{"id":61818,"date":"2010-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-11-13T00:33:39","modified_gmt":"2014-11-12T19:03:39","slug":"saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nCriminal Original Petition(MD) No.6678 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2010\n\n\nSaravanan\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nvs\n\nS.N.Sundaram\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call\nfor the records in connection with the case in C.C.No.476 of 2009 on the file of\nthe learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul and quash the same.\n\n!For petitioner\t ... Mr.N.Sathish Babu\n^For Respondents ... No appearance\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to call for the records<br \/>\nin connection with the case in C.C.No.476 of 2009 on the file of the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in<br \/>\nthe private complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that the petitioner<br \/>\nhad borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- from the respondent on 15.12.2009 for his<br \/>\nurgent financial needs and given a cheque for the said amount bearing No.868385<br \/>\ndrawn on Indian Bank, Dindigul Branch and promised to repay the said amount<br \/>\nwithin a period of 3 months, since he has not been repaid the amount, the<br \/>\nrespondent has represented the cheque for collection on 15.05.2009, but the same<br \/>\nwas returned as &#8220;funds insufficient&#8217; and thereafter, the respondent has issued<br \/>\nstatutory notice to the petitioner on 11.06.2009 demanding the amount of<br \/>\nRs.15,00,000\/- instead of Rs.1,50,000\/- and subsequently, the respondent issued<br \/>\na re-joinder notice stating that there is typographical mistake  in mentioning<br \/>\nthe amount and the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- and then, the<br \/>\npetitioner has also sent reply denying his liability and thereafter, the<br \/>\nrespondent  has preferred the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of<br \/>\nNegotiable Instrument Act, for which, the petitioner has come forward with the<br \/>\npresent petition to quash the said complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Even though, notice has been served to the respondent, he has not<br \/>\nappeared before this Court either himself or through counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Now, this Court has to decide as to whether the mentioning of<br \/>\nRs.15,00,000\/- in the statutory notice dated 11.06.2009 instead of Rs.1,50,000\/-<br \/>\nwill vitiate the entire proceedings even though a rejoinder notice has been<br \/>\nissued by the respondent stating that the same is a typographical error.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the<br \/>\ndecisions in K.R.Indira Vs. Dr.G.Adinarayana reported in 2004-1 L.W. (Crl.) 438<br \/>\nand Raj Vs. Rajan reported in III(1997) CCR 643 and submit that the notice<br \/>\nclaiming higher amount or lesser makes it insufficient and vague, such notice<br \/>\nwill be illegal.  It is  appropriate to consider the above said decision<br \/>\nwherein, the Kerala High Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;In the case at hand, the amount covered by the cheque is Rs.40,000\/-<br \/>\nwhich was claimed, but that amount together with interest without specifying the<br \/>\namount of interest or the rate interest.  that certainly makes a notice vague<br \/>\nand insufficient.  It cannot be treated as a notice as contemplated by proviso\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) to Section 138 of the Act.  In the circumstances, for want of the proper and<br \/>\nlegal notice also, the acquittal is sustainable.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is also appropriate to consider the decision in K.R.Indira Vs.<br \/>\nDr.G.Adinarayana reported in 2004-1 L.W. (Crl.) 438, wherein, the Aped Court has<br \/>\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;7. The only question for consideration by us is whether the notice in<br \/>\nquestion purportedly issued under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of<br \/>\nthe Act was valid or not. Section 139 of the Act has also relevance and needs<br \/>\nreference. We extract below Sections 138 and 139 of the Act:<br \/>\n&#8220;138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. of funds in the account.-Where<br \/>\nany cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for<br \/>\npayment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for<br \/>\nthe discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned<br \/>\nby the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit<br \/>\nof that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the<br \/>\namount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that<br \/>\nbank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall,<br \/>\nwithout prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with<br \/>\nimprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may<br \/>\nextend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) \t*\t*\t*\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be,<br \/>\nmakes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in<br \/>\nwriting, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of<br \/>\ninformation by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;<br \/>\nand\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of<br \/>\nmoney to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the<br \/>\ncheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.<br \/>\n\t*\t*\t*\n<\/p>\n<p>139. Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall be presumed, unless the contrary<br \/>\nis proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature<br \/>\nreferred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt<br \/>\nor other liability.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. As was observed by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1105371\/\">Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms1<br \/>\nthe<\/a> object of the notice is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to<br \/>\nrectify his omission. The demand in the notice has to be in relation to &#8220;said<br \/>\namount of money&#8221; as described in the provision. The expression &#8220;payment of any<br \/>\namount of money&#8221; as appearing in the main portion of Section 138 of the Act goes<br \/>\nto show that it needs to be established that the cheque was drawn for the<br \/>\npurpose of discharging in whole or in part of any debt or any liability, even<br \/>\nthough the notice as contemplated may involve demands for compensation, costs,<br \/>\ninterest etc. The drawer of the cheque stands absolved from his liability under<br \/>\nSection 138 of the Act if he makes the payment of the amount covered by the<br \/>\ncheque of which he was the drawer within 15 days from the date of receipt of<br \/>\nnotice or before the complaint is filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. <a href=\"\/doc\/72800\/\">In Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal2<\/a> it was held that the legislative<br \/>\nintent as evident from Section 138 of the Act is that if for the dishonoured<br \/>\ncheque the demand is not met within 15 days of the receipt of the notice the<br \/>\ndrawer is liable for conviction. If the cheque amount is paid within the above<br \/>\nperiod or before the complaint is filed the legal liability under Section 138<br \/>\nceases to be operative and for the recovery of other demands such as<br \/>\ncompensation, costs, interests etc. separate proceedings would lie. If in a<br \/>\nnotice any other sum is indicated in addition to the amount covered by the<br \/>\ncheque, that