{"id":92166,"date":"2011-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-14T17:47:08","modified_gmt":"2017-09-14T12:17:08","slug":"v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 02\/11\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5406 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5408 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5410 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5413 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5537 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5540 of 2011\nW.P.(MD)No.5543 of 2011\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011\n\nW.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011\n\nV.Subramanian \t\t \t.. \t\t\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.Union of India,\n  represented by\n  The Under Secretary to the Government of India\n  Department of Financial Services,\n  Ministry of Finance,\n  New Delhi-110 001.\n\n2.State of Tamil Nadu\n  represented by\n  The Inspector,\n  City Crime Branch,\n  Tiruchirappalli City Police,\n  Tiruchirappalli-620 021.\n\n3.Central Bureau of Investigation\n  represented by\n  The Inspector,\n  Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)\/SPE\n  Kathirkadvu, Kavloor,\n  Cochin-682 017.\n\n\n4.Reserve Bank of India\n  represented by\n  The Manager\n  Reserve Bank of India\n  Customer Services Department\n  Central Office\n  1st Floor, Amar Building\n  Sir M.P.Road, Fort\n  Mumbai-400 001.\n5.Syndicate Bank\n  represented by\n  The General manager\n  Syndicate Bank\n  Regional Office\n  Leelavathi Building\n  69, Armenian Street,\n  Chennai 600 001.\n6.Canara Bank\n  represented by\n  The General Manager,\n  Canara bank\n  Credit Policy Section\n  Risk Management Wing\n  Head Office\n  112, J.C.Road,\n  Bangalore-560 002.\n7.Indian Bank\n  represented by\n  The General Manager (CR)\n  HO\/Credit Division\n  Indian Bank\n  66, Rajaji Salai\n  Chennai 600 001.\n8.Bank of India\n  represented by\n  The Zonal Manager\n  Bank of India\n  Coimbatore Zone\n  STAR House\n  324, Oppanakkara Street\n  Coimbatore 641 001.\n9.State Bank of India\n  represented by\n  The Deputy General Manager\n  State Bank of India\n  Local Head Office\n  Circle Top House\n  16, College Lane\n  Chennai 600 006.\n\n10.Institution of Valuers\n  represented by\n  The Honorary General Secretary\n  Institution of Valuers\n  Head Office\n  4, 5 & 6, Vishal Market\n  Mukherjee Nagar (W)\n  New Delhi-110 009.\t\t   \t... Respondents<\/pre>\n
PRAYER<\/p>\n
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
\npraying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
\nsecond respondent FIR in Cr.No.2\/2004, dated 11.02.2004 and to quash the same as
\nillegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner  … Mr.K.P.Vijayakumar
\n^For Respondents … Mr.C.Fernandas Rathinaraj for R1
\n\t\t     Mr.M.Govindan for R2
\n\t\t     Special Government Pleader
\n\t\t     Mr.S.Rozario Sundar Raj for R3
\n\t\t     Mr.K.Ramamoorthy for R4
\n\t\t     Mr.R.Pandivel for R5
\n\t\t     Mr.Madhavan Kutty for R6
\n\t\t     Mr.S.Suresh for R7
\n\t\t     Mr.M.Senthil Kumar for R8
\n\t\t     Mr.S.Sethuraman for R9
\n\t\t     Mr.Pala.Ramasamy for R10<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER
\n\tNine writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner is a
\nassisted person assisted by Mr.K.P.Vijayakumar.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Out of these nine writ petitions, W.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2011 is filed to
\nquash an FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004 as illegal arbitrary and
\nunconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In W.P.(MD).No.5406 of 2011 is concerned it is for the writ in the
\nnature of Prohibition prohibiting the third respondent in the writ petition,
\nnamely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by The Inspector,
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation(CBI)\/SPE located at Kathirkadavu, Kaloor, Kochi,
\nKerala State from proceeding in S.C.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Special Judge
\n(CBI\/SPE)-I, Sessions Court, Ernakulam, Kerala State, so far as the petitioner
\nis concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. W.P.(MD).No.5408 of 2011 is for a Writ in the nature of Certiorarified
\nMandamus pertaining to the proceedings of the 7th respondent namely, Indian Bank
\nrepresented by The General Manager (CR), HO\/Credit Division, 66, Rajaji Salali,
\nChennai-1 seeking to set aside an order dated 01.11.2010 and after setting aside
\nthe same seeks for a direction to the said Bank to reinstate the petitioner’s
\nname in all kinds of panel of valuers considering the service area for the whole
\nState of Tamil Nadu. By the impugned order dated 01.11.2010 the Indian Bank
\ninformed the petitioner that they found certain deficiency in the professional
\nservices rendered by the petitioner and therefore, they refused to accede his
\nrequest made by way of representation dated 13.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. W.P.(MD).No.5410 of 2011 is once again for a similar relief to him as
\nagainst the Bank of India vide their order dated 14.10.2008. By the said order
