{"id":227832,"date":"2006-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-07-21T08:01:44","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T02:31:44","slug":"r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 03\/04\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA           \n\nC.R.P (PD) No.368 of 2005 \nand \nC.R.P. (PD) No.369 of 2005 \n---\n\nR.Kalimuthu                            .. Petitioner in both\n                                        the C.R.Ps.\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Management,  \nMarlboro Engineering Works, \nNo.613, Deepa Textiles Road, \nCivil Aerodrome Post,\nCoimbatore-641 014.                     .. Respondent in both\n                                           the C.R.Ps.\n\n\nC.R.P. No.368 of 2005:\n\n        Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia against the order dated 11.10.2004 passed in I.A.   No.240  of  2004  in\nC.P.   No.470  of  2000  on  the  file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,\nCoimbatore. \n\nC.R.P.  No.369 of 2005:\n        Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia against the order dated 27.10.2004 passed in I.A.   No.844  of  2004  in\nC.P.   No.470  of  2000  on  the  file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,\nCoimbatore. \n\n!For petitioners :  Mr.S.Subbiah\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.John.Z.\n                        for Mr.T.S.Gopalan\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  respondent  is  a small scale industry engaged in the manufacture<br \/>\nand marketing of pumpsets.  It has a branch at Indore.    The  petitioner  was<br \/>\nappointed  as  a  Branch Manager at Indore Branch of the respondent&#8217;s concern.<br \/>\nThe petitioner was the sole incharge of the Branch and he  was  looking  after<br \/>\nthe day  to  day  administration.  The duties of the petitioner were assigning<br \/>\nwork to the sales and administrative staffs employed  under  him,  supervising<br \/>\ntheir work  and  sanctioning  leave  etc.   The petitioner was incharge of the<br \/>\nBranch cash transactions and he also used to  prepare  periodical  statements,<br \/>\ndebtors list and send the same to the respondent from time to time and also do<br \/>\nall incidental  administrative  work.   He was holding a responsible post as a<br \/>\nBranch Manager, using the  powers  conferred  on  him.    As  there  was  some<br \/>\ncomplaint  against  the  petitioner  ,  the respondent required him to come to<br \/>\nCoimbatore for certain clarifications  during  May  2000.    Because  of  some<br \/>\nmisunderstanding, the  petitioner  left  the  service.   Later, the petitioner<br \/>\nfiled the said  claim  petition  No.470  of  2000  before  the  Labour  Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore claiming   a  sum  of  Rs.1,14,525\/-  from  the  respondent.    The<br \/>\nrespondent filed a counter statement and opposed the claim of the  petitioner.<br \/>\nThe trial  was  commenced  and  the petitioner was put in the witness box.  On<br \/>\n25.11.2002, the  matter  was  posted  for  examining  the  respondent.     The<br \/>\nrespondent  did  not  appear,  but  his  counsel appeared before the Court and<br \/>\nreported no instruction.  Specifically the case was posted on  25.11.2002  for<br \/>\ncross examining  the  respondent.  As the respondent was absent, the Court was<br \/>\nof the view that he was not interested in defending the claim petition.  Hence<br \/>\nthe matter was set exparte, and  allowed  the  claim  petition  filed  by  the<br \/>\npetitioner.  The said fact came to the knowledge of the respondent only during<br \/>\nFebruary  2004,  when  the  recovery  proceedings  were  initiated against the<br \/>\nrespondent.  Hence, the respondent filed I.A.  No.240 of 2004 to  condone  the<br \/>\ndelay  of 444 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte order.<br \/>\nThe petitioner filed its counter affidavit and opposed  the  said  condonation<br \/>\npetition.   By  order  dated  11.10.2004,  the Presiding Officer of the Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Coimbatore allowed the application.  Later an application to set  aside<br \/>\nthe Exparte order was filed in I.A.  No.844\/2004.  The petitioner also filed a<br \/>\ncounter affidavit  opposing the said application.  The lower Court allowed the<br \/>\nsaid applications in I.A.  No.240 of 2004 and I.A.  No.844 of  2004  and  also<br \/>\ndirected  the  respondent  for  payment  of  an  amount  of  Rs.1,000\/- to the<br \/>\npetitioner.  Later, the main case in C.P.  No.470 of 2000 was restored to  the<br \/>\nfile of  the  Labour  Court,  Coimbatore.    