{"id":251185,"date":"2004-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004"},"modified":"2017-06-20T18:54:05","modified_gmt":"2017-06-20T13:24:05","slug":"r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 12\/08\/2004\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nW.P.No.27162 of 2003\n\nR.Raju                                         .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Branch Manager\n  LIC of India (Main Branch)\n  Trichy Road, Thanjavur.\n2.The Senior Divisional Manager\n  LIC of India, Divsn. Office\n  Gandhi Road\n  Thanjavur 613 000.\n3.The Zonal Manager\n  LIC of India, Anna Salai,\n  Chennai.\n4.Designated Person\n  Under Insurance Regulatory\n  Development Authority\n  LIC Agents, Regulations 2000\n  LIC of India, Divsn. Office\n  Gandhi Road, Thanjavur-cum-\n  Marketing Manager\n  LIC of India, Divisional Office\n  Thanjavur.                                    .. Respondents\n\n\n        This writ petition is filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the  Constitution  of\nIndia  praying  for issue of a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records\nrelating to the show cause notice dated 5.11.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent\nand order dated 19.12.2002 issued by the second respondent and quash the  same\nas  it was issued without jurisdiction arbitrarily and are not valid under law\nand also not sustainable in law, and consequently forbear the respondents from\ninvoking the LIC Agents Rules 1972 against the petitioner to take disciplinary\nproceedings.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.Ramamurthy\n^For Respondents :  M\/s.Silambanan\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        Invoking the writ jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nsought  for  the  writ  of  certiorarified  mandamus  to quash the order dated<br \/>\n19.12.2002 issued by  the  second  respondent  as  one  without  jurisdiction,<br \/>\narbitrary, not valid and unsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.   The  affidavit in support of the writ application and the counter<br \/>\nfiled by the respondents are perused.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.  It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the<br \/>\npetitioner was an agent of the first respondent branch and  has  put  in  long<br \/>\nservice;  that  he  aimed  to  be the member in the Million Dollar Round Table<br \/>\nMember; that from 24.10.1990 to 19.12.2002, he secured 1 899 LIC policies, the<br \/>\nvalue of which was Rs.10,90,00,000\/-; that on 3 0.12.1998, he secured a police<br \/>\nof one A.Sannmugam, who  was  working  as  a  Head  Constable  in  the  police<br \/>\ndepartment;  that  it  was  for  Rs.50,000 \/-; that it appeared that one other<br \/>\nagent by name P.Raja has also secured another policy from  him  on  30.9.1999;<br \/>\nand  that subsequently, the policyholder died on 31.10.1999; that according to<br \/>\nthe insurance company, on enquiry, it came to the knowledge that he had  heart<br \/>\nailment,  which  fact was suppressed by the petitioner, and thus, it was a fit<br \/>\nmatter for taking action against the petitioner; that subsequently,  a  notice<br \/>\nwas  served  on him provisionally terminating his agency; that he gave a reply<br \/>\non 14.11.2002; that  the  second  respondent  by  an  order  dated  19.12.2002<br \/>\nterminated  his  agency, but allowing the payment of the renewal commission to<br \/>\nhim; that against the said order, he preferred  an  appeal  before  the  third<br \/>\nrespondent  on  3.2.2003,  which is yet kept pending without any communication<br \/>\nwhatsoever, and under such circumstances, it has become necessary for  him  to<br \/>\nfile the writ application.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        4.  Added further, the learned Counsel that the petitioner secured the<br \/>\npolicy  of  the  said deceased on 30.12.1998; that he acted on the good faith;<br \/>\nthat to his knowledge, the said insured  did  not  undergo  any  operation  or<br \/>\nhospitalisation  or  medical  investigation;  that  apart from that, he had no<br \/>\ndirect knowledge about the same; but, he acted on the statement given  by  the<br \/>\ninsured;  that  it  is pertinent to note that another agent by name P.Raja had<br \/>\nalso secured another policy from him; but, no action has  been  taken  against<br \/>\nhim;  that without following the procedural formalities, the second respondent<br \/>\nhas terminated his agency; that while the matter was brought to the notice  of<br \/>\nthe  third  respondent,  who  is  the appellate forum, the appeal filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner was kept pending all along without  any  consideration  whatsoever,<br \/>\nand under the circumstances, the order passed by the second respondent has got<br \/>\nto  be  quashed,  and  he  has  to be reinstated as the agent of the insurance<br \/>\ncompany concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        5.  The  learned  Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents  insurance<br \/>\ncompany  would  submit  that all the contentions put forth by the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nside do not require any consideration; that it is true that the petitioner was<br \/>\nthe agent of the insurance company; that he secured a policy of  Sannmugam  on<br \/>\n30.12.1998  for  a  sum of Rs.50,000\/-; that subsequently, the insured died on<br \/>\n31.10.1999; that it was a case where he  died  out  of  heart  ailment,  which<br \/>\nshould  have  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the insurance company by the<br \/>\npetitioner; that it was a suppression of a very relevant  and  material  fact;<br \/>\nthat  had  it  been brought to the notice of the insurance company, the policy<br \/>\ncould not have been issued to the insured, and thus, not only it was a case of<br \/>\ndereliction of duty, but also it went against  the  norms  and  rules  of  the<br \/>\ninsurance  company,  where  the  petitioner  was  the  agent;  that under such<br \/>\ncircumstances, an enquiry was initiated, and sufficient opportunity was given;<br \/>\nthat the petitioner put forth his explanation; that following  the  procedural<br \/>\nformalities,  the agency of the petitioner was terminated, and hence, the writ<br \/>\npetition has got to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        6.  