{"id":49370,"date":"2007-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-05-20T10:44:51","modified_gmt":"2014-05-20T05:14:51","slug":"dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 25.01.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN\n                              \n\n          Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.245 of 2000\n                              \n\n1. Dhavamani\n2. Minor Jayaprema\n3. Minor Jayapriya\n.. Minors 2 & 3 rep. by their\n   mother & natural guardian            ..   Appellants\n\n\n                             Vs.\n\n                              \n1. Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd.,\n   4, Nehru Nagaram, Salem - 4.\n\n2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n   Division Office-II,\n   Peramanoor Main Road,\n   Salem - 7.                           ..   Respondents\n\n                            -----\n                              \n      Appeal  against  the  order of  the  Commissioner  for\nWorkmen's  Compensation  (Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labour),\nSalem, dated 8.7.1998 made in W.C.No.141 of 1996.\n                            -----\n\n     For Appellants      :    Mr. P. Thirunavukarasu\n     For Respondents     :    Mr. V. Srinivasn - R1\n                              Mr. C. Ramesh Babu - R2\n                            -----\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The  applicants before the Commissioner for  Workmen’s<\/p>\n
Compensation  have  preferred the above appeal  against  the<\/p>\n
award  dated  08.07.1998 made in W.C.No.141 of 1996  on  the<\/p>\n
file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner  for<\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation), Salem, for enhancement of the award<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The  deceased Sennan, who is the husband  of  the<\/p>\n
first appellant\/first claimant and father of appellants 2  &<\/p>\n
3\/claimants  2  & 3, was working as a driver  in  the  lorry<\/p>\n
bearing  Registration No.TN-27-5533 belonging to  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  company and insured with the second  respondent.<\/p>\n
On 10.09.1995, when he was driving the lorry near Mettupatty<\/p>\n
Thathanoor,  he  gave way to the lorry, which  came  in  the<\/p>\n
opposite direction, and while so, the lorry dragged  due  to<\/p>\n
slit soil and drizzling and hit against a tamarind tree, due<\/p>\n
to  which,  he sustained grievous injuries and died  on  the<\/p>\n
spot.    The   appellants  filed  a  petition   claiming   a<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.2,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The  claim petition was resisted  by  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent\/employer  stating that the alleged  accident  had<\/p>\n
taken  place  only  due  to the carelessness  and  negligent<\/p>\n
driving  of the vehicle by the deceased and that the vehicle<\/p>\n
involved  in  the accident had been fully insured  with  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent and hence the second respondent is liable<\/p>\n
to  pay  compensation.  According to the second  respondent-<\/p>\n
insurance  company, the deceased was not an  employee  under<\/p>\n
the   first   respondent-company,  which  alone  had   taken<\/p>\n
insurance   policy,  and  he  was  an   employee   of   Sree<\/p>\n
Solaiandavar  Textile  Mills, and  since  the  deceased  was<\/p>\n
carrying  more  than sixty persons belonging to  a  marriage<\/p>\n
party in the lorry for hire or reward, which is not his part<\/p>\n
of  employment,  violating the insurance policy  conditions,<\/p>\n
the second respondent\/insurance company is not liable to pay<\/p>\n
any amount.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.1.   The   Commissioner,  based  on  Ex.A1,   first<\/p>\n
information  report, wherein the informer  has  stated  that<\/p>\n
when  the  deceased was driving the lorry  near  Metthupatty<\/p>\n
Thathanoor,  he  gave way to the lorry  which  came  in  the<\/p>\n
opposite  direction and while so, the lorry  hit  against  a<\/p>\n
tamarind tree and capsized and the driver died on the  spot;<\/p>\n
Ex.P2,  post mortem certificate, shows the date of admission<\/p>\n
of  the victim and the injuries sustained by him; and Ex.R2,<\/p>\n
motor claim form, submitted to the second respondent by  the<\/p>\n
first  respondent, reveals that the deceased was the  driver<\/p>\n
of  the  lorry  at the time of the accident, held  that  the<\/p>\n
deceased  was  a workman under the first respondent  and  he<\/p>\n
died in the accident which arose out of and in the course of<\/p>\n
his  employment.    Secondly, the Commissioner,  considering<\/p>\n