The  petitioner filed the present<br \/>\npetition challenging  the  order  of  the  Presiding  Officer,  Labour  Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore dated  11.10.2004  in I.A.  No.240 of 2004 and dated 27 .10.2004 in<br \/>\nI.A.  No.844 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner contended that the<br \/>\nPresiding Officer had completely erred in allowing the  application  filed  by<br \/>\nthe  respondent for condoning the delay of 444 days in filing the application,<br \/>\nand set aside the order.  He also further submitted that the lower  Court  had<br \/>\nover  looked  the  material  fact  that  whatever deposed by the respondent as<br \/>\nP.W.1, had not at all been set out in the affidavit filed in  support  of  the<br \/>\npetition  for  the  condonation  of the delay as well as for setting aside the<br \/>\nexparte order.  He also brought the notice of this Court that what was said in<br \/>\nthe affidavit filed in support of both the application was that respondent was<br \/>\nrepresented by one Dhamodarasamy and that his  consultant  was  following  the<br \/>\ncase,  and  that  the  respondent  was solely looking after the total business<br \/>\naffairs and that the said Dhamodarasamy failed to follow  up  the  case  since<br \/>\nOctober  2002  and that he was of the opinion that the due intimation would be<br \/>\ngiven by the Advocate for appearance.  It was also stated  that  whatever  has<br \/>\nbeen said by the respondent ran contrary to the affidavit, obviously by taking<br \/>\nadvantage  of  the death of the Advocate and to draw sympathy, such a new case<br \/>\nhad been set up  at  the  time  of  leading  the  evidence,  contrary  to  the<br \/>\nallegations  made by him in his affidavit and also he emphasised that the lowe<br \/>\nr Tribunal ought not to have taken into account the evidence of the respondent<br \/>\nas P.W.1 in as much as such an evidence was not based on the allegations  made<br \/>\nin the affidavit and accordingly the lower Tribunal ought to have rejected the<br \/>\nentire  contentions  newly  invented  and improvised at the time of giving the<br \/>\nevidence , by taking advantage of the death  of  the  Advocate.    He  further<br \/>\nstated that the lower Court ought to have noticed that the allegations as well<br \/>\nas  evidences  let  in  by the respondent are totally malafide and not of good<br \/>\nfaith and as such on the discrepancies in the affidavit  as  well  as  in  the<br \/>\nevidence, and accordingly, should have dismissed the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent submitted that the<br \/>\nlower Court considered all the  relevant  materials  and  taken  note  of  the<br \/>\ncounsel&#8217;s   prolonged   illness   and  later,  the  counsel  representing  the<br \/>\nrespondent, died.  The said two facts were duly taken into  consideration  and<br \/>\nthen  only the lower Court condoned the delay and set aside the exparte order,<br \/>\nand the order of the lower Court is in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      I heard both the counsel.  I have seen the affidavits filed by<br \/>\nthe respondent in both the I.As.  The affidavit filed before the Labour  Court<br \/>\nin I.A.  No.240 of 2004 is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I,  S.Krishnaswamy,  S\/o  Sengaliappa Gounder, aged 43 years, residing at 69,<br \/>\nPoongothai Nagar, Aerodrome  Post,  Coimbatore-641  014,  do  hereby  solemnly<br \/>\naffirm and state as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.      That  I  am  the Proprietor of the petitioner\/respondent and I am well<br \/>\naware of the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The said C.P.  was entrusted with an advocate to appear and  prosecute<br \/>\nour case.  One Mr.Damodharaswamy, our consultant was following the case.  I as<br \/>\nproprietor  of  the  petitioner\/respondent, was solely looking after the total<br \/>\nbusiness affairs.  The said Dhamodaraswamy failed to follow up the case  since<br \/>\nOctober 2002.   I was of the opinion that due intimation would be given by the<br \/>\nadvocate for my appearance.  I was of the opinion that the case is pending  as<br \/>\nthe advocate did  not communicate.  I was also very busy with the business.  I<br \/>\ncame to know from a communication received from Government  of  Tamilnadu,  on<br \/>\n24-02-2004, that the  above  C.P.  has been disposed.  Immediately I contacted<br \/>\nmy advocate and came to know that my counsel has reported no instructions, and<br \/>\nthat respondent has been set exparte and exparte order  dated  25-11-2002  has<br \/>\nbeen passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      I  state that I approached the present counsel and sought them to take<br \/>\nsteps to set aside the exparte order.  