{"id":114277,"date":"2011-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-02-12T15:31:22","modified_gmt":"2015-02-12T10:01:22","slug":"tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nCivil Revision Petition NPD(MD) No. 344 of 2004\n\n1.  Tara\n\n2.  P. Surendramohan\n\n3.  Jeyaraj\n\n4.  Indira\t\t\t...\tPetitioners\n\nVs\n\n1.  Government of Tamil Nadu\n    rep. By the District Collector\n    Panagal Building\n    Thanjavur.\n\n2.  The Director of Health\n    District Government Hospital\n    Dr. Moorthy Road\n    Kumbakonam.\n\n3.  Accountant General\n    Chennai.\n\n4.  Rajasekaran.\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\n\tPetition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against\nthe fair and decreetal order passed by the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam in\nI.A.No.173 of 2003 in unfiled A.S.No.---\/2004 dated 18\/2\/2004.\n\n!For petitioner  ...\tMs.V.K.Vijaya\n^For respondents ...\tMr.D.Sasikumar, GA\n\t\t\tfor R.R.1 and 2.\n\t\t\tMr.P.Gunasekaran\n\t\t\tfor R.3.\n\t\t\tMr.A.Saravanan for R.4\n\t\t\n- - - - -\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The petitioners\/respondents 3 to 6 have filed the present Civil Revision<br \/>\nPetition as against the order dated 18\/2\/2004 in I.A.No.173 of 2003 in an<br \/>\nunnumbered Appeal No.Nil\/2004 passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge,<br \/>\nKumbakonam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  The respondents 1 and 2\/petitioners\/appellants have filed I.A.No.173<br \/>\nof 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam under Section<br \/>\n5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay of 765 days in<br \/>\npreferring the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 31\/7\/2001 in<br \/>\nO.S.No.170 of 1995 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nKumbakonam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  The learned Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam while passing orders in I.A.No.173<br \/>\nof 2003 in an unnumbered Appeal No.Nil\/2004 on 18\/2\/2004 as among other things<br \/>\nobserved that &#8220;the issues pertaining to Pension Rules will have to be determined<br \/>\nonly if an appeal is examined and a decision taken thereon and resultantly<br \/>\nallowed I.A.No.173 of 2003 by directing the respondents 1 and 2\/petitioners to<br \/>\npay a sum of Rs.1,000\/- to the petitioners herein\/2 to 6 respondents within a<br \/>\nperiod of two weeks i.e., before 6\/3\/2004 failing which it directed the petition<br \/>\nto be dismissed and ordered for posting of the matter on 7\/3\/2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.  Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Principal Sub-<br \/>\nJudge, Kumbakonam in an  unnumbered Appeal No.Nil\/2004, the revision petitioners<br \/>\nas aggrieved persons have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition before<br \/>\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.  According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, while allowing I.A.No.173 of 2003  on 18\/2\/2004<br \/>\nby passing a conditional order has not appreciated of the fact that the delay of<br \/>\n768 days in question has occurred due to extraordinary reason which cannot be<br \/>\ncondoned for the reasons assigned in the affidavit. Further, there is no cause<br \/>\nof action for the respondents 1 and 2 to prefer an appeal as against the<br \/>\njudgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.170 of 1995 dated<br \/>\n31\/7\/2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.  Also, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioners that the learned Sub-Judge has allowed I.A.No.173 of 2003 by<br \/>\nerroneously taking into consideration  the pension payable and in any event,<br \/>\nimposing of costs of Rs.1,000\/- by the learned Sub-Judge, is an illegal one<br \/>\nbesides the same being opposed to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.  In the affidavit in I.A.No.173 of 2003 filed before the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, the second revision petitioner as among other<br \/>\nthings mentioned that there is a delay of 768 days in preferring the appeal and<br \/>\nthe said delay has been caused due to administrative process and not on their<br \/>\nnegligence.  Also, it is mentioned that the husband of the deceased person is<br \/>\nonly eligible to derive the benefit.  Moreover, as per Section 28 of the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal Act, the proper forum is only the State Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.  The Revision petitioners in I.A.No.173 of 2003 at paragraph 4 have<br \/>\nstated that the opinion from the Special Government Pleader, Chennai is that the<br \/>\nCivil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  In the counter filed by the third respondent\/first respondent, it is<br \/>\namong other things mentioned that the fourth respondent\/the husband of the<br \/>\ndeceased is entitled to the final balances in G.P.F account of the subscriber<br \/>\nand that the petitioners in execution petition are not entitled to receive the<br \/>\nsame, etc.<\/p>\n<p>\t10.  In the counter filed by the third revision petitioner\/fifth<br \/>\nrespondent and adopted by the revision petitioner\/second revision petitioner and<br \/>\nfourth revision petitioner, it is stated that only to escape from making payment<br \/>\nin the execution petition, the present petition has been filed and absolutely<br \/>\nthere is no reason or justification to stay the execution petition and also to<br \/>\nshow their bonafides, the first and second respondents\/petitioners may be<br \/>\ndirected to  deposit in the Court as the condition precedent for condonation of<br \/>\ndelay.  