{"id":214108,"date":"2006-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006"},"modified":"2017-09-11T15:45:19","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T10:15:19","slug":"lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 19\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nC.M.A.No.716 of 1997\n\n\n1.Lakshmi\n2.Minor N.Rukmani\n3.Minor N.Boopathy\t\t\t...\tAppellants\n\nVs\n\n1.Govindarajan\n2.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n  161-A, East Veli Street,\n  Madurai-1.\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, (Act\nVIII of 1923), against the judgment and decree made in W.C.No.93 of 1995, dated\n26.08.1996, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation,\nMadurai.\n\n\n!For Appellants   \t....\t\tMr.Kumaravel\n\n\n^For Respondents  \t....\t\tMr.Karthik for R1\n\t\t\t\t\tfor M\/s.S.Silambanan\n\n\t\t\t\t     \tMr.C.Ramesh Babu for R2\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been preferred against the order passed in W.C.No.93 of<br \/>\n1995, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>The facts in brief are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The first claimant is the wife of Natarajan, who was an employee under<br \/>\nthe first respondent as a lorry driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-<br \/>\n8677 which was insured with the second respondent.  According to the claimants,<br \/>\nthe first claimant&#8217;s husband, Natarajan drove the lorry from Madurai to Madras<br \/>\non 27.12.1990, then, he immediately returned on the night on 28.12.1990 and<br \/>\nwhile he was nearing Madurai, he had developed chest pain on the early morning<br \/>\nof 29.12.1990, and this was also informed to the first respondent and had<br \/>\nconsulted the Doctor Chinnadurai, at Madura Surgical Clinic, Madurai on<br \/>\n30.12.1990 and as per his advice, he went to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai<br \/>\nand died on 31.12.1990 without responding to the treatment.  According to the<br \/>\nclaimants, only due to the heavy work, Natarajan had suffered heart attack and<br \/>\ndied and that at the time of the occurrence, Natarajan was drawing Rs.860\/-<br \/>\ntowards his monthly salary, besides Rs.450\/- towards daily batta.  Hence, the<br \/>\nclaimants filed the claim petition claiming Rs.70,608.80 towards compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The first respondent in his counter has contended that the said<br \/>\nNatarajan took the lorry from Madurai on 26.12.1990 and he came back from Madras<br \/>\non 29.12.1990 and he left the lorry in the shed and he died two days later.  The<br \/>\nfirst respondent would contend that the death of the lorry driver, Natarajan had<br \/>\nnot occurred during the course of the employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The second respondent has also contended that since, the death of the<br \/>\nsaid Natarajan has not occurred during the course of the employment under the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to<br \/>\nthe claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Before the Deputy Commissioner, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and<br \/>\nExs.P.1 to P.6 were marked on the side of the claimants.  On the side of the<br \/>\nrespondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were exhibited.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. After going through the evidence, the Deputy Commissioner has come to a<br \/>\nconclusion that the death of Natarajan has not occurred during the course of the<br \/>\nemployment and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under the Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act, the claimants have preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Now, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether<br \/>\nthe death of the said Natarajan, the lorry driver under the first respondent,<br \/>\nhad occurred during the course of the employment or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>The Point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The first respondent, namely the owner of the lorry bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TAA-8677, was examined as R.W.1 and has admitted the fact that<br \/>\nthe deceased Natarajan was his driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-<br \/>\n8677 and that he took the lorry from Madurai to Madras on 27.12.1990 and<br \/>\nreturned from Madras on 28.12.1990 night itself and he reached Madurai on<br \/>\n29.12.1990 at about 04.00 p.m.  So, the fact that the deceased Natarajan was<br \/>\nunder the employment of the first respondent, has been admitted by the first<br \/>\nrespondent himself.  According to the claimants, the said Natarajan had<br \/>\ndeveloped chest pain at 04.00 a.m., on 29.12.1990, when the lorry was nearing<br \/>\nMelur and that on 30.12.1990, he consulted the Doctor, Chinnadurai who was<br \/>\nexamined as P.W.4, had referred him to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and<br \/>\nthat the said Natarajan died on 31.12.1990 without responding to the treatment.<br \/>\nP.W.4, Doctor, Chinnadurai has also deposed to the effect that he examined the<br \/>\nsaid Natarajan and on 30.12.1990 in his private nursing home and that he had<br \/>\ndiagnosed the said Natarajan had developed the symptoms of heart attack and he<br \/>\nreferred him to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment.<br \/>\nP.W.4, the Doctor, has also admitted that Ex.P.6, is the letter given to<br \/>\nNatarajan advising him to take further treatment at Government Rajaji Hospital,<br \/>\nMadurai.  P.W.3, is the cleaner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-8677,<br \/>\nwho has also deposed to the effect that Natarajan had driven the lorry from<br \/>\nMadurai to Madras on 27.12.1990 and after the work was over at Madras, he also<br \/>\nreturned along with the driver of the lorry on 28.12.1990 to Madurai and that<br \/>\nwhile the lorry was nearing Melur at about, 02.00 a.m., on 29.12.1990, the<br \/>\ndriver, Natarajan had developed chest pain.  The first claimant who is the wife<br \/>\nof the deceased Natarajan in her deposition as P.W.1, has also deposed to the<br \/>\neffect that her husband Natarajan returned to house on 29.12.1990, evening with<br \/>\nchest pain.  