{"id":65679,"date":"2010-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-04T17:29:25","modified_gmt":"2018-11-04T11:59:25","slug":"the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission<\/div>\n
The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 August, 2010<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nBEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES\nREDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nPresent Hon'ble\nThiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM\n PRESIDENT \n\n \n\n Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan,\nM.A.,B.L.,  MEMBER I \n\n \n\n Thiru S. Sambandam,\nB.Sc.,  MEMBER II \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nF.A.NO.373\/2007 \n\n \n\n(Against order in C.C.NO.17\/2006 on the file of the\nDCDRF, Dindigul) \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF\nAUGUST 2010  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nThe\nSub-Post Master \n\n \n\nPalayam\nPost Office \n\n \n\nPalayam,\nVedasandar Taluk \n\n \n\nDindigul\nDistrict  624 620  Appellant \/ Opposite party \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Vs. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n1.<\/pre>\n
 M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk Producer <\/p>\n
Cooperative Society <\/p>\n
through its secretary <\/p>\n
K. Anaipatti Post, Vedasandar Taluk <\/p>\n
Dindigul District <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
2. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk Producer <\/p>\n
Cooperative Society <\/p>\n
through its secretary <\/p>\n
K. Anaipatti Post, Vedasandar Taluk <\/p>\n
Dindigul District Respondents
\n\/ Complainants  <\/p>\n
The Respondents as complainants
\nfiled a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant \/ opposite
\nparty praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the matured
\nvalue of 3 bonds with interest and to pay Rs.35000\/- as compensation. The
\nDistrict Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this
\nappeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.11.2006
\nin O.P.No.17\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 This appeal
\ncoming before us for hearing finally on 16.8.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on
\neither side, this commission made the following order:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Counsel
\nfor the Appellant\/ Opposite party: M\/s. P.\n<\/p>\n
Natarajan, Advocate <\/p>\n
Counsel
\nfor the Respondents\/ Complainants: Mr.S. Kalimuthu, Advocate <\/p>\n
 M. THANIKACHALAM J,
\nPRESIDENT  <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
2. The complainants\/ respondents 1 and 2,
\nhad purchased three Kissan Vikas Patra
\n(KVP), for a total sum of Rs.25000\/-, from the opposite party post office. When the complainant made requisition, after
\nthe maturity period of 5 years over, they were informed, that the amount will
\nbe paid without interest, since the certificates were issued, in the name of
\nthe society, against the rules. Despite request, till date the amount has not
\nbeen refunded, and the failure to refund the matured value of the bonds, tantamount
\nto deficiency in service. The opposite
\nparties cannot take advantage of their fault, denying interest. The refusal to pay the deposit amount,
\nalongwith interest should be construed as deficiency of service. Hence the
\ncomplainant is entitled to, not only for the recovery of Rs.50000\/- with
\ninterest thereon, but also for a sum of Rs.35000\/- as compensation for mental
\nagony.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
3. The opposite party, accepting the
\npurchase of Kissan Vikas Patras (KVP), would contend, that the investments by
\nthe complainants, in the KVPs were irregular, against the order of the
\nGovernment of India, that when the opposite parties have implemented rules
\nframed by Government of India, thereby denying interest, cannot be construed as
\ndeficiency in service, and that though the complainant has been requested to
\nencash the amount without interest, they failed to do so, which cannot be
\ntermed as deficiency, as per the dictum of the Supreme Court, thereby praying
\nfor the dismissal of the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
4. The District Forum, despite objections
\nraised by the opposite party, ruled that the complainants, are entitled to
\ninterest @6% p.a., from the date of respective purchases of KVPs, placing
\nreliance upon certain decisions, thereby directing the opposite party to pay a
\nsum of Rs.50000\/- with interest, alongwith cost, denying other reliefs, as per
\norder d.13.11.2006, which is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant,
\nas well as the respondent, perused the written submissions, lower court records
\nand also the order passed by the District Forum.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
6. It was urged on behalf of the appellant,
\nthat as per the rules framed for KVPs, which came into effect from 1.4.95, this
\nkind of security could be acquired only by   <\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nAn adult for himself or on
\nbehalf of a minor or to a minor <\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\na trust <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
whereas, the
\nsociety had purchased three KVPs in this case, which is against the rules, and
\ntherefore as such they are not entitled to claim interest, since their
\npossession of KVPs were irregular, which was not properly considered by the
\nDistrict Forum, which was opposed.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
7. Admittedly, as seen from Ex.A1 series,
\nthe complainant society had acquired three KVPs, for a total paid value of
\nRs.25000\/-, having the maturity value of Rs.50000\/-, as per the dates mentioned
\ntherein. After the maturity period, when
\nthe complainants had approached the opposite party, they refused to pay
\ninterest, conceding to give only the principal, which was not acceptable to the
\ncomplainants, resulting this complaint, as if the opposite party had committed
\ndeficiency.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
8. The jurisdiction of the consumer forum
\nwill come into operation, if there was a case of deficiency in service, either
\nin terms of the law, or in terms of the contract, as held by the Apex court in Post Master, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore Vs.
