{"id":163827,"date":"2006-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006"},"modified":"2016-09-21T20:49:21","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T15:19:21","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 05\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nC.M.A.No.1218 of 1997\n\n\nThe Managing Director,\nDheeran chinnamalai Transport Corporation,\nTrichy.\t\t\t\t\t\t...Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1.Mrs.Padmavathi\n2.Minor Senthil Kumar\n3.Minor Nalini\n4.Minor Balamani\t\t\t\t...Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the\njudgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995, dated 30.04.1997, on the\nfile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Thanjavur.\n\n\n!For Appellant    \t....\t\tMr.K.Baskara Pandian for\n\t\t\t\t\tMs.Raghu Associates\n\n^For Respondents  \t....\t\tMs.MD.Ashfaq Rafi\n\t\t\t\t\tfor R1 to R4.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation passed in<br \/>\nM.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995, dated 30.04.1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal &#8211; Sub Court, Thanjavur.  The respondent \/ State Transport<br \/>\nCorporation is the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>The background facts stated in the additional petition filed by the petitioners<br \/>\nsans unnecessary details are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995, on the file<br \/>\nof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal &#8211; Sub Court, Thanjavur.  The first<br \/>\nclaimant was working as a load man in a rice Mill.  On 13.11.1990, at about<br \/>\n04.30 p.m., he was proceeding from north to south on the Gandhiji Road,<br \/>\nThanjavur in a cycle along with his brother and the cycle was pedaled by the<br \/>\nbrother of the first claimant along the left hand of the side of the road.  At<br \/>\nthat time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0090, belonging to the<br \/>\nrespondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed<br \/>\nagainst the cycle in which the first claimant along with his brother was<br \/>\nproceeding.  The first claimant has sustained a fracture on the pelvic bone in<br \/>\nthe hip and the passage of the urethra was also distracted.  He was immediately<br \/>\ntaken to the Government Hospital at Thanjavur and admitted as an inpatient on<br \/>\n13.11.1990 itself and he was discharged only on 21.11.1990.  Again, he was<br \/>\nadmitted as an inpatient in the hospital on 22.11.1990 for further treatment.<br \/>\nHe died on 02.11.1995.  The second claimant is the wife of the first claimant<br \/>\nand the claimants 3 to 5 are the children.  The claimants have filed a claim<br \/>\npetition claiming Rs.1,00,000\/- towards compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The respondent in his counter has contended that the accident had not<br \/>\noccurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TN-45-N-0090, belonging to the respondent, but only due to the<br \/>\nnegligence of the first petitioner \/ claimant.  The first petitioner did not die<br \/>\ndue to the injuries, he had sustained in the accident.  There is no cause of<br \/>\naction to the petitioners \/ claimants 2 to 4 to continue the claim petition.<br \/>\nThe bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0209 was registered in the R.T.O&#8217;s<br \/>\nOffice on 26.11.1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Before the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P.1<br \/>\nto P.17 were marked on the side of the claimants.  R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined<br \/>\nand Ex.R.1 was marked on the side of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned<br \/>\nTribunal has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and<br \/>\nnegligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0090<br \/>\nand the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000\/- towards compensation under the<br \/>\nhead pain and sufferings experienced by the deceased \/ first claimant, at the<br \/>\ntime of taking treatment as an inpatient.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Aggrieved by the award of compensation of the learned Tribunal, the<br \/>\nrespondent has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Now, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the award of<br \/>\ncompensation given by the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995, dated<br \/>\n30.04.1997, under the head pain and sufferings, is sustainable for the reasons<br \/>\nstated in the Memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.1218 of 1997?\n<\/p>\n<p>The Point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that according to<br \/>\nthe claimants, the accident had occurred only on 13.11.1990, at about 04.30<br \/>\np.m., and as the first claimant, the injured had preferred a claim petition in<br \/>\nM.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995 and pending trial, the first claimant died on 02.11.1995<br \/>\nand his legal representatives namely, the claimants 2 to 5 were impleaded, have<br \/>\nfiled an additional claim petition.  The learned Counsel would attack the award<br \/>\non the ground that for the pain and sufferings, the first claimant had<br \/>\nexperienced due to the injuries, he had sustained in the accident, his legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives are not entitled to get any compensation under Section 306 of<br \/>\nthe Indian Succession Act.  Because, the cause of action to sue does not survive<br \/>\nto his legal representatives.  The learned Counsel would contend that if at all<br \/>\nthe legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to any compensation, they are<br \/>\nentitled to only compensation under the head, medical expenses incurred by the<br \/>\ndeceased as the loss of estate to the deceased.  In support of this contention,<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in<br \/>\nThailammai and others Vs. A.V.Mallayya Pillai and others reported in 1979 TLNJ\n<\/p>\n<p>461.  The dictum was delivered in a C.R.P filed before this Court against the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the injured, one Adaikalam in a motor accident, who died<br \/>\nsubsequent to the filing of the claim petition, pending enquiry of the petition.<br \/>\nThe deceased wife, son and two daughters filed an application for bringing them<br \/>\non record as legal representatives of the deceased.  But the said petition was<br \/>\ndismissed by the learned Tribunal for which the revision was preferred before<br \/>\nthis Court.  The learned Tribunal in that I.A has held that as per Section 306<br \/>\nof the Indian Succession Act, the action does not survive for the legal<br \/>\nrepresentative, relying on an earlier decision of this Court in C.P.Kandaswamy<br \/>\nVs. Mariappa Stores (AIR 1974 Mad. 178).  In the revision, the learned Judge of<br \/>\nthis Court has held that Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was enacted by<br \/>\nthe Parliament not to restrict the statutory right to claim damages to the<br \/>\ninjured alone, but in a case of claims arising out of motor accidents, clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) provides that the cause of action would survive to the legal representatives<br \/>\nwhere death has resulted from the accident and that this was an exception to the<br \/>\ngeneral principle &#8220;Actio personalis moriture cum personal&#8221;.  