The Deputy Commissioner has rejected the claim of the claimants<br \/>\nonly on the ground that the deceased Natarajan died only on31.12.1990 and not<br \/>\nduring the course of the employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned Counsel for the appellant relying on the decision in The<br \/>\nManaging Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras-2, Vs. Lalitha<br \/>\nand others reported in 1997 T.L.N.J page 122 and contended that in the said<br \/>\ncase, the driver of the bus Route No.515 had driven the bus from Trichy to<br \/>\nCoimbatore on 23.11.1985 and after reaching Coimbatore, he has to take back the<br \/>\nbus from Coimbatore to Trichy on the next day i.e, on 24.11.1985 and that when<br \/>\nhe was about to take the bus at Coimbatore Bus Stand, he suffered a massive<br \/>\nheart attack and died and in that case also, it was contended that the driver of<br \/>\nthe bus had not died during the course of his employment.  But rejecting the<br \/>\nsaid defence, this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;In the decision reported in Zubeda Bond and others Vs. Maharashtra State<br \/>\nRoad Transport Corporation and others (1991 &#8211; I LLJ 66), it has been held that<br \/>\nabsence of ample evidence, should not relieve the court of its duty to arrive at<br \/>\na conclusion on the vital issues on the basis of available material, that the<br \/>\nEvidence Act as such does not apply to the proceedings under the Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act and that the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act is a beneficial<br \/>\nlegislation intended to give some security to workmen in certain types of<br \/>\nemployment and that the liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually<br \/>\nquite different from the liability under tort and therefore the Act should be<br \/>\nconstrued in a broad and liberal manner, lest its evident object is defeated.<br \/>\nAfter making such observations, the Bench has held that the death of a bus<br \/>\ndriver of a State Transport Corporation who sustained heart attack and collapsed<br \/>\nwhile changing the destination name board is death arising out of and in the<br \/>\ncourse of employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t In the present case, the deceased had driven the bus belonging to the<br \/>\nrespondent from Tiruchi to Coimbatore on the previous day.  On the ill-fated<br \/>\ndays, viz., 24th November, 1985, when he was about to take the bus from<br \/>\nCoimbatore bus stand, he had suffered heart attack.  As the driver of the bus,<br \/>\nhe should have brought the vehicle to the bus stand from the bus depot which is<br \/>\nelsewhere in the Town.  In these circumstances, when we consider the above<br \/>\nrulings, and apply the same to the facts of the present case, it would show that<br \/>\nthe death of Rajagopal, husband of the first applicant, is arising out of and in<br \/>\nthe course of employment and the Commissioner for Workmen&#8217;s Compensation has<br \/>\ntherefore rightly allowed the application.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The above dictum will also apply to the present facts of the case.<br \/>\nThe evidence in this case is that for more than 24 hours continuously the<br \/>\ndeceased driver Natarajan had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA-8677<br \/>\nand it is in evidence that even while returning to Madurai in the early morning<br \/>\nof 29.12.1990, he had developed the chest pain and from next day, he had<br \/>\nreferred to a Doctor who had given Ex.P.6, letter advising him for further<br \/>\ntreatment at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, but without responding to<br \/>\nthe treatment, he died on 31.12.1990.  So, it cannot be said that the said<br \/>\nNatarajan had died not during the course of his employment.  As observed in the<br \/>\nearlier dictum by the learned Judge, the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, has been<br \/>\nenacted only to benefit the employees and while applying the provisionof the<br \/>\nAct, it must be applied in a broad and liberal manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. So, I am of the view that this is a fit case to be remanded to the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner for assessing the damages for the death of lorry driver<br \/>\nNatarajan.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Hence, I hold on the point that the order passed in W.C.No.93 of 1995<br \/>\nby the Deputy Commissioner under Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, Madurai, dated<br \/>\n26.08.1996, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum<br \/>\nof appeal in C.M.A.No.716 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed in W.C.No.93<br \/>\nof 1995 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner under<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, Madurai, for fresh disposal.  Since, the matter is<br \/>\nof the year 1995, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the case<br \/>\nW.C.No.93 of 1995 within two months from the date of receipt of the records.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub Court,<br \/>\nNagercoil.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.716 of 1997 1.Lakshmi 2.Minor N.Rukmani 3.Minor N.Boopathy &#8230; Appellants Vs 1.Govindarajan 2.New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 161-A, East Veli Street, Madurai-1. &#8230; Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under [&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-214108","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 - 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\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-11T10:15:19+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T10:15:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1550,\"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\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T10:15:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 - 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\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-11T10:15:19+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T10:15:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006"},"wordCount":1550,"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\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006","name":"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T10:15:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-govindarajan-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmi vs Govindarajan on 19 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/214108","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=214108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}