\nRaja Prameelamma, reported in (MS)
\n(1998) 9 SCC 706. On the other hand,
\nif the staff of the opposite party had inadvertently sold Kissan Vikas Patra to
\nthe complainant, and the complainant without knowing the position, whether they
\ncould aquire this kind of KVPs, had acquired, then the non-payment of interest,
\nas per the rules, cannot be termed as deficiency in service. In this context, we have to see, the position
\nof the complainant, and who are all entitled to hold KVPs, as per rules.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
9. Admittedly, the complainant is a cooperative
\nsociety, not a trust, or an adult. As
\nper KVP rules 1988, as amended in the year 1995, which came into effect from 1st
\nApril 1995, this kind of certificate can be issued only to a adult for himself
\nor on behalf of a minor or to a minor trust.\n<\/p>\n
The complainant is not coming within the above definition of a
\nholder. The certificates were purchased
\nin 1998, i.e., after amendment. Thus it
\nis seen, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party, that
\nthe complainant was not a valid holder of KVPs.
\nThus, a further submission was made, that the complainants are not
\nentitled to the interest, even from the date of purchase of the Kisan Vikas
\nPatras, and if at all they are entitled to only the amount actually paid, viz. Rs.25000\/-. Though the arguments appears to be
\nreasonable, on the face value, based upon the above amendments, considering
\nother rules, as well as the decision rendered by the National Commission, we
\nare of the view that the complainant may be given interest, for the amount invested,
\nthough not as agreed under the KVPs, but a reasonable interest @6% p.a., from
\nthe date of deposit, and we record our reasons hereunder, irrespective of the
\nfact, whether there was deficiency or not, instead of driving the parties for
\nanother litigation..\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
10. The learned counsel for appellant, in order
\nto negative the claim of interest, invited our attention to the decision
\nrendered by the State Commission of Gujarat, at Ahmedabad, in Special Civil
\nApplication No.2877\/2003, dt.14.7.2004, wherein, rules relating to KVPs were
\nconsidered by the learned judge, who came to the conclusion, that the purchaser
\nof the KVP is not entitled to claim interest.\n<\/p>\n
We have gone through the judgement, very carefully, and given our
\nanxious thought also. But, considering
\nRule 13, we are of the view, that a simple interest can be allowed, though
\nauthorization is required, from the Central Government. Rule 13, Proviso provided that <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
where the Central Government is satisfied that
\nsuch purchase or acquisition of certificates is due to a bonafide error on the
\npat of the holder thereof, it may authorize payment of simple interest on the
\nface value of the certificate at the same rate as is admissible for the time
\nbeing in force for the type of saving accounts in the post office savings bank
\nwith which such holder is entitled to open under the provisions of the Post
\nOffice Savings Account Rules, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
To claim benefit under the above said
\nprovision,as held in the above decision it is not necessary, that the holding
\nof Kisan Vikas Patras must be, regular.\n<\/p>\n
The heading for Rule 13 itself reds Excess or irregular holdings , thereby, indicating even, for a person having irregular holdings, is
\nentitled to claim interest, provided they have acquired the certificates
\nbonofidely. If the certificate was
\npossessed by the holder on regular basis, then automatically he will be
\nentitled to the interest, for which they need not depend upon this
\nproviso. Thus, based upon the proviso,
\nwe are inclined to concede the interest claimed, by the complainant, though not
\nto the entire extent.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
11. In the Chief Post Master, Chennai &
\nAnother Vs. M\/s. Sun Beam Courier Pvt. Ltd., the National Commission had an
\noccasion to consider the issuance of National Saving Certificate, contrary to
\nRule 4 of NSC Rules 1989, wherein the District Forum had allowed 9% interest,
\nalongwith maturity amount. In this case,
\na Supreme Court ruling was referred, and based upon the earlier direction,
\nwhich was in pursuance, to the instruction from the Finance Ministry, taking
\nthe same as precedent, a direction has been issued, to pay interest on the face
\nvalue of the deposit amount, at 6% p.a., from the date of deposit, till
\nrealization. We feel in this case also,
\nthe above policy could be adopted, considering the fact that the complainant
\ncould have acquired the Kisan Vikas Patras under bonofide error, and the
\nfurther fact being, the opposite party had the benefit of the amount for all
\nthese years. By reading the above
\nruling, and proviso to Rule 13, we justify in awarding interest, at 6% p.a.,
\nfrom the date of deposit, till realization, on the face value of the
\ndeposit. For these reasons, the order of
\nthe District Forum has to be modified, since the complainant was not competent,
\nto acquire KVPs as per rules, as well not entitled to claim interest as of
\nright, including the matured amount, as mentioned there in.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
12. In
\nthe result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District
\nForum in O.P.No.17\/2006 dt.13.11.2006, directing the opposite party to pay
\nRs.25000\/-, alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the respective dates of purchase
\nof Kisan Vikas Patras, on the face value of the deposited amount, till
\nrealization. Time for payment two
\nmonths, failing which the complainant is at liberty to invoke Sec.25 or 27 of
\nConsumer Protection Act. There will be no order as to cost throughout.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
S.SAMBANDAM VASUGI
\nRAMANAN M. THANIKACHALAM <\/p>\n
 MEMBER
\nII MEMBER I PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
INDEX : YES \/ NO <\/p>\n
Rsh\/d\/mtj\/FB\/Post office  <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 August, 2010 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI \u00a0 Present Hon’ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Sub-Post Master,Dindigul ... vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul ... vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-04T11:59:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T11:59:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\",\"name\":\"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul ... vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T11:59:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 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":"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul ... vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul ... vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-04T11:59:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T11:59:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010"},"wordCount":1664,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010","name":"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul ... vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T11:59:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sub-post-masterdindigul-vs-1-m-s-722-k-anaipatti-milk-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Sub-Post Master,Dindigul … vs 1. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk … on 30 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\/65679","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=65679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}