It has been held by<br \/>\nthe learned Judge as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;It is true there is a distinction between case of death resulting from<br \/>\nthe accident and a case of other personal injuries not causing the death of the<br \/>\nparty, but the party dying subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings<br \/>\nnot due to the accident, distinction so far as as the right to claim damages.<br \/>\nThe claims in all these cases are now statutory rights.  Therefore there appears<br \/>\nto be no reason to restrict the right to the injured alone.  Any way that point<br \/>\nneed not be decided in this case at this stage.  C.P.Kandaswamy Vs. Mariappa<br \/>\nStores (A.I.R. 1974 Mad.178) is distinguishable.  In that case, the claim was<br \/>\nfor a sum of Rs.25,000\/-.  This was made up of Rs.1,000\/- towards medical<br \/>\nexpenses, Rs.4,000\/- towards of loss of professional income, Rs.10,000\/- for<br \/>\nshock, pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.10,000\/- for the permanent<br \/>\npartial disability suffered by him on account of the accident.  Rs.5,000\/- which<br \/>\nwas granted by the Tribunal made up of Rs.2,000\/- towards loss of professional<br \/>\nincome, Rs.2,000\/- towards shock, pain and suffering as a result of the injuries<br \/>\nsustained by him and Rs.1,000\/- for medical expenses and the rest of the claim<br \/>\nwas disallowed.  It is against that order an appeal was pending.  With reference<br \/>\nto shock, pain and suffering and loss of professional income, it was held that<br \/>\nthe cause of action did not survive&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBut in this case even that difficulty does not arise as the claim for<br \/>\ndamages included the value of the cycle which is damages to property.  Certainly<br \/>\nthat claim relating to value cycle surviving for the legal representatives is a<br \/>\ndamage done by any person to the estate of the deceased.  Even on the question<br \/>\nof recovering the actual expenses incurred by the deceased, I have no doubt that<br \/>\nthe claim will survive since that amount if had not been spent might have been<br \/>\navailable as the estate of the deceased to be succeeded by his legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives.  The actual dispute will be only with reference to the pain and<br \/>\nsuffering and on the permanent disability and loss of earning claimed in the<br \/>\npetition.  With reference to these items, though I have my own doubts, as I have<br \/>\nalready stated, I am bound by the decision of the Bench reported in<br \/>\nC.P.Kandaswamy Vs. Mariappa Stores (A.I.R. 1974 Mad.178) and I do not consider<br \/>\nit necessary to refer to a Bench for further consideration.  Suffice it to say<br \/>\nthat the petitioners should have been brought on record since other claims which<br \/>\ncould survive to the petitioners are also made.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The principle laid down in the above said dictum will squarely apply to<br \/>\nthe present facts of the case too.  Even though the claimants 2 to 5 are not<br \/>\nentitled to any compensation for the pain and sufferings of the deceased, they<br \/>\nare entitled to the compensation for the amount spent by them towards medical<br \/>\nexpenses and the damages caused to his cycle in the accident, etc., as the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the deceased who are entitled to succeed to his estate.  But,<br \/>\nunfortunately, there is no medical bill or any claim made in the claim petition<br \/>\nto show the quantum of loss of estate to the legal representatives of the<br \/>\ndeceased \/ the first claimant, who are the claimants 2 to 5 in M.C.O.P.No.314 of<br \/>\n1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be<br \/>\ngiven to the claimants 2 to 5 to let in further evidence by way of producing the<br \/>\nmedical bill if any available with them to claim the loss caused to the estate<br \/>\nof the deceased, the first claimant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Hence, I hold on the point that the award of compensation given by the<br \/>\nlearned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995, dated 30.04.1997, under the head<br \/>\npain and sufferings, is not sustainable for the reasons stated in the Memorandum<br \/>\nof appeal in C.M.A.No.1218 of 1997.  The point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award of compensation<br \/>\npassed in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 1995, dated 30.04.1997, on the file of the Motor<br \/>\nAccidents Claims Tribunal &#8211; Sub Court, Thanjavur, is set aside and the matter is<br \/>\nremanded to the learned Tribunal for affording an opportunity to the claimants 2<br \/>\nto 5 to let in further evidence to produce medical bills or any other documents<br \/>\nto show the loss of estate of the deceased.  The respondents \/ the claimants 2<br \/>\nto 5 shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 12.06.2006.  Registry is<br \/>\ndirected to despatch the records to the lower Court immediately.  The learned<br \/>\nTribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within a month from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of the records or from 12.06.2006.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub Court,<br \/>\nThanjavur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.1218 of 1997 The Managing Director, Dheeran chinnamalai Transport Corporation, Trichy. &#8230;Appellant Vs 1.Mrs.Padmavathi 2.Minor Senthil Kumar 3.Minor Nalini 4.Minor Balamani &#8230;Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under [&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-163827","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>The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 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\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-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=\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-21T15:19:21+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T15:19:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1807,\"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\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T15:19:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 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\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-21T15:19:21+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T15:19:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006"},"wordCount":1807,"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\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006","name":"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T15:19:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-mrs-padmavathi-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Mrs.Padmavathi on 5 April, 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:\/\/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\/163827","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=163827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}