\nthe Bank of India represented by Zonal Manager, Coimbatore Zone, informed the
\npetitioner that their branches at Pannankombu and Thuvarankurichi have
\nrecommended discontinuance of the service of the valuer. Further he was not
\navailable in spite of attempts and also his involvement in CBI cases, where he
\nwas arraigned as an accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. W.P.(MD).No.5412 of 2011 is to challenge the order sent by the Deputy
\nGeneral Manager of the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai. By the
\nsaid order, the Bank informed the petitioner that the inclusion of the Valuers
\nin the panel maintained by the Bank will be after considering various norms
\nregarding qualification experience, and member of Institution of Valuers and the
\nneeds of the Bank. The Bank did not make any discrimination on the basis of
\ncaste or creed. The review of Panel Valuers for Tiruchirapalli centre was done
\nin the year 2005 and it was found that there was no need to include any new
\nvaluer in the panel. It is also stated that the persons who are not qualified as
\nper RBI guidelines were empanelled by the Bank was also denied.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It is also stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the Vice
\nPresident of Institution of Valuers used his influence to make the bank not to
\ninclude the petitioner’s name was also denied. It is also stated that no valuer
\nwas included in the panel after 2005. It was further informed that the Bank
\ncannot include any person as a Valuer when the criminal case is pending against
\nhim. They are also asked for comments from the branches concerned. On receipt of
\nsuch complaint and after the need of any new addition, the Bank will consider
\nthe question of extending the names in the panel.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. W.P.(MD) NO.5413 is for a direction to the 10th respondent namely,
\nInstitution of Valuers represented by the Honorary General Secretary to grant a
\ncompensation of 65 lakhs for the willful offences of atrocities committed
\nincluding caste discrimination against the fellow members and others and it must
\nbe responsible for the degraded present socio-economic status of the petitioner
\ndue to willful commission of unlawful activities.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. W.P.(MD).No.5537 of 2011:- In this writ petition, the petitioner has
\nsought for a suitable monetary compensation as victim of police atrocities for
\nthe arbitrary, malicious, and illegal detention for 18 days from 09.09.2006 to
\n27.09.2006 and further harassment by way of conditional bail on 30.11.2007 by
\nthe second respondent, State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector, City
\nCrime Branch, Tiruchirappalli City Police.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. W.P.(MD).No.5540 of 2011 is for calling for the records from the fifth
\nrespondent, the Syndicate Bank and seeks to set aside an order dated 03.08.2010.
\nBy the impugned order the Syndicate Bank informed the petitioner that pursuant
\nto the representation dated 10.07.2010, they are not in a position to accede to
\nhis request for inclusion of his name in the panel of valuers, since the matter
\nis pending investigation by the CB CID police.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In W.P.(MD).No.5543 of 2011 the petitioner challenges an order dated
\n10.01.2011 issued by the Canara Bank and seeks to set aside the same as illegal,
\narbitrary and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to include the
\npetitioner’s name in all kinds of panel of valuers in the State of Tamil Nadu
\nmaintained by them. By the impugned order, dated 10.01.2011, which was sent
\npursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 22.11.2010, he was informed
\nthat his name was removed from the list of panel valuers and the allegations
\nmade vide letter dated 22.11.2010 was baseless. The delisting of the petitioner
\nfrom the panel was done on the basis of extant guidelines in vogue.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. These nine writ petitions in which the petitioner claims can be
\nclassified in to six categories. The first category related to the quashing of
\nan FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004. The second category related to
\nprohibiting the criminal case pending in S.C.No.35 of 2007, dated 17.02.2007 on
\nthe file of Special judge,(CBI\/SPE)-I, Sessions Court, Kochi, Kerala State. The
\nthird category related to seeking for inclusion of his name in the panel of
\nvaluers with various National Banks, to which the petitioner had earlier send
\nrepresentation and the same was denied. The fourth category related to the
\nremoval of the name of the petitioner from the panel by the Canara Bank for
\ncertain reasons and the delisting is challenged. The fifth category related to
\ngrant of compensation from the State Government for the illegal detention for
\nthe period from 09.09.2006 to 27.09.2006 which was arbitrary, malicious and for
\nthe further harassment done to him during the conditional bail upto 30.11.2011.
