{"id":257394,"date":"2006-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006"},"modified":"2017-09-09T19:25:52","modified_gmt":"2017-09-09T13:55:52","slug":"v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 10\/01\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI        \n\nW.P.NO.9445 OF 2001    \n\nV.Jeyaraman                                    ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nIndian Bank\nrepresented by\nThe General Manager (D.H.R.) \nCo-Personnel Department  \n31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1.                          ..Respondent\n\n\n        Prayer:  Writ petition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of  India\npraying  to  issue  a  writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records\nrelating to the impugned proceedings dated 29.03.2001 of  the  respondent;  to\nquash  the same as illegal and to direct the respondent to make the petitioner\na member of the  pension  scheme  as  per  the  option  exercised  by  him  on\n18.01.1996.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.Vijayan for\n                :  M\/s.King &amp; Patridge\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        This  writ  petition  is filed challenging the order of the respondent<br \/>\ndated 29.03.2001, under which the respondent has intimated the petitioner that<br \/>\nhe is not eligible for pensionary benefits.  It is the petitioner&#8217;s case  that<br \/>\nhe  joined  the  respondent bank on 26.06.1978 as a Clerk and retired from the<br \/>\nservices of the bank on 31.12.2000 under &#8220;Voluntary Retirement Scheme&#8221;.  While<br \/>\nhe was working in the Kodambakkam Branch of  the  Indian  Bank,  there  was  a<br \/>\nPension Scheme  called  &#8220;I.B.    Pension  Scheme  Regulation&#8221;,  under  which a<br \/>\nproposal for voluntary retirement was directed to be  opted  by  the  intended<br \/>\nemployees of the bank on or before 26.01.1996.  It is his further case that on<br \/>\n18.01.1996,  he  exercised  his  option to become a member of the said Pension<br \/>\nScheme and his option letter was despatched to the  Pension  Department  along<br \/>\nwith  the  option  letter  of  one  Pandian,  who was the Chief Manager in the<br \/>\nrespondent bank at that time.  Subsequently, he voluntarily retired  from  the<br \/>\nservices of  the  bank  with effect from 01.01.2001.  It is also his case that<br \/>\nthough the petitioner requested the respondent bank to include his name in the<br \/>\nPension Scheme, it was refused by the respondent.  The  respondent&#8217;s  case  is<br \/>\nthat,  the  petitioner did not obtain the signature of the Branch Manager\/Head<br \/>\nof the Department; he did not send the proposal before the cut off date  viz.,<br \/>\n26.01.1996 and  that  such  proposal  was  not  received by it.  Therefore, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that the proposal was sent by the petitioner in accordance with<br \/>\nthe Pension Scheme.  It is admitted by the respondent that  the  proposal,  in<br \/>\nrespect  of Pandian, was sent on 18.01.1996 and he being the Chief Manager and<br \/>\nHead of the Department, as per the Pension Scheme, he ought to have  sent  the<br \/>\nproposal of the writ petitioner also.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.   I  have  heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.   Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan  learned   counsel   appearing   for   the<br \/>\npetitioner  would state that under the Pension Scheme, which is the beneficial<br \/>\nScheme,  the  proposal  should  be  sent  before  the  cut  off  date  namely,<br \/>\n26.01.1996, with the attestation of the Branch Manager\/Head of the Department.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel for the petitioner would also state that when the proposal in<br \/>\nrespect of Pandian, who was the Chief Manager in the respondent bank  at  that<br \/>\ntime,  was  attested  by  the Branch Manager by name P.Geetha, who was working<br \/>\nunder Pandian, the same Branch Manager ought to have attested the proposal  of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  also  and  there  is  absolutely  no  justification  for  the<br \/>\nrespondent to contend that the proposal of the  petitioner  was  not  sent  in<br \/>\naccordance with  the  Pension  Scheme.    It  is further stated by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner that it cannot be said that the respondent has  not<br \/>\nreceived the  proposal  at  all.   Apart from the fact that the petitioner had<br \/>\nbeen making representations and reminders to the respondent bank regarding the<br \/>\nproposal sent by the petitioner, the  Federation  of  Indian  Bank  Employees&#8217;<br \/>\nUnions,  by it&#8217;s letter dated 25.03.1998, had clearly brought to the notice of<br \/>\nthe respondent bank that on 18.01.1996 when the proposal of Pandian was  sent,<br \/>\nthe proposal in respect of Jeyaraman (petitioner) was also sent to the Pension<br \/>\nDepartment.  In both the cases, P.Geetha, the Branch Manager, had attested the<br \/>\nproposal  and  therefore  there  is  no  justification  at all for denying the<br \/>\nbenefit of the Pension Scheme to the petitioner.   In  support  of  his  case,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the &#8220;Letters Inward<br \/>\nRegister&#8221;  maintained  by  the  Bank  itself,  wherein  it  is stated that &#8220;on<br \/>\n18.01.1996, the option letters of Mr.Jayaraman and Mr.Pandian were forwarded&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        3.  On the other hand, Mr.Vijayan learned counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nrespondent  bank would contend that the petitioner did not exercise his option<br \/>\nunder the Pension Scheme.  Learned counsel also  relies  upon  the  Attendance<br \/>\nRegister maintained by the bank to show that on 18.01.1 996 the petitioner was<br \/>\non  leave  while  Pandian, the Chief Manager, attended the bank and the Branch<br \/>\nManager attested his proposal.  The copy of the computerised  statement  filed<br \/>\nby  the  respondent bank, which is available at page No.10 of the typed set of<br \/>\npapers, would show that all the proposals were sent after the cut off date and<br \/>\nit is not known as to how the petitioner&#8217;s proposal alone was not sent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        4.  Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  relies  upon  a<br \/>\nDivision  Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case<br \/>\nreported in Allahabad Bank &amp; Others Vs.  Surendra Kumar Mishra  (200  3-II-LLJ<br \/>\nPg.373)  to contend that &#8220;an employee of a bank cannot be made to lose pension<br \/>\nbenefit for the banks inability to trace the option form&#8221;.    