{"id":249808,"date":"2010-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-18T18:08:36","modified_gmt":"2017-11-18T12:38:36","slug":"s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n ?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n%DATED: 20\/08\/2010\n*CORAM\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Raja\n+WP.44069 of 2006\n#P.K.Pathamuthu\n$Director General of Police\n!FOR PETITIONER : S.Ravi\n^FOR RESPONDENT : S.Gopinathan\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS<br \/>\nDATED : 20.08.2010<br \/>\nCORAM<br \/>\nThe Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice T.Raja<br \/>\nW.P.No.44069 of 2006<br \/>\nO.A.No.3232 of 2000<br \/>\nP. K. Pathamuthu<br \/>\nSub Inspector of Police<br \/>\nTirnelveli District                                                                &#8230; Petitioner<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\tVs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1. The Director General of Police<br \/>\nChennai  600 004.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2. Secretary to Government<br \/>\nHome (Police IV Department)<br \/>\nFort St. George, Chennai  600 009.\t                           &#8230; Respondents<br \/>\nPrayer: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3232 of 2000, from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified  Mandamus to quash the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect passed by the first respondent herein in Rc.No.31105\/CON III (2)\/95 dated 01.04.1998 and the consequential order of the second respondent passed in his G.O.ID.No.129 Home (Polive IV Department) dated 11.02.2000 and the order of the first respondent herein passed in R.C.No.129130\/NGB I (1)\/99 dated 18.08.1999 insofar as the petitioner is concerned with all consequential benefits such as promotion, increment, pay and other monetary benefits.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\t\t\tFor Petitioner           : Mr. S. Ravi\n \t\t\tFor Respondents      : Mr. S. Gopinathan\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      Additional Government Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\tO R D E R \t\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe petitioner has  challenged the impugned order of punishment  of   reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner, while serving as Sub Inspector of Police at Sankarakoil Police Station was issued with a charge memo by the first respondent  in P.R.No.112 of 1995 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Rules, 1955,  for  an allegation that   on 17.07.1994 at 19.00 hours,  he had entered into the municipal cattle shed and assaulted one Thiru.Algarsamy, Cattleshed Watchman and caused  injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegation. But the Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, ordered for an enquiry and  the Enquriy Officer, after the completion of the enquiry,  submitted his  enquiry report holding him not guilty of the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer held that the lapse viz., the petitioner&#8217;s failure to obtain bail bond or  undertaking at that time when the complainant was released on the way was established. The Disciplinary Authority, after agreeing with  the  findings of the Enquiry Officer, dropped taking  further action on the punishment roll. Thereafter, the matter was suo motu  reviewed by the Appellate Authority\/Deputy Inspector General of Police, who  after going through the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dropped the charges  concurring  with the decision of the  Disciplinary Authority  and the matter was given a quietus  on 2.2.1997. But on the death of the victim viz., Alargasamy, the first respondent\/Director General of Police, took the matter once again  by raising sue motu power vested with Rule 15(A) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Rules,  and issued show cause notice once again calling upon the petitioner to submit his further representation as to why  he  should not be dismissed from service. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner also submitted his detailed explanation. Disagreeing with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Director  General of Police, imposed the impugned punishment. Challenging the  impugned order, the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal  to the second respondent and after the dismissal of the same, the matter was taken up by way of an  Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent\/Director General of Police,  has no power under Rule 15(A) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Rules  to review second time, as the review power was already exercised by the Deputy Inspector General of Police\/Appellate Authority. Secondly, the Disciplinary Authority, dropped taking further action against the petitioner, as the charges leveled against the petitioner have not  been proved by the Enquiry Officer. The same was also carefully considered by the Deputy Inspector  General of Police, who concurring with the decision taken by the  Disciplinary Authority, dropped taking further action against the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent once again cannot review the matter,  as that power  has not   been  given or available to the first respondent. On that basis he  prayed   for setting aside the impugned order. In his further submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner  on account  of the  punishment meted out to him,   he has suffered the primary loss in his career and on that basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order of punishment  as nothing was established before the enquiry proceedings.  Thirdly, the first respondent has gone beyond the purview of the charge for which the petitioner has already given satisfactory explanation to both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. In that view of the matter, the imposition of punishment to the extent of affecting his primary loss, cannot stand  any reason.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t3. Per contra, the   Additional Government Pleader, would submit that though the petitioner was charged with one charge for having beaten up one Thiru. Alagarsamy, on 17.07.1994, he was finally found not guilty except to the limited extent  that  he committed lapse in not obtaining bail bond. However, when the matter was examined by exercising his  power of  suo motu,  the Deputy Inspector General of Police having accepted the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority,  thought it fit to  drop further action against the petitioner in the earlier occasion. However, when the victim viz., Thiru. Alagarsamy, subsequently,  died on 27.02.1995,  the  Director General of Police, while exercising the suo motu power,  though decided  to impose major punishment of dismissal from service, finally,  thought it  fit to impose only a minor punishment of  reduction in time scale of pay by two  stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Therefore, the punishment meted out to the petitioner by the first respondent is being not a major punishment, this Court, while sitting under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India, need not interfere with the quantum of punishment. On that basis  the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t4. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t5. Prima facie, the petitioner was finally found not guilty by the  Enquiry Officer and the  Disciplinary Authority also after accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dropped further proceedings. The said findings was also accepted by the Director General of Police  as well as by the Appellate Authority, while exercising suo motu power conferred under Rule 15 (A) (i) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &amp; Appeal) Rules, 1955. Thereafter, when the victim-Alagarsamy, who was allegedly beaten up by the petitioner, died  on 27.02.1995,    the Director General of Police, in view of subsequent development  exercising the suo motu power under Rule 15(A) (2) of TNPSS(D&amp;A) has issued suo motu notice calling upon the  petitioner to submit his further explanation as to why  he should not be dismissed from service. After receiving the explanation given by the petitioner, stating that  the  victim-Alagarsamy, not died out of assault made by  him, but died by committing suicide, changed his mind and finally  imposed a simple punishment of reduction in  time scale of pay  by  two  stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. There is no bar imposed for second exercise of suo  moto power given under Rule 15 A (i) (ii) of T.N.P.S.S. (D &amp;A) Rule.    In that view of the matter, since the punishment being   minor in nature,  this Court,  while sitting under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India, is  not inclined to interfere with the said punishment. Therefore, the Writ Petition finding no merit stands dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t20.08.2010<br \/>\nTo\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">1. The Director General of Police<br \/>\nChennai  600 004.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">2) Secretary to Government<br \/>\nHome (Police IV Department)<br \/>\nFort St. George<br \/>\n    Chennai  600 009.\tW.P.No.44069 of 2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 ?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 20\/08\/2010 *CORAM The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice T.Raja +WP.44069 of 2006 #P.K.Pathamuthu $Director General of Police !FOR PETITIONER : S.Ravi ^FOR RESPONDENT : S.Gopinathan :ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.08.2010 CORAM The [&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-249808","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>S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-18T12:38:36+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\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-18T12:38:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1314,\"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\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\",\"name\":\"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-18T12:38:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-18T12:38:36+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\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-18T12:38:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010"},"wordCount":1314,"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\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010","name":"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-18T12:38:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ravi-vs-s-gopinathan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Ravi vs S.Gopinathan on 20 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249808","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=249808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}