Ex.A2,  post mortem certificate, and the averments  made  in<\/p>\n
the claim petition, determined the age of the deceased as 30<\/p>\n
years at the time of accident and fixed the monthly wages of<\/p>\n
the  deceased  at  Rs.1000\/- as there is no  proof  for  the<\/p>\n
appellants’ claim that he deceased was drawing Rs.2000\/- per<\/p>\n
month  and  arrived at a sum of Rs.83,192\/- as  compensation<\/p>\n
payable to the appellants\/claimants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.2.   Further,   the   Commissioner,   taking   into<\/p>\n
consideration Ex.A1, first information report, wherein it is<\/p>\n
narrated by the informer that the lorry was transporting  60<\/p>\n
persons  of  a  marriage party, and the plea of  the  second<\/p>\n
respondent that the vehicle concerned is a goods vehicle and<\/p>\n
it  should  not  be  used  to carry passengers\/human  beings<\/p>\n
except  six employees of insured as per law, held  that  the<\/p>\n
first   respondent-employer  alone   is    liable   to   pay<\/p>\n
compensation to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        4.3.    Hence,   the   present   appeal    by    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants seeking for enhancement  of  the  award<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.  When  the  appeal  was  admitted,  the  following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law are framed for consideration:<\/p>\n
            1.   Whether   the   learned   Commissioner<\/p>\n
    calculated the Award correctly?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to<\/p>\n
    pay the compensation or not?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.  Learned counsel for the appellants contended  that<\/p>\n
the  Commissioner has erred in fixing the monthly income  of<\/p>\n
the deceased as Rs.1,000\/-; in calculating the percentage of<\/p>\n
salary  in the factors mentioned in the Schedule of the  Act<\/p>\n
and  in holding that the second respondent-insurance company<\/p>\n
is  not  liable to pay compensation, as it is liable to  pay<\/p>\n
compensation for the driver, cleaner and six coolies as  per<\/p>\n
the policy conditions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  According  to  the appellants,  the  deceased  was<\/p>\n
drawing  a  sum  of  Rs.2,000\/- as monthly  income  and  the<\/p>\n
Commissioner had erroneously restricted it to Rs.1,000\/- and<\/p>\n
awarded only Rs.83,192\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.  The  Commissioner, considering the  Minimum  Wages<\/p>\n
Notification  viz.,  G.O.Ms.No.625  dated  25.5.1995,  which<\/p>\n
states that the driver is entitled to receive Rs.1,740\/-  as<\/p>\n
wages, restricted it to Rs.1,000\/- as per Explanation II  of<\/p>\n
Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1984,  as<\/p>\n
there  is  no  proof  for  the appellants’  claim  that  the<\/p>\n
deceased was earning Rs.2000\/- per month.  Thus, arrived  at<\/p>\n
a   sum  of  Rs.83,192\/-  as  compensation  payable  to  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants.  I am of the view that the quantum  of<\/p>\n
compensation  arrived  at by the Commissioner  is  just  and<\/p>\n
proper.   Accordingly, the first question of law is answered<\/p>\n
against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     9. With regard to the second question of law, the issue<\/p>\n
is  covered  by the decision of the Apex Court  in  National<\/p>\n
Insurance  Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel,<\/a> reported in  2005  (3)<\/p>\n
CTC 569, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:<\/p>\n
          “13. The insurance policy being in the nature
\n     of  a contract, it is permissible for an owner  to
\n     take such a policy whereunder the entire liability
\n     in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any
\n     such  employee as is described in sub-clauses  (a)
\n     or  (b) or (c) of Proviso (i) to Section 147(1)(b)
\n     may  be  fastened upon the insurance  company  and
\n     insurance company may become liable to satisfy the
\n     entire award.  However, for this purpose the owner
\n     must  take  a policy of that particular  kind  for
\n     which he may be required to pay additional premium
\n     and   the  policy  must  clearly  show  that   the
\n     liability  of  the insurance company  in  case  of
\n     death of or bodily injury to the aforesaid kind of
\n     employees is not restricted to that provided under
\n     the  Workmen’s Act and is either more or unlimited
\n     depending upon the quantum of premium paid and the
\n     terms of the policy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           15.  Though the aforesaid decision has  been