\nThe sixth category related to the actions of the Institution of Valuers for the
\nvarious illegal acts done by them and the demand for compensation for the 15
\ndays suffered by him.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Before proceeding to deal with the case of the petitioner in these
\nwrit petitions, it is necessary to set out the backdrop leads to filing of the
\npresent writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. A status report was filed by the Inspector of Police,
\nCBI\/SPE\/Kathirkadvau Post, Kaloor, Ernakulam District, Kerala dated 12.08.2011.
\nIn the status report it was brought to the notice of this Court that the
\npetitioner was accused No.3 in a case registered by the CBI\/ACB\/Cochin Branch on
\n16.03.2004. The case is filed under Sections 120-B r\/w 420, 467, 471 IPC as well
\nas under Section 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
\nfirst information was sent to the Court as early as 16.03.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The substance of the allegation against the petitioner was that he
\nprepared a valuation report for the lands, which was given by M\/s.Daraja
\nVentures (P) Ltd.,  by abusing his official position and prepared inspection
\nreport which enable the said company to get advance money and the Canara Bank
\nhas suffered a loss of Rs.82,32,005\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. It was also stated that a charge sheet has been filed on the
\ncompletion of investigation. The charge sheet also covered the name of the
\npetitioner. A total number of 66 persons were cited as prosecution witnesses and
\n115 documents were filed as list of documents along with the charge sheet.
\nInsofar as the petitioner is concerned,  Document Nos.20, 23 to 26 directly
\nlinks the role of the petitioner. The trial is pending before the Special Judge-
\nI, CBI, Ernakulam in S.C.No.35 of 2007. The Special court is yet to frame
\ncharges and the petitioner himself had filed a discharge application under
\nSection 227 Cr.P.C. before that Court on 29.12.2009 in M.P.No.4400\/2009, which
\nis also pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. It is also the stand of the CBI that a loan amounting to Rs.80 lakhs
\nwas extended by the Overseas Branch of Canara Bank, to a private company on the
\nbasis of collateral security. The bank while processing the loan application
\nsought for a legal opinion of their Advocate from the panel and valuation report
\nof the property from the panel valuer. Since the property was situated at
\nTiruchirapalli, the valuation report is obtained from Tiruchirapalli and the
\nperson who valued was in the panel of Canara Bank, Tiruchirapalli and the
\ninvestigation also reveal the document pertaining to the property was a forged
\none and no such property ever existed. The petitioner who is accused No.6, in
\npursuance of the conspiracy with other accused persons had prepared a sketch
\nshowing the property with its boundaries and valued the property for the Canara
\nBank.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. This bogus valuation report along with sketch allowed the bank to get
\nmisguided and it had advanced a stock loan to a third party. The CBI also had
\nsearched office of the petitioner. Incriminating documents including job order
\nbook, Accounts Book Phone Message Book and a file containing copies of false
\nvaluation reports were seized from the house was produced as Documents Nos.23 to
\n26 before the criminal Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. He was shown as accused No.3 in the First Information Report and after
\ninvestigation, he was shown as accused No.6 in the charge sheet filed before the
\nspecial Court. It was also stated that charge sheet was only made on the basis
\nof evidence available. It was averred that the writ petition was not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The first writ petition namely W.P.(MD).NO.5406 of 2011, wherein a
\nwrit in the nature of prohibition was taken up first for disposal. It must be
\nnoted that admittedly, the case is still pending before the Special Judge,
\n(CBI\/SPE)-1, Sessions Court, Ernakulam and comes under the jurisdiction of
\nKerala High Court. The petitioner had also filed a discharge application before
\nthe said Court. Therefore, at this stage it is not clear how such a writ
\npetition that too prayer for Writ in the nature of prohibition will lie against
\na Special Court functioning in Kerala State. The offences also took place within
\nthe State of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. When asked how this Court is competent to issue such a Writ of
\nprohibition outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner produced a text book published by Buttersworths\/Lexis
\nNexls on “Writs and Other Constitutional Remedies” authored by one Asim Pandya.
