{"id":195098,"date":"2008-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-10T00:22:04","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T18:52:04","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 18.11.2008\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR\n\nC.M.A.No.3530 of 2008\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2008\n\n\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport  \nCorporation Limited,\nDivision-I, No.37,\nMettupalayam Road,\nCoimbatore.                                       ... Appellant\/2nd Respondent\n\n\t\t                   vs.\n\n1.Poongodi,\n2.Minor Priya,\n3.Minor Aruna,\n4.M.Balasubramani.\n\n(Minor respondents 2 and 3\nare represented by mother\nguardian the first respondent\nPoongodi)     \n\n(4th respondent is given up \nin appeal)                                    ... Respondents\/Petitioners 1 to 3\n\t\t  \t               and 1st respondent                        \n \n\n      Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award  and decree dated 9.1.2007   passed in M.C.O.P.No.1028 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.IV), Tirupur.\n\n\n\n\tFor appellant                 :  Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi\n\t \n-----\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tTamil Nadu Transport Corporation   is on appeal challenging the award dated 9.1.2007   passed in M.C.O.P.No.1028 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.IV), Tirupur.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  It is a case of fatal accident.  The brief facts of the case is as follows:-   The accident in this case happened on 15.7.2003.  The deceased Avinashiappan, aged 38 years,  Line Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,  was travelling on a Hero Honda Motorcycle on the Tirupur Avinashi Road.  The appellant transport corporation bus driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver hit the Hero Honda Motorcycle.  In that accident, the said Avinashiappan was thrown out of the motorcycle.  He suffered grievous injuries to the head and was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore and he died on the same day.  On the death of Avinashiappan, the wife aged  37 years, minor daughter aged 12 years and minor son aged 7 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.20 lakhs stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.8,983\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1.  One Manimaran, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2.  One R.Nadarajan, co-worker of the deceased was examined as P.W.3. The claimants marked Exs.P-1 to P-12, the details of which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P-1 is the copy of F.I.R., dated 15.7.2003,
\nEx.P-2 is the copy of charge-sheet dated 15.7.2003,<\/p>\n
Exs.P-3 and P-4 are the copies of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Inspection Report dated 15.7.2003,
\nEx.P-5 is the rough sketch dated 15.7.2003,
\nEx.P-6 is the post-mortem certificate dated 16.7.2003,
\nEx.P-7 is the copy of death certificate dated 11.8.2003,
\nEx.P-8 is the legal heir certificate dated 25.8.2003,
\nEx.P-9 is the driving licence issued to the deceased,
\nEx.P-10 is the salary statement of the deceased,
\nEx.P-11 is the order of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 23.5.1988,
\nEx.P-12 is the salary certificate of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1.  Criminal Court judgment in C.C.No.683 of 2004 dated 19.4.2006 was marked as Ex.R-1 on the side of the appellant transport corporation,  the second respondent before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  As far as the negligence is concerned  in paragraph 9 of the award, the Tribunal discussed the evidence on record, particularly, Ex.P-5, the sketch.  The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation driven by its driver has gone to the western side of the road by crossing over the left side of the road to the right side and hit the two wheeler coming from the opposite direction.  Ex.P-5 sketch is not disputed by the appellant\/ second respondent before the Tribunal.  The appellant relied upon Ex.R-1, the judgment of the criminal court acquitting the driver of the bus and stated that there was no fault on his part.  The acquittal was   by way of benefit of doubt.  It was not a honourable acquittal.  It is a trite law that the finding of the criminal court does not automatically binding the civil court, the Tribunal in this case.  Based on the oral evidence of eye witness P.W.2 and the sketch Ex.P-5 and the F.I.R., Ex.P-1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident and the death of the deceased was only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus.  In view of the overwhelming evidence against the driver of the bus as having caused the accident and the death of the deceased, this court is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and consequently, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability to compensate the claimant on the appellant transport corporation.  Such finding of the Tribunal therefore, stands confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  In so far as the compensation is concerned, the counsel for the claimants, placed reliance on Ex.P-9,  the driving licence of the deceased to show the aged of the deceased and Ex.P-10 salary statement,  Ex.P-11 the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ex.P-12 certificate showing the income of the deceased.  According to the claimants, the income of the deceased was Rs.8,983\/- per month.  The Tribunal discussed the issue relating to compensation from paragraphs 11 onwards in answer to point No.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  On going through the original award and the typed set of papers, it is found that number of entries relating to the income of the deceased has been wrongly typed and has not been properly verified.  In paragraph 10 of the award as per the typed set, the income of the deceased was stated as Rs.8993\/- as against Rs.8983\/-.  