He  also  relies<br \/>\nupon  another  judgment  of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case<br \/>\nreported in  Dasu  Subba  Lakshmi  Vs.    Indian  Bank,   Chennai   &amp;   Others<br \/>\n(2003-II-L.L.J.Pg.459) to contend that &#8221; the banks&#8217; plea of non-receipt of the<br \/>\noption form should not be sustained&#8221;.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also<br \/>\nrelies  upon  another  judgment  of  the Patna High Court rendered in the case<br \/>\nreported in Kishun Lall Vs.  Chairman &amp; Managing Director, UCO Bank  &amp;  Others<br \/>\n(2002-III  L.L.J.Pg.157), wherein it was held that &#8220;if the option letters were<br \/>\nnot received in the Zonal Office or Head Office, the  employee  cannot  be  at<br \/>\nfault&#8221;.   In that case a direction was also issued to the bank to consider the<br \/>\nproposal submitted by the employee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        5.  In the present case, learned counsel for the respondent bank would<br \/>\nstate that he is unable to produce any record regarding the proposal submitted<br \/>\nby the petitioner, since it relates to the period 1996 and not traceable.  But<br \/>\non the other hand, learned counsel for the  petitioner  produced  before  this<br \/>\ncourt  various  documents, including the option form stated to have been given<br \/>\nby the petitioner on 18.01.1996 attested by  P.Geetha,  whose  designation  at<br \/>\nthat  time  is  mentioned  in  the  document  as  &#8220;Senior Manager, Kodambakkam<br \/>\nBranch&#8221;.  The Federation of Indian Bank Employees&#8217;  Unions  had  also  sent  a<br \/>\nletter  dated  25.03.1998 to the respondent bank stating that it has forwarded<br \/>\nthe option given by Jeyaraman, along with the option giv en by Pandian, to the<br \/>\nPension Department.  Therefore I am of the  view  that  the  judgments  stated<br \/>\nabove and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would squarely<br \/>\napply to  the  case  on hand.  In support of his case, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent relies upon a letter dated 12.08.2002 of the said Pandian, in which<br \/>\nit is stated that &#8220;on perusal of records, I certify  that  my  pension  option<br \/>\napplication   datd   18.01.1996  was  forwarded  by  my  second  line  officer<br \/>\nMrs.Geetha.  I had not forwarded the said application of Mr.V.Jayaraman.    My<br \/>\napplication alone was sent.&#8221; I do not think that this letter is of any help to<br \/>\nthe  contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, especially when the<br \/>\nsaid Pandian is no more.  The  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\nrespondent  that  P.Geetha  is  neither  a  Branch  Manager  nor  Head  of the<br \/>\nDepartment and therefore her attestation is of  no  use  as  per  the  Pension<br \/>\nScheme,  is also not acceptable for the reason that the respondent bank cannot<br \/>\ntake a double stand.  While accepting the option exercised by  Pandian,  which<br \/>\nwas  attested  by  P.Geetha, it is not known as to why the option exercised by<br \/>\nthe petitioner and attested by the same person had not  been  accepted.    The<br \/>\nPension  Scheme, being beneficial to the employees of the bank, the respondent<br \/>\nmust have been more  magnanimous  towards  it&#8217;s  employees  in  extending  the<br \/>\nbenefits of  the Scheme.  The petitioner has put in nearly 22 years of service<br \/>\nin the respondent bank.  Therefore I am of the considered view that the denial<br \/>\nof pension  benefits  to  the  petitioner  by  the  respondent  bank,  is  not<br \/>\nsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        6.  In the result, the impugned order is set aside.  The respondent is<br \/>\ndirected to  consider the option dated 18.01.1996 given by the petitioner.  In<br \/>\naddition to that, the petitioner is directed to submit  a  fresh  proposal  in<br \/>\naccordance  with  the  Scheme  to the respondent within a period of four weeks<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  On receipt of the same, the<br \/>\nrespondent bank shall consider both the proposals and  pass  necessary  orders<br \/>\nextending the benefits of the said Scheme to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">Vsl<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nIndian Bank<br \/>\nrepresented by<br \/>\nThe General Manager (D.H.R.)<br \/>\nCo-Personnel Department<br \/>\n31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai  1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/01\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.NO.9445 OF 2001 V.Jeyaraman ..Petitioner -Vs- Indian Bank represented by The General Manager (D.H.R.) Co-Personnel Department 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai &#8211; 1. ..Respondent Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 [&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-257394","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>V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 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\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-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=\"2006-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-09T13:55:52+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\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-09T13:55:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1426,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006\",\"name\":\"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-09T13:55:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 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:\/\/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":"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 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\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-09T13:55:52+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\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-09T13:55:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006"},"wordCount":1426,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006","name":"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-09T13:55:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jeyaraman-vs-indian-bank-on-10-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Jeyaraman vs Indian Bank on 10 January, 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:\/\/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\/257394","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=257394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}