{"id":208717,"date":"2005-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005"},"modified":"2018-08-21T04:39:43","modified_gmt":"2018-08-20T23:09:43","slug":"the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 11\/03\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE             \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN           \n\nW.A. No. 53 of 1999 \n\n\nThe Management of  \nHindustan Teleprinters Employees \nCo-operative Thrift and Credit\nSociety Ltd., Madras-32.                           ...   Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Principal Labour Court,\n   Madras-104.\n\n2. N.N.Nachiappan                                   ...   Respondents\n\n\n        Prayer:  Appeal under clause 15 of  the  Letters  Patent  against  the\norder of this Court in W.P.  No.7568 of 1993 dated 5.8.1998.\n\n!For appellant ::  Mr.K.R.Vijayakumar\n\n^For respondent No.2 ::  Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nThe Hon&#8217;ble Chief Justice.)<\/p>\n<p>                This  writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment<br \/>\nof the learned single Judge dated 5.8.1998.  Heard the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties and perused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The  appellant  is  the  Co-operative  Thrift  and  Credit<br \/>\nSociety,  which  is  run  for  the  benefit  of  the  workers of the Hindustan<br \/>\nTeleprinters Limited,  which  is  the  company  registered  under  the  Indian<br \/>\nCompanies Act.   No outsider is permitted to be either a member of the society<br \/>\nor to utilise its facilities.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The second respondent in the writ petition was taken as an<br \/>\nemployee of the petitioner society  in  the  year  1976.    Since  there  were<br \/>\nallegations   of   misappropriation   and   defalcations  against  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent, the writ petitioner suspended him by order dated 26.3.1981  and  a<br \/>\ncharge memo  was  issued  on 7.8.1981.  An explanation was given by the second<br \/>\nrespondent on 25.8.1981 denying the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.    Meanwhile,  since  the  petitioner  was  a  co-operative<br \/>\nsociety,  the  Deputy  Registrar  of  Co-operative  Societies   directed   the<br \/>\nCo-operative Sub Registrar to conduct an enquiry under section 65 of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Co-operative  Societies Act.  Since the explanation offered by the second<br \/>\nrespondent was not acceptable, a domestic enquiry was consequently ordered and<br \/>\nthe enquiry was fixed for  29.10.1981.    The  second  respondent  refused  to<br \/>\nparticipate in the domestic enquiry on the plea that the enquiry under section<br \/>\n65 was pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  It  may  be  mentioned,  as  already  stated  above,  that<br \/>\nproceedings had been initiated under section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative<br \/>\nSocieties Act,  1961.    The  Deputy  Registrar  of  Co-operative  Societies (<br \/>\nCredit), Madras by order dated 25.3.1981 directed an enquiry under section 65.<br \/>\nThe aforesaid order states as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies  Act  53  of<br \/>\n1961  an  enquiry  is  ordered  into the constitution management and financial<br \/>\nposition of the Hindustan Teleprinters Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit<br \/>\nSociety Ltd., Madras-32 with special  reference  to  the  misappropriation  of<br \/>\nfunds in the disbursement of loan to members and Thiru M.Manickam, Cooperative<br \/>\nSub Registrar (Prosecution) of this office authorised to conduct the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>        He  should complete the enquiry within a week and submit the report in<br \/>\nthe prescribed form.&#8221; (sic.)<\/p>\n<p>                6.  It is not disputed that the second respondent participated<br \/>\nin the said enquiry.  It may be mentioned that in the evidence recorded before<br \/>\nthe Labour Court on 25.3.1991 it has been stated that the second respondent in<br \/>\nthe writ petition participated in the enquiry under section 65 and it was held<br \/>\nin that enquiry that the  second  respondent  has  misappropriated  a  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.1,49,000\/- which was the money belonging to the workers.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  In the meantime the second respondent was also summoned in<br \/>\nthe domestic  enquiry  held by the appellant.  A perusal of the proceedings of<br \/>\nthe domestic enquiry held by the appellant on 28.12.1982 shows that the second<br \/>\nrespondent appeared before the enquiry officer and stated that  since  he  has<br \/>\nalready  given  his  deposition  in  the  office  of  the  Deputy Registrar of<br \/>\nCo-operative Societies he did not wish to state anything further.  It  further<br \/>\nshows  that  detailed  querries  were put to the second respondent and he gave<br \/>\nanswers to the same.  On the basis of the findings in the enquiry  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent was dismissed.  He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred<br \/>\nto  the  Labour  Court,  Madras,  which gave its award in favour of the second<br \/>\nrespondent on 6.11.1992.  That award was  challenged  in  the  writ  petition,<br \/>\nwhich has been dismissed and hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   We  have  carefully perused the award of the Labour Court<br \/>\nand are of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained.   It  may  be  noted<br \/>\nthat  the  Labour  Court  has  decided  in favour of the employee only for the<br \/>\nreason that no action has been taken against others.   The  Labour  Court  has<br \/>\nheld  that  the  enquiry held under section 65 of the Act was illegal and that<br \/>\nthe charges were not proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  It is  no  doubt  true  that  under  section  11A  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act the Labour Court can reverse findings of fact of the<br \/>\ndomestic enquiry officer and  can  reappreciate  and  reassess  the  evidence.<br \/>\nHowever,  in  the  present  case  the  Labour  Court has not done that and has<br \/>\ninterfered only on the ground that other employees were not proceeded against.