does not invalidate the notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with<br \/>\nthe concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are<br \/>\ncomponents of the said offence: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an<br \/>\naccount maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out<br \/>\nof that account for discharge in whole\/in part of any debt or liability, (2)<br \/>\npresentation of the cheque by the payee or the holder in due course to the bank,<br \/>\n(3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds<br \/>\nto the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum<br \/>\ncovered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque<br \/>\nwithin 15 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank<br \/>\nregarding the return of the cheque as unpaid demanding payment of the cheque<br \/>\namount, and (5) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder<br \/>\nin due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days<br \/>\nof the receipt of the notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants<br \/>\non Suman Sethi case2 to contend that if the indication in the notice of other<br \/>\namounts than that covered by the cheque issued, does not as held by this Court<br \/>\ninvalidate the notice, there is no reason as to why a consolidated notice for<br \/>\ntwo complainants cannot be issued. The extreme plea as is sought to be raised in<br \/>\nthis case based upon Suman Sethi case2 is clearly untenable. Though no formal<br \/>\nnotice is prescribed in the provision, the statutory provision indicates in<br \/>\nunmistakable terms as to what should be clearly indicated in the notice and what<br \/>\nmanner of demand it should make. In Suman Sethi case2 on considering the<br \/>\ncontents of the notice, it was observed that there was specific demand in<br \/>\nrespect of the amount covered by the cheque and the fact that certain additional<br \/>\ndemands incidental to it, in the form of expenses incurred for clearance and<br \/>\nnotice charges were also made, did not vitiate the notice. In a given case if<br \/>\nthe consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information envisaged by<br \/>\nthe statutory provision and there was a specific demand for the payment of the<br \/>\nsum covered by the cheque dishonoured, mere fact that it was a consolidated<br \/>\nnotice, and\/or that further demands in addition to the statutorily envisaged<br \/>\ndemand were also found to have been made may not invalidate the same. This<br \/>\nposition could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.<br \/>\nHowever, according to the respondent, the notice in question is not separable in<br \/>\nthat way and that there was no specific demand made for payment of the amount<br \/>\ncovered by the cheque. We have perused the contents of the notice.<br \/>\nSignificantly, not only the cheque amounts were different from the alleged loan<br \/>\namounts but the demand was made not of the cheque amounts but only the loan<br \/>\namount as though it is a demand for the loan amount and not the demand for<br \/>\npayment of the cheque amount, nor could it be said that it was a demand for<br \/>\npayment of the cheque amount and in addition thereto made further demands as<br \/>\nwell. What is necessary is making of a demand for the amount covered by the<br \/>\nbounced cheque which is conspicuously absent in the notice issued in this case.<br \/>\nThe notice in question is imperfect in this case not because it had any further<br \/>\nor additional claims as well but it did not specifically contain any demand for<br \/>\nthe payment of the cheque amount, the non-compliance with such a demand only<br \/>\nbeing the incriminating circumstance which exposes the drawer for being<br \/>\nproceeded against under Section 138 of the Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \t6.Considering the submissions on either side and the decisions relied<br \/>\nupon, it is alleged that the petitioner herein has received a sum of<br \/>\nRs.1,50,000\/- from the respondent and issued a cheque and he had also given<br \/>\nundertaking that he will repay the same within three months, since he has not<br \/>\nrepaid the amount, the respondent has represented the cheque on 15.05.2009,<br \/>\nwhich was returned as &#8220;insufficient funds&#8221; and thereafter, the respondent has<br \/>\nissued a statutory notice on 11.06.2009, wherein, he has demanded a sum of<br \/>\nRs.15,00,000\/- instead of Rs.1,50,000\/- and a rejoinder notice dated 23.06.2009<br \/>\nhas also been issued by the respondent, in which paragraph No.2, the respondent<br \/>\nhas stated that the same is only a typographical error.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.A perusal of the entire records would reveal that the cheque was<br \/>\nreturned on 15.05.2009 and the statutory notice has been sent on 11.06.2009 with<br \/>\na demand for a sum of Rs.15,00,000\/- instead of Rs.1,50,000\/- and immediately,<br \/>\nhe sent the rejoinder notice on 23.06.2009, then only, the petitioner has sent<br \/>\nreply on 27.06.2009.  Even though in the statutory notice, the respondent has<br \/>\nmentioned wrongly, that has been properly explained in the rejoinder notice.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, the complaint has also been preferred before the court within the<br \/>\ntime stipulated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, hence, the above<br \/>\nsaid decisions are not applicable to be facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner that since the statutory notice is not contained<br \/>\nthe correct amount of cheque is a ground for quashing does not merit acceptance<br \/>\nand there is no reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and<br \/>\nhence, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal original petition is<br \/>\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.In fine, this criminal original petition is dismissed.  Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Arul<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>  The Judicial Magistrate No.1,<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.6678 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 Saravanan .. Petitioner vs S.N.Sundaram .. Respondent Prayer Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [&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-61818","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>Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 - 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\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-12T19:03:39+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-12T19:03:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2078,\"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\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-12T19:03:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 - 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\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-12T19:03:39+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-12T19:03:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010"},"wordCount":2078,"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\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010","name":"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-12T19:03:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saravanan-vs-s-n-sundaram-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saravanan vs S.N.Sundaram on 10 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/61818","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=61818"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61818\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}