{"id":137460,"date":"2003-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003"},"modified":"2015-01-16T14:28:43","modified_gmt":"2015-01-16T08:58:43","slug":"k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 12\/03\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice R.Jayasimha Babu\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N.V.Balasubramanian\n\nLetters Patent Appeal No.80 of 2000\nand\nC.M.P.No.6111 of 2000\n\nK. Venkatesan                  .....                Appellant\n\n-VS-\n\n1.   M\/s. Pandian Roadways\n      Corporation Limited, a Tamil\n      Nadu Government Transport\n      undertaking rep.by its Managing Director\n      having its  Office at Bye-pas Road,\n      Madurai -16\n\n2. L. Ramanathan                        ..... Respondents\n\n        Letters Patent Appeal filed against  the  judgment  and  decree  dated\n2.12.1999  made  in A.S.No.491 of 1986 on the file of this Court reversing the\njudgment and decree made in  O.S.No.884  of  1980  on  the  file  of  the  III\nAdditional Sub Judge, Madurai.\n\n!For appellants :       Mr.  G.  Sukumaran\n\n^For 1st respondent :  Mr.  P.  Pandi\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nR.Jayasimha Babu,J)<\/p>\n<p>        The  appellant  was accused of having embezzled the funds belonging to<br \/>\nthe Transport Corporation by drawing money from the Treasury, but  failing  to<br \/>\nremit  the  same  to  the  Corporation  and  to bring it into the books of the<br \/>\nCorporation.  Such embezzlement occurred between  March  and  September,  1976<br \/>\nwhen  the  appellant  was  in  the  employment  of  the respondent Corporation<br \/>\nhandling the bus warrants and collecting the  amounts  from  the  Treasury  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  those  warrants,  the  warrants being the documents issued by the<br \/>\npolice officials who had travelled on the respondent&#8217;s  buses  without  paying<br \/>\ncash.  The warrants, in effect, were credit vouchers which were required to be<br \/>\nsubsequently paid by the police authorities who had in this case been doing so<br \/>\nby  authorising  the  drawal  of  the  amounts  being  the fare payable by the<br \/>\npolicemen who travelled in  the  buses  by  using  those  warrants,  from  the<br \/>\nTreasury.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The suit was filed on 29.4.1980 within three years from 7.5.1977 ,<br \/>\nthe date on which the misappropriation committed by the appellant was detected<br \/>\nby the respondent &#8211; Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In the plaint, it was alleged that the appellant had been employed<br \/>\nas  a Senior Clerk in the Bus Warrant Section of the Corporation which was the<br \/>\nplaintiff, he having joined the Southern Roadways in the year 1957, and  after<br \/>\n1972,  having continued in service of the Corporation which had taken over the<br \/>\nbusiness of Southern Roadways Private Limited with regard to  the  running  of<br \/>\npassenger services.   He remained in employment till 1.8.1976 when he retired,<br \/>\nbut was immediately re-employed on a daily wage basis till 2.5.1977.   In  the<br \/>\nplaint,  it  was  further averred that in or about the first week of May, 1977<br \/>\ni.e., on 2.5.1977, on surprise scrutiny, it was found that the  appellant  had<br \/>\nnot  remitted various amounts collected by him from the Treasury Office on the<br \/>\nbasis of a number of bus warrant bills and had not  accounted  for  the  same.<br \/>\nThe total amount which he had so collected, but had not remitted was stated to<br \/>\nbe Rs.1,40,016.85.    It  was  also  alleged  in the plaint that shortly after<br \/>\ndetection, the appellant was questioned when he admitted his  guilt  and  made<br \/>\nthe confession statement to the Management on 7.5.1977.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   In  paragraph  14 of the plaint, it was categorically stated that<br \/>\nthe appellant after encashing the amounts of the bills  had  not  brought  the<br \/>\nsame  to  account  and  had not remitted the monies to the plaintiff &#8211; Pandian<br \/>\nRoadways Corporation.  In paragraph 18, it was stated that the monies had been<br \/>\nembezzled and in paragraph 20, the cause of action for the suit  was  said  to<br \/>\nhave  arisen on 2nd May,1977 &#8220;when the criminal misappropriation was detected&#8221;<br \/>\nand on 7.5.1977 when  the  first  defendant  pleaded  guilty  to  his  act  of<br \/>\nembezzlement.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   In  the  written  statement  filed,  the  appellant  who  was the<br \/>\ndefendant did not plead that the suit was barred by limitation.   He  admitted<br \/>\nthe  fact that he was in charge of the encashment of the Bus Warrants, that he<br \/>\nhad encashed the same, but had claimed that he had remitted the monies to  the<br \/>\nCorporation and that he had not given a confession voluntarily.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   Though  the  trial Court dismissed the suit, the appeal preferred<br \/>\nagainst that judgment was successful.  The learned single Judge  has  recorded<br \/>\nthe  categorical  finding  that  there  was, in fact, misappropriation and the<br \/>\ndefendant was liable to make good  the  amounts  so  misappropriated,  to  the<br \/>\nemployer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   The  question  of  limitation  was  raised  for the first time in<br \/>\nappeal.  The learned single Judge  considered  that  plea  and  negatived  the<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s submission  that  the  suit claim was barred by limitation.  While<br \/>\ndoing so, the learned single Judge has observed that the suit was barred under<br \/>\nArticle 24 of the Limitation Act which deals with the period within which  the<br \/>\nsuits for recovery of money is to be brought, the point of time from which the<br \/>\nlimitation  runs  under  that  Article being the time at which the monies were<br \/>\nreceived, the period within which the suit to be brought  being  three  years.<br \/>\nThe learned single Judge thereafter referred to Section 17 of the Act and held<br \/>\nthat  as the defendant had embezzled the money, it was clearly a case of fraud<br \/>\nand, therefore, the limitation would begin to run only when the fraud came  to<br \/>\nbe detected.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Learned  counsel  for  the appellant submitted before us that the<br \/>\nfinding so recorded by the learned single Judge on the question of  limitation<br \/>\nis  erroneous,  as according to him, the requirements of Order 7 Rule 6 of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure had not been complied with by  the  plaintiff.    