\nA reference was made to pages 90 and 91, where the scope of Article 226 and the
\npower to issue writs were discussed. A reference was also made to the passage
\nwherein the author had opined that a writ petition can be instituted in an High
\nCourt after the amendment made Article 226 and it has a wide scope and the
\nterritorial jurisdiction of an High Court is available even if a part of cause
\nof action arose. The author of the Book also made reference to the case in
\nNavinchandra N.Majithia v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> reported in AIR 2000 SC 2966.
\nHowever, this Court is not inclined to accept the broad legal proposition culled
\nout from the book.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. On the contrary, in respect of criminal offences, the jurisdiction of
\nan High Court is well defined. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Mosaraf
\nHossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg.Ltd<\/a> reported in 2006 (3) SCC 658 dealt with
\nthe scope of power under Article 226 of the Constitution while exercising its
\nextraordinary jurisdiction in interfering with the orders of Magistrates taking
\ncognizance under Cr.P.C. It was held that an High Court under Article 226 should
\nnot ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance by a competent Court of
\nlaw. Only an High Court in whose jurisdiction the order of the Subordinate Court
\nwould have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution of India. The High Court also must remind itself about the
\ndoctrine of forum non conveniens also. It is necessary to refer to the  passages
\nfound in paragraphs 25, 28 to 29 in that judgment which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
25. It is no doubt true that in a criminal matter also the High Court may
\nexercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction but interference with an order of
\nthe Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure will stand somewhat on a different footing as an order taking
\ncognizance can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction as well as of
\nan application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. A writ of
\ncertiorari ordinarily would not be issued by a writ court under Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution against a judicial officer. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v.
\nState of Maharashtra9.) However, we are not oblivious of a decision of this
\nCourt in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai10<\/a> wherein this Court upon noticing
\nNaresh Shridhar Mirajkar9 and also relying on a Constitution Bench of this Court
\nin Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra11<\/a> opined that a Judicial Court would also be
\nsubject to exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The said decision
\nhas again been followed in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash12. It<\/a> is, however, not
\nnecessary to dilate on the matter any further. The jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was noticed recently
\nby this Court in State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar13 holding that even in terms
\nthereof, the Court cannot pass an order beyond the scope of the application
\nthereof. In Surya Dev Rai10 we may however, notice that this Court categorically
\nstated that the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari exercises a very
\nlimited jurisdiction. It also made a distinction between exercise of
\njurisdiction by the High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari under
\nArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It categorically laid down that while
\nexercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court can issue a writ
\nof certiorari only when an error apparent on the face of the record appears as
\nsuch; the error should be self-evident. Thus, an error according to this Court
\nneeds to be established. As regards exercising the jurisdiction under Article
\n227 of the Constitution it was held: (SCC p. 689, para 24)
\n“The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of
\njustice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which
\nit does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have,
\nsuch failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though
\navailable is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the
\nlimits of jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
28. We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
\nthe Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily
\ninterfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law
\nexcept in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose
\njurisdiction the order of the subordinate court has been passed, would have the
\njurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution
\nunless it is established that the earlier cause of action arose within the
\njurisdiction thereof.\n<\/p>\n
29. The High Courts, however, must remind themselves about the doctrine of forum
\nnon conveniens also. [See Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V.
\nFortune Express16.<\/a>] (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
\t23. Significantly in that judgment, even the decision quoted by the author
\nof the Book and relied on by the petitioner i.e. Navinchandra N.Majithia’s case
\n(cited supra) was referred and explained. Therefore, when a competent Court
\nnamely the Special Court in State of Kerala is seized of the matter, it is not
\nopen to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition and such a writ
\npetition will not lie.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. This Court also lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with a matter
\nseized by the Court in State of Kerala and the power to deal with the the
\ngrievance of the petitioner, is the High Court of Kerala and not this Court.
