{"id":185805,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-31T20:42:37","modified_gmt":"2017-07-31T15:12:37","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n \t\tIN THE HIGH COURT OF  JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:  18.12.2008\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR\n\nC.M.A.No. 1395 of  2003\nand\nC.M.P.No.9339 of 2003\n.......\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation\n(Coimbatore Division-I)Limited,\nNo.37, Mettupalayam Road,\nCoimbatore.      \t                                     ...     Appellant\/respondent\nVs.\n\t\t\t                \nBagyalakshmi                                                 ...   Respondent\/petitioner\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree  dated 08.11.2001 in MCOP No.1566 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Tiruppur.\n\t\t      For Appellant      :  Mr. P.Jagadeeswaran\n\n\t\t      For Respondent   :  M\/s.Kayalvizhi for \n                                                     Mr.C.Prakasam\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division-I)Limited has filed this appeal challenging the award and decree 08.11.2001 in MCOP No.1566 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Tiruppur.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 18.03.1999. The injured claimant Bagyalakshmi, 38 years old, working as Spinner in Rajeswary Textiles, Coimbatore, was riding her TVS. Moped.  The appellant Transport Corporation bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against her and she was thrown away. She sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Singanallur E.S.I. Hospital and thereafter she underwent treatment in NSP Nursing Home, Coimbatore. For the injuries suffered, the claimant filed a petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000\/- as compensation, stating that her income was Rs.4,500\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  In support of the claim petition, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Md.Subair  was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. Ex.P1 is xerox copy of First Information Report, Ex.P2 is photocopy of surgical card, Ex.P3 is salary certificate,  Ex.P4 is the certificate with regard to  loss of income, Ex.P5 is Medical Bills(series),  Ex.P6 is disability certificate assessing the disability at 45% and Ex.P7 is X-ray.  No  documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant\/respondent-Transport Corporation, before the Tribunal. One Thiru.Raghunathan  was examined as R.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who caused the accident and the injury and the liability of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited  to compensate the claimant, are not in dispute and the same are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has decided the issue in paragraph 7 of the award is answer to point No.2.  The injured claimant  suffered crush injuries on her right leg and right hand. There were abrasions. She took treatment in the hospital as above for six months.  However, in the award of the Tribunal, the details of the injuries suffered, the period of treatment and the nature of disability, have not been discussed. By cryptic order which is found in paragraph 7, the Tribunal, by following the multiplier method and by fixing the income of the injured claimant at Rs.4,000\/- per month,(i.e. Rs.48,000\/- per annum) awarded compensation towards pecuniary loss  based on disability-assessed at 45%  as follows:-   Rs.48,000\/- x 16 =Rs.7,68,000\/- x 45% = Rs.3,45,600\/-.  In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 9% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.\n<\/p>\n
Head
\nAmount granted by the Tribunal
\n1<\/span>
\nPermanent disability and loss of earning capacity.\n<\/p>\n
Rs.     3,45,600\/-\n2<\/span>\nLoss of income during the period of treatment \nRs.        60,000\/-\n3<\/span>\nMedical Bills                            \nRs.        50,000\/-\n\nTotal\nRs.     4,55,600\/- wrongly calculated to Rs.4,60,600\/- but\nrestricted to Rs.4,00,000\/-\n<\/pre>\n
\t7.  The learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation  pleaded that the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the multiplier method in this case,  as there is no material to show that after the injury and after treatment, the earning capacity of the claimant is totally affected.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In this case, the claimant herself claimed the loss of income only for six months, from which it is clear that she has re-joined the employment after six months and the question of adopting the multiplier does not arise as there is no permanent disability. Tested on the parameter of the Division Bench decision in  United India Insurance Co. Ltd., – vs. – Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483,  the compensation by following multiplier method is not justified in the facts of the present case.  Para 11 of the Division Bench decision reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) In all cases of injury or permanent disablement ‘multiplier method’ cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) It depends  upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc. and if so, to what extent?\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and consequential disability,  the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle for the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earnings may be ascertained by applying the ‘multiplier method’ as provided under the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Even so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule.  If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction  or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence, in this case the award in a sum of Rs.3,45,600\/- by following multiplier method is not justified and it is set aside.  The claimant, however, will be entitled to  compensation for disability assessed at 45%.  She will also be entitled compensation on various conventional heads which are omitted by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  The Tribunal has granted higher compensation of Rs.60,000\/- for loss of income for the   period of six months, stating that she was out of employment for six months, even though the claimant herself claimed Rs.27,000\/- only   for the period of six months, calculating the income at Rs.4,500\/- per month. Therefore, high compensation is not justified. The Medical bills are not in dispute.  The claimant is entitled to transportation and nutritious food and attender charges.  Considering all these aspects, the award  stands modified as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.<\/p>\n
\nHead\nAmount granted by the Tribunal\nAmount granted by this Court\n1<\/span>\nPermanent disability\nRs.     3,45,600\/-\nRs.      60,000\/-\n2<\/span>\nLoss of income during the period of treatment for six months\nRs.        60,000\/-\nRs.      27,000\/-\n3<\/span>\nMedical Bills                            \nRs.      50,000\/-\nRs.     51,500\/-\n4<\/span>\nPain and sufferings\n             ----\nRs.     20,000\/-\n5<\/span>\nTransportation\n             ----    \nRs.      10,000\/-\n6<\/span>\nExtra-nourishment \nRs.         ----\nRs.      10,000\/-\n7<\/span>\nAttender Charges\n              ----\nRs.        7,500\/-\n\nTotal\nRs.    4,55,600\/- wrongly calculated to Rs.4,60,600\/-but  restricted to Rs.    4,00,000\/-\nRs.   1,86,000\/-\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t10.  Since the accident happened in the year 1999 and the award was passed in the year 2001, the interest granted by the tribunal at 9% stands confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t   (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,86,000\/-\t\t\tfrom Rs.4,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (ii)  The interest at 9% is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
  (iii)  It is stated that as per order of this Court dated 08.08.2003
\n         passed  in C.M.P.No.9339 of 2003 entire award amount  has
\n         been deposited and the claimant was permitted to withdraw
\n         40% of the award amount.\n<\/p>\n
  (iv)  The claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance award
\n          amount as ordered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
   (v)  The appellant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount
\n         in deposit after settling the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
  (vi)  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
  (vii) Consequently, M.P.No.9339 of 2003 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  18.12.2008<\/p>\n
Index: Yes\/No
\nInternet: Yes\/No
\nrrg<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t                    R.SUDHAKAR,J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trrg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\n (Subordinate Judge)
\n Tiruppur.\n<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.1395 of 2003<\/p>\n
18.12.2008 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 1395 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.9339 of 2003 ……. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division-I)Limited, No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. … Appellant\/respondent Vs. […]<\/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-185805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\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 Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-31T15:12:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-31T15:12:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1129,\"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-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-31T15:12:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-31T15:12:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-31T15:12:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":1129,"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-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008","name":"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-31T15:12:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-bagyalakshmi-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Bagyalakshmi on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/185805","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=185805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}