{"id":197884,"date":"2008-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-01T13:53:35","modified_gmt":"2019-03-01T08:23:35","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/01\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1515 of 2000\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport\nCorporation Ltd., (Madurai\nDivision No.III), Nagercoil.\t\t\t  .. Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1.Santhana Michael\n2.Manickaraj\t\t\n(2nd respondent is given-up by the\n appellant)\t\t\t\t   \t  .. Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against\nthe Decree and Judgment dated 30.12.1999, passed in M.C.O.P.No.106 of 1998, on\nthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge),\nNagercoil.\n\n!For Appellant\t    \t    \t \t... Mr.N.Roobus Abraham\n\n^For 1st Respondent\t \t \t... Mr.C.Sankar Prakash\n\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n30.12.1999, passed in M.C.O.P.No.106 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the<br \/>\nquantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 30.12.1999,<br \/>\nto a tune of Rs.1,20,845\/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred and<br \/>\nForty five only) on the following sub-heads:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\t(i)  Compensation as per the\n\t\t(Amendment) Act 54 of 1994 - Rs.  69,120.00\n\t(ii) For Loss of Income\t\t   - Rs.  28,800.00\t\n\t(iii)For  Medical Expenses\t   - Rs.  17,925.00\n\t(iv)\tFor Pain and sufferings\t   - Rs.   5,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\t \t         Total      - Rs.1,20,845.00\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t4.The pith and marrow of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the<br \/>\nmemorandum of appeal would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Tribunal applied the multiplier system as against the law.  The<br \/>\nTribunal also awarded excess compensation under various sub-heads for the 15%<br \/>\npermanent disability sustained by the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded &#8216;just<br \/>\ncompensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined<br \/>\nand Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked and  on the side of the respondents R.W.1 was<br \/>\nexamined and Ex.R.1 was marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Point: The learned counsel for the appellant\/Transport Corporation<br \/>\nwould submit that the multiplier system adopted by the Tribunal is not correct<br \/>\nin view of the well settled principles of law.  Whereas the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe claimants would submit that even though medical certificate was to the<br \/>\neffect that the petitioner sustained only 15% permanent disability, yet the<br \/>\nevidence placed before the Tribunal was to the effect that the petitioner<br \/>\nsustained head injury; there was fracture of skull bone and also injury to the<br \/>\nbrain; the claimant underwent several operations and that in view of the same<br \/>\nthe compensation awarded itself is only  moderate. At this juncture the decision<br \/>\nof the Division Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/665053\/\">United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br \/>\nTiruchengode v. Veluchamy and<\/a> another reported in 2005(1)CTC-38 could fruitfully<br \/>\nbe cited.  An excerpt from it would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The following principles emerge from the above discussion:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement &#8220;multiplier method&#8221;<br \/>\ncannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning<br \/>\npower.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extend of<br \/>\ndisablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment<br \/>\nor earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c)(1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and<br \/>\nconsequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation<br \/>\ncompletely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of<br \/>\nincome or earning may be ascertained by applying &#8220;multiplier method&#8221; as provided<br \/>\nunder Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.<br \/>\n\t(2) Even, if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal<br \/>\ncases as provided under the Schedule.  If there is no amputation and if there is<br \/>\nevidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future<br \/>\nyears, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of<br \/>\nemployment being attended by the injured at the time of accident&#8221;.<br \/>\nIf at all there is evidence before the Court that the injury made the injured to<br \/>\nlead a vegetative life or ideal life because of the accident the question of<br \/>\napplying the multiplier method would arise.   Here the above narration of the<br \/>\nfacts would demonstrate that the claimant at the time of accident was a brick<br \/>\nworker and there is nothing to evidence that he has been made to lead<br \/>\nvegetative or idle life.  Hence, in such a case the multiplier system is not at<br \/>\nall applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. However, taking into consideration the discussion the Tribunal at<br \/>\nparagraph 6 of its judgment, this Court could understand that the claimant<br \/>\nsustained serious injuries.  The Tribunal also highlighted that the scan report<br \/>\nwhich proved fracture of the bone of the head and swelling in the front portion<br \/>\nof the brain.  It is also the admitted fact that he underwent several surgeries.<br \/>\nHence, in such a case even though he sustained 15% permanent disability during<br \/>\nthe year 1995, yet the compensation could be awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000\/-<br \/>\nfor each percentage of permanent disability as he sustained injury in his left<br \/>\nhand, right leg and fracture on the skull bone and that he also underwent<br \/>\noperations several times, If accordingly worked out it comes to Rs.2,000\/- x 15<br \/>\n= Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). Towards  medical expenses a sum of<br \/>\nRs.17,925\/- was awarded based on bills, which could be confirmed. Towards pain<br \/>\nand sufferings a sum of Rs.5,000\/- was awarded which could be enhanced to<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). Towards loss of income the Tribunal<br \/>\nawarded a sum of Rs.28,800\/-, which appears to be on the higher side.  I am of<br \/>\nthe opinion that for about 7 to 8 months he might not have been able to perform<br \/>\nhis work and hence a sum of Rs.20,000\/-  (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) could be<br \/>\nawarded.    Certainly, the nature of the injury would make him not to move his<br \/>\nleft hand freely, hence, towards loss of amenities a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nTen Thousand only) could be awarded. Towards Transport Expenses a sum of<br \/>\nRs.5,000\/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and towards taking nutritious food a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) could also be awarded.  As such the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded is modified as under:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\t(i)  For Loss of Income during\n\t\tTreatment Period and\n\t \tconvalescent period\t\t   - Rs.  20,000.00\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t(ii) For Transportation Expenses &#8211; Rs.   5,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)For Nutritious Food\t\t   &#8211; Rs.\t 2,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p> \t(iv) For Medical Expenses\t   &#8211; Rs.  17,925.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v)\tFor Pain and sufferings\t   &#8211; Rs.\t15,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) For permanent disability\t   &#8211; Rs.  30,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vii)For Loss of amenities \t   &#8211; Rs.  10,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t\t\t \t         Total    - Rs.  99,925.00\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n<\/pre>\n<p>(The Compensation awarded is rounded off to Rs.1,00,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh<br \/>\nonly).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned counsel for the appellant would convincingly argue  that<br \/>\nthe interest awarded was at 12% p.a., is on the higher side.  Considering the<br \/>\nfact that the award was passed during the year 1999 the interest awarded is<br \/>\nreduced to 9% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. in commensurate with the rate prevailing<br \/>\nat that time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.1,20,845\/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty<br \/>\nThousand Eight<br \/>\n Hundred and Forty five only)  to Rs.1,00,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh only).  The<br \/>\nrate of the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. is reduced to 9% p.a.<br \/>\nIn other aspects the award shall hold good.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>sj<\/p>\n<p>TO<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\n(The Additional District Judge),<br \/>\nNagercoil.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/01\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.1515 of 2000 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Madurai Division No.III), Nagercoil. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Santhana Michael 2.Manickaraj (2nd respondent is given-up by [&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-197884","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 Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 - 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-santhana-michael-on-7-january-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 Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 - 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-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-01T08:23:35+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=\"6 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-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-01T08:23:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1105,\"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-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-01T08:23:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 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 Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 - 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-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-01T08:23:35+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-01T08:23:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008"},"wordCount":1105,"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-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008","name":"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-01T08:23:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-santhana-michael-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Santhana Michael on 7 January, 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\/197884","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=197884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}