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  In our opinion, the facts of each employee are  different<br \/>\nand  it  is  not  that merely because others were not proceeded against action<br \/>\nshould not be taken against the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  As regards the submission of the learned counsel for  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent that no proper enquiry was held by the appellant, a perusal<br \/>\nof the record would show that in fact an enquiry was held by the  co-operative<br \/>\ndepartment  under  section  65  of  the  Act and thereafter the appellant also<br \/>\nprovided an opportunity of hearing to the second respondent and  in  fact  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent  appeared  before  the  enquiry  officer  and gave detailed<br \/>\nanswers to the questions which he was asked on 28.12.1982, but his basic stand<br \/>\nwas that he would not give deposition before the enquiry officer as that would<br \/>\nprejudice the enquiry under section 65 of the Act.  Thus, it is not correct to<br \/>\nsay that the second respondent was not given opportunity of hearing either  in<br \/>\nthe  enquiry  under  section  65  or  in  the  domesti  c  enquiry held by the<br \/>\nappellant.  In fact he was given opportunity of hearing in both the  enquiries<\/p>\n<p>and he  did in fact appear in both the enquiries.  It is the second respondent<br \/>\nhimself who was to blame for not having given his deposition  in  the  enquiry<br \/>\nheld by the appellant although he was given an opportunity to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   It is well settled that the rules of natural justice are<br \/>\nnot a  straight  jacket  formula  vide:    <a href=\"\/doc\/681639\/\">The  Maharashtra  State   Financial<br \/>\nCorporation v.  M\/s.Suvarna  Board Mills and<\/a> another, J.T.  (1994)5 S.C.  280,<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1570352\/\">Bar Council of India v.  High Court of Kerala, J.T.<\/a>  (2004)11 SC  (Supp.)  428<br \/>\n(para.47), <a href=\"\/doc\/1134697\/\">Union of  India  v.    Tulsiram  Patel,  AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1416.  Natural<br \/>\njustice is not an unruly horse vide  <a href=\"\/doc\/830194\/\">Kumaon  Mandal  Vikas  Nigam  Limited  v.<br \/>\nGirja Shankar  Pant,<\/a>  (2001)1 SCC 182, <a href=\"\/doc\/260083\/\">Board of Mining Examination v.  Ramjee,<br \/>\nAIR<\/a> 1977 SC 965, Channabasappa v.  State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32 etc.   <\/p>\n<p>                13.  <a href=\"\/doc\/260083\/\">In  Chairman,  Board  of  Mining  Examination  and  Chief<br \/>\nInspector of  Mines  v.  Ramjee, AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 965 the Supreme Court observed as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Natural justice is no unruly horse,  no  lurking  land  mine,  nor  a<br \/>\njudicial cure-all.    If  fairness  is  shown by the decision-maker to the man<br \/>\nproceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of  such  essential<br \/>\nprocessual  propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each<br \/>\nsituation, no breach of natural justice  can  be  complained  of.    Unnatural<br \/>\nexpansion   of  natural  justice,  without  reference  to  the  administrative<br \/>\nrealities and other factors of a given case, can  be  exasperating.    We  can<br \/>\nneither  be  finical  nor  fanatical  but  should be flexible yet firm in this<br \/>\njurisdiction.  No man shall be hit below the belt  that is the conscience  of<br \/>\nthe matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  Court  cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a<br \/>\nmere artifact.  Nor can one fit into a rigid mould the concept  of  reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Every miniscule  violation does not spell illegality.  If the totality<br \/>\nof circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order<br \/>\nhas not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will  decline<br \/>\nto  be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred<br \/>\nscriptures.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.  In Janatha Bazar v.  Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh,<br \/>\nAIR 20 00 SC 3129 the Supreme Court held that  in  case  of  misappropriation,<br \/>\nwhether,  of  small  amount  or large amount, the only punishment which can be<br \/>\ngiven is dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.  For the reasons given above, we set  aside  the  impugned<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  learned single Judge dated 5.8.1998 as well as the award of<br \/>\nthe Labour Court dated 6.11.1992.  The writ appeal is allowed.  There will  be<br \/>\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>ns.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nPrincipal Labour Court,<br \/>\nMadras-104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11\/03\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN W.A. No. 53 of 1999 The Management of Hindustan Teleprinters Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society [&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-208717","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 Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 - 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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-20T23:09:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T23:09:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1324,\"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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\",\"name\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T23:09:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005\"}]},{\"@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 Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 - 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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-20T23:09:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T23:09:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005"},"wordCount":1324,"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-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005","name":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T23:09:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-11-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 11 March, 2005"}]},{"@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\/208717","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=208717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}