\n     rendered  on  Section 95(2) of the Motor  Vehicles
\n     Act,  1939,  but the principle underlying  therein
\n     will  be  fully applicable here also.  It is  thus
\n     clear  that in case the owner of the vehicle wants
\n     the  liability of the insurance company in respect
\n     of  death of or bodily injury to any such employee
\n     as  is  described in Clauses (a) or (b) or (c)  of
\n     proviso  (i) to Section 147(1)(b), should  not  be
\n     restricted  to  that under the Workmen’s  Act  but
\n     should  be more or unlimited, he must take such  a
\n     policy by making payment of extra premium and  the
\n     policy  should  also  contain  a  clause  to  that
\n     effect.   However,  where the policy  mentions  “a
\n     policy for Act Liability” or “Act Liability”,  the
\n     liability  of  the  insurance  company   qua   the
\n     employees as aforesaid would not be unlimited  but
\n     would  be  limited  to  that  arising  under   the
\n     Workmen’s Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          16. The High Court, in the impugned judgment,
\n     has  held that if the legal representatives of the
\n     deceased  employee  approach  the  Motor  Accident
\n     Claims  Tribunal  for payment of  compensation  to
\n     them by moving a petition under Section 166 of the
\n     Act, the liability of the insurance company is not
\n     limited to the extent provided under the Workmen’s
\n     Act  and  on  its  basis  directed  the  appellant
\n     insurance  company  to pay the  entire  amount  of
\n     compensation  to the claimants.  As  shown  above,
\n     the  insurance policy taken by the owner contained
\n     a  clause that it was a policy for “Act Liability”
\n     only.   This  being  the  nature  of  policy   the
\n     liability of the appellant would be restricted  to
\n     that   arising  under  the  Workmen’s  Act.    The
\n     judgment of the High Court, therefore, needs to be
\n     modified accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          17. The judgment of the High Court insofar as
\n     it   relates   to  quantum  of  compensation   and
\n     interest,  which  is to be paid to  the  claimants
\n     (respondent  Nos.3 to 6 herein) is affirmed.   The
\n     liability  of the appellant insurance  company  to
\n     satisfy  the  award  would be restricted  to  that
\n     arising  under the Workmen’s Act.  The  respondent
\n     Nos.1  and  2  (owners of the  vehicle)  would  be
\n     liable  to  satisfy the remaining portion  of  the
\n     award.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      10.  As per the decision of the Apex Court, the second<\/p>\n
respondent-insurance   company  is   liable   to   pay   the<\/p>\n
compensation   awarded   by   the   Commissioner   to    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants and recover the amount,  which  exceeds<\/p>\n
its liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, from the<\/p>\n
owner of the vehicle, by filing an execution petition before<\/p>\n
the concerned Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ATR<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour
\n   (Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation)
\n   Salem.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Record Keeper
\n   V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.01.2007 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.245 of 2000 1. Dhavamani 2. Minor Jayaprema 3. Minor Jayapriya .. Minors 2 & 3 rep. by their mother & natural guardian […]<\/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-49370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-20T05:14:51+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\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-20T05:14:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1486,\"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\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-20T05:14:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-20T05:14:51+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\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-20T05:14:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007"},"wordCount":1486,"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\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007","name":"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-20T05:14:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhavamani-vs-ideal-spinning-mills-ltd-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhavamani vs Ideal Spinning Mills Ltd on 25 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/49370","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=49370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}