In paragraph 11 of the award in the typed set, the income of the deceased at the time of accident was stated as Rs.3,565\/- per month, whereas the correct  figure will be Rs.8,983\/- as per Ex.P-12.  Even, the paragraph numbers do not tally with the original award\/order.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.  The Tribunal accepted the sum of Rs.8,983\/- as income of the deceased.  There was no evidence let in by either side, with regard to any statutory deduction that should be excluded.  However, the Tribunal stated that a sum of Rs.1,000\/- has been deducted from the salary of the deceased towards provident fund and that amount has to be deducted from the income of the deceased and accordingly Rs.7,500\/- was taken as income of the deceased and the contribution to the family  after personal expenses of the deceased was fixed at Rs.5,000\/- per month.  The Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and fixed a sum of Rs.9,60,000\/- (Rs.5,000\/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.9,60,000\/-) as  loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased.  The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads.  In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%:-\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.\n<\/p>\n
Head
\nAmount granted by the Tribunal
\n1<\/span>
\nLoss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents
\nRs.9,60,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Loss of love and affection to all the three claimants
\nRs.   15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Funeral expenses
\nRs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total
\nRs.9,77,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the multiplier of 16 in a case of 38 years old a Line Inspector  is on the higher side and has to be reduced.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. This Court is not inclined to accept the  contention of the appellant’s counsel and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)    The income of the deceased as per the document Exs.P-10 and  P-12 is Rs.8,983\/- per month.  The deduction, according to the Tribunal is Rs.1,000\/-  (Actually Rs.1,483\/-) towards Provident Fund and that amount cannot be deleted for the purpose of calculating the salary of the deceased.  It is a saving.  Therefore, the Tribunal erred in deducting Rs.1,000\/-  (Actually Rs.1,483\/-) on that head.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the deceased had 20 years of service and there was a possibility of higher income in the future.  Therefore, the appellant’s plea for reduction in multiplier cannot be accepted, as the Tribunal erroneously deducted Rs.1,000\/- (Actually Rs.1,483\/-) from the actual salary of the deceased and has failed to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased who had 20 years of service.  This will be a relevant factor for  the purpose of determining the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The lower income fixed by the Tribunal and the consequent reduction in the compensation will be compensated by the marginally higher multiplier taken.  Therefore, the multiplier need not be reduced.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)   Further, for loss of consortium to the wife   and for loss of love and affection to the minor children of the deceased a meagre amount of Rs.5,000\/- alone was granted.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Therefore, this court is unable to find any good reason to interfere and reduce the quantum of compensation   any further as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.   Counsel for the appellant transport corporation prays eight weeks’ time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit   claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per order of the Tribunal.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
ts <\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District Judge,
\n   Fast Track Court No.4,
\n   Coimbatore at
\n   Tirupur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3530 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Division-I, No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. … Appellant\/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Poongodi, 2.Minor Priya, […]<\/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-195098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 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-poongodi-on-18-november-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 Poongodi on 18 November, 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-poongodi-on-18-november-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=\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T18:52:04+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\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T18:52:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1460,\"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-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T18:52:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 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 Poongodi on 18 November, 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-poongodi-on-18-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T18:52:04+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\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T18:52:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008"},"wordCount":1460,"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-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008","name":"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T18:52:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-poongodi-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Poongodi on 18 November, 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\/195098","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=195098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}