthrough the impugned order ordering sale through  the  Advocate  Commissioner,<br \/>\nthe  owners  of  the  goods, viz., the petitioners have been deprived of their<br \/>\nvaluable right in the goods belonging to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>        24.  On a scrutiny of the entire materials placed before  this  Court,<br \/>\nit  is  obvious that the trial Court, as indicated above, has hastened to pass<br \/>\norders for sale hurriedly even though the petitioners were prepared to pay the<br \/>\nhire charges and take back the goods from the Warehouse Corporation.  The  way<br \/>\nin  which the two impugned orders expressing two contradictory views have been<br \/>\npassed on the same day and the nature of speedy oral orders directing to  sell<br \/>\nthe   goods  on  20.11.2001  itself  and  entertaining  the  sale  deposit  on<br \/>\n23.11.2001, even though the stay order  has  been  passed  by  this  Court  on<br \/>\n22.11.2001,  would  prima  facie show that the trial Court wanted to pass some<br \/>\norders in order to defeat the rights of the petitioners\/defendants 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>        25.  Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside.  The trial Court is<br \/>\ndirected to put back the parties into their  original  position.    The  trial<br \/>\nCourt   is  further  directed  to  decide  the  preliminary  issue  by  giving<br \/>\nopportunities to the parties, as expeditiously as possible,  in  pursuance  of<br \/>\nthe order of the trial Court in I.A.No.924 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>        26.   Before parting with this case, this Court cannot but express its<br \/>\ndispleasure over the conduct of the trial  Court  Judge  in  having  hurriedly<br \/>\npassed  the orders impugned, resulting in the injustice to the interest of the<br \/>\npetitioners, which I am unable to hold bona fide.  The Registry is directed to<br \/>\nkeep a copy of this order in his confidential file.\n<\/p>\n<p>        27.  With the above  observations,  the  civil  revision  petition  is<br \/>\nallowed.  Consequently, C.M.P.No.19550 of 2001 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<br \/>\nmam<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The I Additional Subordiante Judge, Erode.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) -do- through the Principal District Judge, Erode.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 25\/04\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) No.3665 of 2001 and C.M.P.No.19550 of 2001 1. Sree Madura Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner S.Murthy 2. V.R. Subbaraya Gounder &amp; Sons [&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-53066","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>Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 - 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\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-28T09:11:10+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T09:11:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2733,\"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\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T09:11:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 - 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\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-28T09:11:10+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T09:11:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003"},"wordCount":2733,"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\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003","name":"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T09:11:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-madura-enterprises-vs-c-thangavel-on-25-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sree Madura Enterprises vs C. Thangavel on 25 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/53066","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=53066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}