\nTherefore, the W.P.(MD)No.5406 of 2011 is liable to be rejected. Accordingly,
\nW.P.(MD).No.5406 of 2011 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. In W.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011 once again the prayer is to quash an FIR
\nin Cr.NO.2 of 2004 dated 11.02.2004. It is a case registered by the Inspector of
\nPolice, Special Crime Branch, Tiruchirapalli. The case was registered on the
\nbasis of a specific complaint by the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, S.R.College
\nBranch, Tiruchirapalli. Subsequent to the criminal case, the petitioner had
\napplied for bail, which was granted with conditions. He also filed modification
\nand the same was also granted by the Special Court, Tiruchirapalli. The
\nconditions imposed was also subsequently relaxed on 30.01.2011 by the same
\nSessions Court. It is at this stage, the petitioner had come forward to quash
\nthe first information report as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. The contention raised by the petitioner was that there was no legal
\nprovision under which the police can register a complaint for the valuation
\nreport which was said to be a forged document. He cannot found fault if the
\ndocument was a forged one. Hence, the criminal proceedings are void. The State
\nPolice ought to have transferred the bank fraud case to the CBI for lack of its
\njurisdiction. Therefore,  the first information report was invalid. A reference
\nwas also made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State
\n(NCT of Delhi) & others (2006 (2) Supreme 243 = 2006(2) SCC 677). It was also
\nclaimed the valuer is not a investigator and he only follows the identification
\nof the property to determine its market value and they cannot be experts. The
\nentire initiation of the case was that the investigation was without
\njurisdiction and it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Reliance placed upon
\nRamesh Kumari’s case (cited supra) seeking for transfer of investigation to CBI
\nby the petitioner is inappropriate. The case does not help the petitioner as can
\nbe seen from the passage found in paragraph 5 of the said order, which is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“5.The views expressed by this Court in paras 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above
\nleave no manner of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is
\nmandatory and the officer concerned is duty-bound to register the case on the
\nbasis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.”\n<\/p>\n
\t27.Further, in that case, all the parties have agreed for transferring the
\ncase to CBI which is more or less by consent order as can be seen from paragraph
\n7 of the order, which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“7.In this case, admittedly, the complaint was filed against the police officer.
\nLearned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a situation the
\ninterest of justice would be better served if this Court directs CBI to register
\nthe case and investigate the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
\t28. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the question of
\nquashing a first information report at this stage. The allegations showed that
\nthe petitioner was responsible in a conspiracy. Even those allegations related
\nto any banking transaction, it does not mean that the State police has no
\njurisdiction to enquire into the complaint. Ultimately, after the investigation,
\neven if any final report is filed before a competent Court, there will be time
\nenough for the petitioner to object to the report. Because a first information
\nreport was registered on a complaint of cognizable offences and the
\ninvestigation had proceeded, leading to the arrest of the petitioner, it will
\nnot be a ground to invalidate a F.I.R.  The competency or otherwise will be
\ndecided only when the final report is submitted by the investigating officer.
\nThe petitioner cannot forestall the police from taking a decision after the
\ninvestigation is completed.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. As to the limitation of this Court to interfere with a first
\ninformation report came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Shashikant V
\nCBI reported in (2007) 1 SCC 630. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 32 held
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“30. The first respondent is a statutory authority. It has a statutory duty to
\ncarry out investigation in accordance with law. Ordinarily, it is not within the
\nprovince of the court to direct the investigative agency to carry out
\ninvestigation in a particular manner. A writ court ordinarily again would not
\ninterfere with the functioning of an investigative agency. Only in exceptional
\ncases, it may do so. No such case has been made out by the appellant herein. The
\nnature of relief prayed for in the writ petition also is beyond the domain of a
\nwrit court save and except, as indicated hereinbefore, an exceptional case is
\nmade out.\n<\/p>\n
32. So far as the decision of the first respondent herein, not to register a
\nregular case so as to take up an investigation into the allegation against the
\nofficers concerned, is concerned, the appellant may have to pursue his own
\nremedy keeping in view the fact that the first respondent before this Court has
\nfurnished the details of its findings in the preliminary inquiry as also the
\nresult of the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent
\nofficers.”\n<\/p>\n
\t30. The Supreme Court also held that quashing of a criminal complaint
\ncannot be done in a writ petition under Article 226 on the basis of assertion of
\nthe accused. The facts may have to be established on evidence at the trial. This
\nprinciple was laid down in Veera Exports v. T.Kalavathy<\/a> reported in (2002) 1 SCC\n<\/p>\n
97. In paragraph number 10, it was observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t10. . . .This is a fact which will have to be established on evidence
\nduring trial. At this stage the High Court could not have quashed the complaint
\nmerely on the basis of an assertion in the reply.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Further, the Supreme Court in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar
\nreported in (2008) 14 SCC 1 dealt with the scope of the high Court in quashing a
\ncriminal charge or a complaint under Article 226. After referring all the
\nprevious case laws, the Supreme Court held that the defence of an accused cannot
\nbe looked into at the time of framing of the charge sheet. Only in a rare and an
\nexceptional case, the defence can be taken note of. In paragraph 22 it was
\nobserved as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“22. Thus in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily defence material
\ncannot be looked into by the court while framing of the charge in view of D.N.