Hence there is a delay of 444  days  in<br \/>\nfiling the  application  to set aside the exparte order dated 25-11-2002.  The<br \/>\nnon prosecution of the case leading to exparte order  is  neither  wilful  nor<br \/>\nwanton and highly inadvertent.  We are having a fit and valid case, unless and<br \/>\nuntil  the  delay  in  filing  the  petition to set aside the exparte order is<br \/>\ncondoned, we would be put to irreparable losses.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      Hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to<br \/>\norder condoning the delay of 444 days in filing the application to  set  aside<br \/>\nthe exparte order dated 25-11-2004, and render justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      The affidavit filed before the Labour Court in I.A.  No.844 of<br \/>\n200 4 is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I,  S.Krishnaswamy,  S\/o  Sengaliappa Gounder, aged 43 years, residing at 69,<br \/>\nPoongothai Nagar, Aerodrome  Post,  Coimbatore-641  014,  do  hereby  solemnly<br \/>\naffirm and state as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.      That  I  am  the Proprietor of the petitioner\/respondent and I am well<br \/>\naware of the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The said C.P.  was entrusted with an advocate to appear and  prosecute<br \/>\nour case.  One Mr.Damodharaswamy, our consultant was following the case.  I as<br \/>\nproprietor  of  the  petitioner\/respondent, was solely looking after the total<br \/>\nbusiness affairs.  The said Dhamodaraswamy failed to follow up the case  since<br \/>\nOctober 2002.   I was of the opinion that due intimation would be given by the<br \/>\nadvocate for my appearance.  I was of the opinion that the case is pending  as<br \/>\nthe advocate did  not communicate.  I was also very busy with the business.  I<br \/>\ncame to know from a communication received from Government  of  Tamilnadu,  on<br \/>\n24-02-2004, that the  above  C.P.  has been disposed.  Immediately I contacted<br \/>\nmy advocate and came to know that my counsel has reported no instructions, and<br \/>\nthat respondent has been set exparte and exparte order  dated  25-11-2002  has<br \/>\nbeen passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      I  state that I approached the present counsel and sought them to take<br \/>\nsteps to set aside the exparte order.  Hence there is a delay, and a  separate<br \/>\napplication  has  been  filed  before  this Honourable Court for condoning the<br \/>\ndelay in filing the connected petition.   The  non  prosecution  of  the  case<br \/>\nleading  to exparte order is neither wilful nor wanton and highly inadvertent.<br \/>\nWe are having a fit and valid case, unless and until the exparte order is  set<br \/>\naside we would be put to irreparable losses.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      Hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to<br \/>\norder setting aside the exparte order dated 25-11-2002, and render justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The  petitioner  also  filed  a  counter  statement before the<br \/>\nLabour Court and opposed the petitions and hence the Court should not  condone<br \/>\nthe  delay  on the ground that the reasons had not been explained properly and<br \/>\nalso delay of each day not supported  with  any  proper  reason  or  with  any<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence.    The  lower  Court had taken note of the fact that the<br \/>\nrespondent company had engaged one Mr.C.N.  Ramachandran, Senior  Advocate  to<br \/>\nrepresent the  case  before the lower Court.  He was bedridden and was treated<br \/>\nin Appollo Hospital due  to  prolonged  illness.    The  office  of  the  said<br \/>\nAdvocate,  Mr.Ramachandran  had  not  intimated  to  the  respondent about the<br \/>\nprogress of the case.   Later,  the  said  Mr.Ramachandran  died.    When  the<br \/>\nrespondent  received  a  communication  from  the  Government of Tamil Nadu on<br \/>\n24.02.2004 that the above claim petition had been disposed of, immediately the<br \/>\nrespondent contacted the Advocate&#8217;s Office and thereafter he was informed that<br \/>\nthe Advocate was bedridden for a long time and also taken medical treatment at<br \/>\nAppollo Hospital and later, the Advocate died.   Due  to  these  reasons,  the<br \/>\nAdvocate could  not  contact  the  respondent.    The fact that the respondent<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.C.N.Ramachandran was engaged and represented the case earlier  was<br \/>\nnot at  all  disputed  by  the  petitioner.    