That<br \/>\nRule  provides  that  where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the<br \/>\nperiod prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show  the  ground<br \/>\nupon which exemption from such law is claimed.  The proviso to the Rule states<br \/>\nthat  the  Court  may  permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of<br \/>\nlimitation on any ground not set out in the plaint,  if  such  ground  is  not<br \/>\ninconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  It is clear that this Rule will be attracted only in cases where a<br \/>\nsuit  is  instituted &#8220;after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law<br \/>\nof limitation&#8221;.  When a plaintiff pleads fraud, the period of limitation, when<br \/>\nthe commission of such fraud is proved, will not begin as provided in  Section<br \/>\n17  &#8220;until  the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake<br \/>\nor could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it, &#8230;&#8230;..:.&#8221;.    Thus,<br \/>\nthe  period of limitation in this case did not begin to run, until the time of<br \/>\ndiscovery of the fraud that had been committed by the  appellant.    When  the<br \/>\nperiod  of  limitation itself had not begin, no question of claiming exemption<br \/>\nfrom the law of limitation would arise for consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  In cases of fraud where the relief claimed is one of recovery  of<br \/>\nmoney,  Article 24 of the Limitation Act must necessarily be read with Section<br \/>\n17 of the Act.  So read, the period of limitation would not begin to run until<br \/>\nthe time of discovery of the fraud or the time at which  it  could  have  been<br \/>\ndiscovered.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   In  the  plaint,  it  has  been  clearly  averred that there was<br \/>\nembezzlement and that such embezzlement came to be detected on 2.5.1977  which<br \/>\nwas  within  few  months from September, 1976, in which month, the last of the<br \/>\nbills, for which money was drawn but not  remitted  to  the  Corporation,  was<br \/>\npresented to  the  Treasury  by the defendant in the suit.  The learned single<br \/>\nJudge has rightly held that this was not a case of any lack  of  diligence  on<br \/>\nthe part  of the respondent.  Embezzlement clearly having been established and<br \/>\nSection 17 of the Limitation Act having been attracted, the  limitation  would<br \/>\nbegin  to  run only from the date of detection, and not from any point of time<br \/>\nprior thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  Fraud has always been treated in law as vitiating any transaction<br \/>\nand the person who has  been  the  victim  of  the  fraud  is  given  extended<br \/>\nprotection  in  law  so  that  he may recoup the rightful position in which he<br \/>\nshould have been placed, but for the fraudulent act committed in  relation  to<br \/>\nhim.   The  law does not require the victim of the fraud to lose the remedy in<br \/>\nlaw to recover the monies from the employee who had committed  the  fraudulent<br \/>\nact,  even  when  he could not have taken recourse to that remedy by reason of<br \/>\nbeing unaware of  the  fraud  that  had  been  committed,  despite  reasonable<br \/>\ndiligence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.   Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  then  contended  that the<br \/>\nquestion of limitation should not have been considered for the first  time  by<br \/>\nthe appellate  Court.    That question was raised not by the plaintiff, but by<br \/>\nthe defendant, and it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant now to  claim<br \/>\nin  the  further appeal that a point that he had raised in the appellate Court<br \/>\nshould not have been considered after it had received  due  consideration  and<br \/>\nhad been  rejected.    The  question of limitation was not raised in the trial<br \/>\nCourt, and was not  a  point  which  required  consideration  at  all  by  the<br \/>\nappellate Court and would not have been considered but for the submission that<br \/>\nhad been  made  for  the  defendant before the appellate Court.  The fact that<br \/>\nthat plea failed does  not  entitle  the  defendant  now  to  claim  that  the<br \/>\nappellate judgment is vitiated by the reason of such consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.  We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nbtr<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe III Additional Sub Judge,<br \/>\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 12\/03\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice R.Jayasimha Babu and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.V.Balasubramanian Letters Patent Appeal No.80 of 2000 and C.M.P.No.6111 of 2000 K. Venkatesan &#8230;.. Appellant -VS- 1. M\/s. Pandian Roadways [&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-137460","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>K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 - 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\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-16T08:58:43+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\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-16T08:58:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1444,\"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\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\",\"name\":\"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-16T08:58:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 - 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\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-16T08:58:43+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\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-16T08:58:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003"},"wordCount":1444,"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\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003","name":"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-16T08:58:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-venkatesan-vs-ms-pandian-roadways-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Venkatesan vs M\/S. Pandian Roadways on 12 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/137460","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=137460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}