On going through the order passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge,<br \/>\nKumbakonam in an unnumbered Appeal No.Nil\/2004, it is clear that the said Court<br \/>\nhas exercised its judicial discretion in directing the R1,R2\/petitioners to pay<br \/>\na sum of Rs.1,000\/- as costs in  allowing I.A.No.173 of 2003 to the respondents<br \/>\n2 to 6 therein within a period of two weeks before 6\/3\/2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.  The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is<br \/>\nthat the respondents 1 and 2\/petitioners in I.A.No.173\/2003 has attributed the<br \/>\nreason for the delay of 768 days in preferring the appeal only due to some<br \/>\nadministrative process and indeed, the respondents 1 and 2\/petitioners have not<br \/>\nexpatiated the same in a quantitative or in a qualitative fashion.   To put it<br \/>\ndifferently, the averment in I.A.No.173 of 2003 that &#8220;the said delay was caused<br \/>\ndue to some administrative process and not our negligence is a cryptic one<br \/>\nbereft of any detail in this regard&#8221;.   It would have been prudent on the part<br \/>\nof R.1,2\/petitioners to have elaborated the reasons for the delay in the counter<br \/>\nto I.A.No.173 of 2003 in paragraph 5.  However, the absence of elaboration in<br \/>\nthis regard is not fatal to I.A.No.173 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.  It is to be noted that when a Court of law while dealing with Section<br \/>\n5 application will have to adopt a pragmatic common sense approach, however, it<br \/>\nshall not adopt a pedantic approach.  By and large a litigant\/party does not<br \/>\nstand to benefit by preferring an appeal belatedly.  The maximum thing that can<br \/>\nhappen, if an application for condonation of delay is allowed by a Court of law<br \/>\nis that the concerned party will have an opportunity to take part in the main<br \/>\nproceeding and is because being decided on merits and of course, after providing<br \/>\ndue opportunities to either side.  Also that, when substantial justice and<br \/>\ntechnical considerations are fitted against each other, then deliverance of<br \/>\nsubstantial justice will have to be preferred rather than the other course.  It<br \/>\nis to be born in mind that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to<br \/>\nlegalise injustice on technical grounds but it is  capable of removing so and is<br \/>\nexpected to do so.  As far as the present case is concerned, the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, while passing the conditional order in<br \/>\nI.A.No.173 of 2003 in an  unnumbered Appeal No.Nil\/2004 dated 18\/2\/2004 has<br \/>\nexercised its discretion and when going through the said order, this Court comes<br \/>\nto an inevitable conclusion that the said order does not suffer from any<br \/>\nmaterial irregularity or patent illegality warranting any interference  in the<br \/>\nhands of this Court sitting in revision.   At this stage, it is pertinent for<br \/>\nthis Court to make a significant mention that in the order in I.A.No.173 of 2003<br \/>\ndated 18\/2\/2004, the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam has also observed<br \/>\nthat the legal issues involved in the subject matter of the case can be<br \/>\ndetermined only if the appeal is taken up for consideration etc.  Therefore,<br \/>\nlooking at from any angle, the order of the learned Principal Sub-Judge,<br \/>\nKumakonam in I.A.No.173 of 2003 in an  unnumbered Appeal No.Nil\/2004 dated<br \/>\n18\/2\/2004 is found to be a valid and legal one.  Resultantly, the Civil Revision<br \/>\nPetition is devoid of merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.  In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed, leaving the parties<br \/>\nto bear their own costs.  Consequently, the order passed in an   unnumbered<br \/>\nAppeal No.Nil\/2004 passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam dated<br \/>\n18\/2\/2004 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision.<br \/>\nLiberty is given to the parties to raise all factual and legal pleas before the<br \/>\nlearned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam at the time of final hearing of the main<br \/>\nAppeal.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>mvs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Civil Revision Petition NPD(MD) No. 344 of 2004 1. Tara 2. P. Surendramohan 3. Jeyaraj 4. Indira &#8230; Petitioners Vs 1. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By [&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-114277","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 - 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\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-12T10:01:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-12T10:01:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1281,\"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\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-12T10:01:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 - 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\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-12T10:01:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-12T10:01:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011"},"wordCount":1281,"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\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011","name":"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-12T10:01:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tara-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tara vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/114277","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=114277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}