There may be some contradiction<br \/>\nbetween the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the  respondent  and  the<br \/>\nevidence  put  forward  at  the time of leading the evidence, and on that said<br \/>\nground alone, the petition could  not  be  dismissed.    Letting  in  evidence<br \/>\nbrought  out the valid reasons and hence the Court below rightly relied on the<br \/>\nsame for allowing the petition for condonation of the delay and setting  aside<br \/>\nthe exparte  order.    When the respondent proved that he had sufficient cause<br \/>\nfor non-appearance, the Court is competent to set aside the order and  restore<br \/>\nthe claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      The  lower  Court  accepted  the  explanation  offered  by the<br \/>\nrespondent and condoned the delay and consequently set aside the order  passed<br \/>\nearlier.   Also  it  was brought to the notice after setting aside the exparte<br \/>\norder, the  claim  petition  was  restored  by  the  Labour  Court  and  after<br \/>\nrestoration,  the petitioner himself did not appear and the claim petition was<br \/>\ndismissed for default.  Later the petitioner filed  condonation  petition  and<br \/>\nthe matter  was  restored.  Now, the petitioner cannot turn around and contend<br \/>\nthat the respondent&#8217;s condonation petition should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      No one gets benefited by filing belated appeal or application.<br \/>\nBecause of the non-intimation by the Advocate&#8217;s office about the  progress  of<br \/>\nthe  case,  the  respondent  could  not  properly instruct the counsel to make<br \/>\nproper representation.  Instead of taking a technical approach or  get  caught<br \/>\nin  the  cobweb  of  technicalities,  the  Court takes a pragmatic approach in<br \/>\ndeciding the case on merits, which will render justice  between  the  parties.<br \/>\nIn  this  case,  the  lower  Court had correctly decided after considering the<br \/>\nreasons stated by the respondent company for condoning the delay  as  well  as<br \/>\nsetting aside the exparte order.  The counsel for the petitioner had relied on<br \/>\nnumber of  judgments  to  support  his argument.  They are not relevant to the<br \/>\nfacts of this case as no general guidelines could be formulated for exercising<br \/>\nthe discretion.  The condoning of delays is the discretion  of  the  Court  on<br \/>\nappreciation of  the  evidences or materials available on the record.  In this<br \/>\ncase, the lower Court exercised the discretion judicially and hence  it  is  a<br \/>\nreasonable one.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In  view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there<br \/>\nis no error or infirmity in the order of the lower Court and the same does not<br \/>\nrequire interference.  Hence,  the  C.R.Ps.    are  dismissed.     No   costs.<br \/>\nConsequently the connected C.M.P.  No.3467 of 2005 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>km <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court, Coimbatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/04\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA C.R.P (PD) No.368 of 2005 and C.R.P. (PD) No.369 of 2005 &#8212; R.Kalimuthu .. Petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. -Vs- The Management, Marlboro Engineering Works, No.613, Deepa Textiles [&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-227832","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>R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-21T02:31:44+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T02:31:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2210,\"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\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\",\"name\":\"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T02:31:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-21T02:31:44+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T02:31:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006"},"wordCount":2210,"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\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006","name":"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T02:31:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kalimuthu-vs-the-management-on-3-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Kalimuthu vs The Management on 3 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227832","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=227832"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227832\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}