\nPadhi case6, there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some
\ndefence material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate
\nthat the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very
\nrare cases the defence material can be looked into by the court at the time of
\nframing of the charges or taking cognizance. In our opinion, therefore, it
\ncannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the
\ncourt look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of
\nthe charges, though this should be done in very rare cases i.e. where the
\ndefence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole
\nprosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted.”\n<\/p>\n
\t32. In the light of self imposed restraint of this Court, this Court is
\nnot inclined to quash the FIR, even at the stage of investigation. Hence the
\nwrit petition in W.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. W.P.(MD).No.5537 of 2011 the prayer is based upon the result in
\nW.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011. The petitioner seeks for compensation as a victim of
\npolice atrocities. The petitioner has come out on bail and the conditions
\nimposed on the bail have been relaxed. The investigation is not over and hence
\nthe question of considering any compensation for the alleged unlawful detention
\nwill not arise. With reference to allegation of inflictment of torture either
\nmentally or physically, such issues can be decided only after the completion of
\nthe investigation and the final report if any filed is thrown out by a competent
\ncriminal Court. At the stage when petitioner has been freed on bail, such
\nquestions cannot be considered and the grant of compensation will not arise.
\nHence, W.P.(MD).No.5537 of 2011 will also stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. W.P.(MD).No.5413 of 2011 the issue is relating to the petitioner being
\nunfairly treated by the Institution of Valuers and therefore he is liable to get
\ncompensation of Rs.65 lakhs and that there was caste discrimination by the
\ninstitution of valuers is concerned, it must be noted that such institution of
\nvaluers is only a private body and not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this
\nCourt. For this proposition one has only to refer to a decision of the Supreme
\nCourt in Zee Tele films Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (4) SCC 649.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. The contesting respondent is only an Association of Valuers run by is
\nown bye-laws. It is necessary to know about the Institution of Valuers (For
\nshort IOV) and its various functions which will clearly show that it is a Non-
\nGovernmental Organisation and registered as a society. The official website of
\nthe IOV describe its role and functions as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The Institution of Valuers (IOV) is a premier organization of valuation
\nprofessionals in India, embracing about 70% of recognized valuation
\nprofessionals in the country from across various specialisms and geographical
\nregions of India. It was the first national professional valuation society to be
\nestablished in 1968 (Registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of
\n1860) with branches in the majority of States of India. It has the global status
\nof premier valuation organization with current membership reaching over 20,000
\nvaluers.\n<\/p>\n
IOV is amongst the top five valuers association of the world on the basis of
\nregistered valuation professionals. The Institution of Valuers brings into its
\nfold valuers of immovable property, agricultural lands, coffee estates, stocks,
\nshares and debentures of companies, shares of a partner in a partnership,
\nbusiness assets including goodwill, jewellery, precious stones and ornaments,
\nworks of art, life interest reversions and interests expectancy, tea estates,
\nstanding forests, mines and quarries, machinery, electrical equipments,
\nindustry, etc.
\nIOV being the premier valuation association of India assists and guide general
\npublic, government and semi-government bodies in all types of valuation matters.
\nIOV assists and guides general public, government and semi-government bodies in
\nadjudicating valuation related disputes through its Experts Council, certifying
\nvaluation professionals and developing valuation standards. IOB guides its
\nmembers to stick to and follow principles of valuation while valuing properties
\nand assets to avoid variance in value of properties of similar nature.
\nIOV imparts, encourages and arranges for training of the valuation and survey
\nwork of all types. It also hosts its semi-annual valuation Conferences and
\nseminars to discuss advances in methodology and public valuation policy.