From the rival  submissions,  it  could  be  well  seen  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner, who was the agent of the respondent insurance company for a period<br \/>\nof  more  than 10 years, secured a policy of one Sannmugam on 30.12 .1998, and<br \/>\nthe insured died on 31.10.1999 due to heart  ailment.    It  is  also  not  in<br \/>\ncontroversy that another agent of the insurance company by name P.Raja secured<br \/>\na policy  of the same person on 30.9.1999.  The contention of the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nside that no action has been taken against the  said  agent  has  been  flatly<br \/>\ndenied  by  the learned Counsel for the respondents by stating that action has<br \/>\nbeen initiated against him, and punishment has also been imposed on him.   Now<br \/>\nat  this  juncture,  it  is pertinent to point out that the petitioner, who is<br \/>\naggrieved over the termination of his agency by  the  second  respondent,  has<br \/>\npreferred an  appeal  before  the  third respondent.  A perusal of the counter<br \/>\naffidavit would go to show that the appeal preferred  by  the  petitioner  was<br \/>\ndismissed  by  the  appellate  authority,  the  third  respondent  herein,  on<br \/>\n29.8.2003.  It is submitted by the learned Counsel  for  the  petitioner  that<br \/>\nagainst  the  said  order,  an  appeal  was  filed as per the rules before the<br \/>\nChairman of LIC, and the same is yet kept pending.  It is pertinent  to  point<br \/>\nout  that  having  filed an appeal before the Chairman, the petitioner has not<br \/>\nadded him as a party to this proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        7.  Apart from the above, from the submissions made, it could be  seen<br \/>\nthat the  appeal  preferred is yet pending before the Chairman of the LIC.  In<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, it is a matter for consideration by the  Chairman,  before<br \/>\nit reaches the Court by way of writ application.  Hence, even without availing<br \/>\nthe  remedy  what is available under the rules by way of an appeal what is now<br \/>\npending in the hands of the Chairman, the petitioner has  brought  forth  this<br \/>\nwrit application.    Therefore,  a  direction  would  be suffice to the fourth<br \/>\nrespondent to dispose of the appeal pending in his hands, which is alleged  to<br \/>\nhave been preferred by the petitioner, within a reasonable time limit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        8.   Now, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that no<br \/>\nsuch appeal is pending before the fourth respondent.   He  would  further  add<br \/>\nthat even if no appeal has been preferred, the petitioner can prefer an appeal<br \/>\nbefore  the Chairman of LIC, and even if any point of limitation is available,<br \/>\nthe fourth respondent insurance company is ready to waive the same.  Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances,  if  no  appeal  is  preferred,  the  petitioner  is  given  an<br \/>\nopportunity to prefer an appeal within a period of one month herefrom, and the<br \/>\nfourth  respondent insurance company is directed to dispose of the same within<br \/>\na period of two months therefrom.  After the disposal of the  said  appeal  by<br \/>\nthe  Chairman,  the  petitioner  is  at  liberty  to  move  this Court, if the<br \/>\ncircumstances do warrant so.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        9.  In the result, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.   No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">Index   :  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">1.The Branch Manager<br \/>\nLIC of India (Main Branch)<br \/>\nTrichy Road, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">2.The Senior Divisional Manager<br \/>\nLIC of India, Divsn.  Office<br \/>\nGandhi Road<br \/>\nThanjavur 613 000.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">3.The Zonal Manager<br \/>\nLIC of India, Anna Salai,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">4.Designated Person<br \/>\nUnder Insurance Regulatory<br \/>\nDevelopment Authority<br \/>\nLIC Agents, Regulations 2000<br \/>\nLIC of India, Divsn.  Office<br \/>\nGandhi Road, Thanjavur-cum-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">Marketing Manager<br \/>\nLIC of India, Divisional Office, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12\/08\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM W.P.No.27162 of 2003 R.Raju .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Branch Manager LIC of India (Main Branch) Trichy Road, Thanjavur. 2.The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divsn. Office Gandhi [&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-251185","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 - 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\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-20T13:24:05+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\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-20T13:24:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1219,\"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\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\",\"name\":\"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-20T13:24:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 - 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\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-20T13:24:05+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\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-20T13:24:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004"},"wordCount":1219,"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\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004","name":"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-20T13:24:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raju-vs-the-branch-manager-on-12-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Raju vs The Branch Manager on 12 August, 2004"}]},{"@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\/251185","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=251185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}