\nIOV has been in the process of establishing and maintaining libraries and
\npublish magazines, periodicals and books. The IOV is a founder and publisher of
\nthe Indian Valuer, Monthly periodical, a leading national research periodical of
\nthe valuation. IOV grants diplomas or certificates of Fellowship or Membership
\nto the members who are eligible for the same by experience and\/or general
\nqualifications. It also holds examination in all branches for valuation work for
\nenrolment of members.\n<\/p>\n
This Institution has been formed to assist in the task of formulation of ideas,
\nspreading knowledge and education on matters relating to valuation for the
\nCentral and State Governments and General Public. It also renders advisory
\nservice to Valuers, Government Departments, Banking institutions and the General
\nPublic in solving their problems and overcome difficulties in valuation
\ntechniques through its monetary journal Indian Valuer (which the members of the
\ninstitution get free of cost) and also by holding Seminars\/Lecturers\/Work-shops
\nregularly, all over India.\n<\/p>\n
The fellowship of the Institution is awarded only to the highly qualified
\nengineers and other competent valuers, having at least 10 years practical
\nexperience in valuation work in different categories of assets. All members are
\nbound by code of conduct and professional ethics as propounded by the
\nInstitution.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the petitioner seeking for compensation from a private organization
\non any grounds including the grounds set out in the writ petition, is not
\nfeasible for compliance. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy
\nelsewhere. In view of the fact that such a writ is not maintainable,
\nW.P.(MD).No.5413 of 2011 will also stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. W.P.(MD).No.5543 of 2011 relating to   delisting the petitioner from
\nthe panel of valuers by the Canara Bank is concerned, the said question cannot
\nbe considered. The reasons assigned in the order dated 10.01.2011 i.e. that
\ndelisting has been done in the light of the guidelines kept with the bank and
\nthat the petitioner was facing a criminal case cannot be lightly brushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. The panel of valuers are maintained by the bank for its own
\nconvenience. Hence, the relationship between a bank and the petitioner is
\ncontractual in nature. It is for the bank to retain a particular valuer. If
\nthere are any strong and compelling reasons are available, it is always open to
\nthe Bank to delist any person from the list of its panel. The allegation that it
\nwas due caste discrimination, he was removed cannot be believed in the light of
\nthe pending first information report against the petitioner by the
\nTiruchirapalli  police as well as the pending criminal case before the Special
\nJudge at Kochi. Hence the attempt by the petitioner for setting aside the
\nimpugned order cannot be countenanced by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. In the present case, by the impugned communications, the petitioner
\nwas informed about the norms fixed by each bank and also non inclusion of any
\nfresh valuers in the existing banks as well as the reports obtained from the
\nbranches regarding the conduct of the petitioner in the grant of false valuation
\nreport, which resulted in a CBI investigation and filing of a charge sheet.
\nThese materials strongly suggest that this Court cannot give a direction to the
\nbanks to retain the name of the petitioner in the panel of valuers without his
\ncoming out unimpeached by the criminal Court. Until such time, the bank can be
\nguided by the materials which cannot be ignored. The materials relied on cannot
\nbe considered either irrelevant or illegal in  such circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.Though nationalised banks are amenable to writ jurisdiction, it does
\nnot mean every action of such banks can be called in question for a judicial
\nreview by this court. In matters of contract, unless the orders are wholly
\narbitrary or unreasonable, the court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction.
\nIn this context it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in
\nIndian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Cooperative Credit Society Limited<\/a> reported in
\n(2008) 12 SCC 541 and in paragraph 16, it was observed as follows:
\n“16.It is one thing to say that the public sector banks having regard to the
\nprovisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
\nAct, 1970 should discharge their functions keeping in mind the larger public
\ninterest but ordinarily in the matter of enforcement of contract, they are to be
\ngoverned by the terms thereof, which would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction
\nof the High Court unless the actions of the banks are found to be wholly
\narbitrary and unreasonable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t38.In the very same case, when a complaint was made by the cooperative
\nsociety about the unfair action of nationalised banks, the Supreme Court took
\nnote of the role played by the cooperative banks themselves in the mater of
\nfraud and as the matter was pending before the the criminal court, it was opined
\nthat the High Court should not have gone into such issues. In paragraph 39 of
\nthe order, it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“39.The question as to whether fraud has been committed by the officers of the
\nbank is pending consideration before a competent criminal court. There are other
\nvarious disputed questions which are required to be gone into in the said
\nproceeding. The role played by some of the respondent-writ petitioners is also
\nin issue. Such seriously disputed questions of fact, in our opinion, could not
\nhave been gone into by the writ court.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence the attempt by the petitioner to challenge the delisting by the respondent
\nbank from the panel of valuers cannot be entertained. Hence W.P.(MD)No.5543 of
\n2011 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. In respect of the four nationalised banks which had rejected the
\npetitioner’s applications for inclusion in their panel of valuers are concerned,
\nit must be noted that a panel of valuers are maintained by the banks only in aid
\nof the banks. If a particular valuer was facing criminal case,  there will be no
\njustification to have his name included in their panels.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. Further, the inclusion or exclusion of any name in the panel of
\nvaluers is a discretionary acts of the banks. Only when discretion had been
\nexercised improperly, this Court cannot go into the said issue under Article 226
\nin the matter of purely contractual in nature. Therefore, the writ petitions are
\nliable to be rejected. Accordingly, W.P.(MD).Nos.5408, 5410, 5412 and 5540 of
\n2011 stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. Further, the counsel for the petitioner finally made a statement that
\nthe petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore, the Court
\nmust show sympathy in dealing with the matters.\n<\/p>\n
\t42. When matters are covered by legal precedents, rule or law enjoins this
\nCourt not  ignore the legal precedent in the matter of granting relief. If the
\nallegations against the petitioner that false or vexatious or malicious cases
\nwere launched against him, either in the criminal law on in any other
\nproceedings,  Section 3(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes
\n(prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 makes such acts as offences. Even in case
\nof malicious prosecution, the petitioner can work out his remedy by approaching
\nthe appropriate forum. But, it must be noted that under Section 22 of the Act
\nprotection has been given for actions taken on good faith. It has been
\nspecifically provided that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall
\nlie against the Central Government or the State Government or any officer or
\nauthority of the Government or any other persons for anything which is in good
\nfaith done or intended to be done under this Act. Therefore, unless the
\npetitioner makes out an extraordinary case, before an appropriate forum, the
\nquestion of considering the last submission of the counsel for the petitioner
\nwill not arise in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. In view of the above factual matrix and legal precedents, all the writ
\npetitions will stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
\npetitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
jikr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.Union of India,
\n  represented by
\n  The Under Secretary to the Government of India
\n  Department of Financial Services,
\n  Ministry of Finance,  New Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.State of Tamil Nadu
\n  represented by
\n  The Inspector,
\n  City Crime Branch,
\n  Tiruchirappalli City Police,
\n  Tiruchirappalli-620 021.\n<\/p>\n
3.Central Bureau of Investigation
\n  represented by
\n  The Inspector,
\n  Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)\/SPE
\n  Kathirkadvu, Kavloor,
\n  Cochin-682 017.\n<\/p>\n
4.Reserve Bank of India
\n  represented by
\n  The Manager
\n  Reserve Bank of India
\n  Customer Services Department
\n  Central Office
\n  1st Floor, Amar Building
\n  Sir M.P.Road, Fort
\n  Mumbai-400 001.\n<\/p>\n
5.Syndicate Bank
\n  represented by
\n  The General manager
\n  Syndicate Bank
\n  Regional Office
\n  Leelavathi Building
\n  69, Armenian Street,
\n  Chennai 600 001.\n<\/p>\n
6.Canara Bank
\n  represented by
\n  The General Manager,
\n  Canara bank
\n  Credit Policy Section
\n  Risk Management Wing
\n  Head Office
\n  112, J.C.Road,
\n  Bangalore-560 002.\n<\/p>\n
7.Indian Bank
\n  represented by
\n  The General Manager (CR)
\n  HO\/Credit Division
\n  Indian Bank
\n  66, Rajaji Salai
\n  Chennai 600 001.\n<\/p>\n
8.Bank of India
\n  represented by
\n  The Zonal Manager
\n  Bank of India
\n  Coimbatore Zone
\n  STAR House
\n  324, Oppanakkara Street
\n  Coimbatore 641 001.\n<\/p>\n
9.State Bank of India
\n  represented by
\n  The Deputy General Manager
\n  State Bank of India
\n  Local Head Office
\n  Circle Top House
\n  16, College Lane
\n  Chennai 600 006.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02\/11\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5406 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5408 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5410 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5413 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5537 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5540 of 2011 W.P.(MD)No.5543 of 2011 M.P.(MD).No.1 […]<\/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-92166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 - 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\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-14T12:17:08+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T12:17:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":6102,\"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\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\",\"name\":\"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T12:17:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 - 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\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-14T12:17:08+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T12:17:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011"},"wordCount":6102,"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\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011","name":"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T12:17:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramanian-vs-union-of-india-on-2-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/92166","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=92166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}