{"id":242097,"date":"2005-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005"},"modified":"2016-05-06T08:03:47","modified_gmt":"2016-05-06T02:33:47","slug":"managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 24\/03\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA         \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.1637 OF 1998     \n\n\nManaging Director \nCholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., \nRailway Station New Road, \nKumbakonam 612 001.                                     ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. C. Peter Raphel\n   S\/o. Kolandaisamy\n\n2. The Presiding Officer,\n   Industrial Tribunal,\n   Madras.                                              ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance  of  Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent\nin A.P.No.75\/94 dated 4.9.1996 and quash the same. \n\n!For Petitioner         :       Mr.John for\n                                M\/s.Ramasubramaniam &amp;\n                                Associates\n\nFor Respondent-1       :       Mr.D.  Hari Paranthaman\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>                Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited has filed the present writ<br \/>\npetition challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the<br \/>\napproval petition filed by the  Corporation  under  Section  33(2)(b)  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as<br \/>\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        Respondent  No.1  was  working  as  Conductor  under  the   petitioner<br \/>\nCorporation.   On  16.3.1994, while he was on duty, the bus was checked and it<br \/>\nwas found that one of the passengers was without ticket.  The first respondent<br \/>\ngave a statement that he has forgotten  to  issue  the  ticket.    During  the<br \/>\nchecking,  when  the cash bag was checked, there was excess cash of Rs.10.90p.<br \/>\nA departmental proceeding was initiated and charge-sheet dated  20-4-1994  was<br \/>\nissued  alleging that he had collected fare of Rs.5.40p from the passenger but<br \/>\nhad failed to issue the ticket and had misappropriated  the  amount.    Second<br \/>\ncharge was  relating to excess of Rs.10.90p.  In the departmental proceedings,<br \/>\nthe first respondent gave a reply dated 21.4.1994 denying  the  charges.    He<br \/>\nexplained by stating that money had not been collected, but he had been forced<br \/>\nto give a statement that he had forgotten to issue the ticket.  It was further<br \/>\nindicated that excess amount found represented the batta payable to the driver<br \/>\nfor the  duty  which  had  been  performed  by  him on 15.3.1994.  The enquiry<br \/>\nofficer found the Conductor guilty and on the basis  of  such  finding,  after<br \/>\nissuance  of  second  show  cause  notice,  Respondent No.1 was dismissed from<br \/>\nservice by order dated 5.7.1994.  Since  an  industrial  dispute  was  pending<br \/>\nbefore  the  Tribunal, the Corporation sought for Approval of the dismissal in<br \/>\naccordance with Section  33(2)(b)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act.    Such<br \/>\nApproval  Petition  having  been  rejected  by  the Tribunal, the present writ<br \/>\npetition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the witnesses who<br \/>\nwere present at the time of incident had not been examined by  the  Management<br \/>\nto  prove  the  charge and the evidence of the Checking Inspector cannot prove<br \/>\nthe charge and even otherwise, the first respondent has  stated  that  he  had<br \/>\nforgotten  to  issue  the ticket and the passenger had also stated that he had<br \/>\nforgotten to get the ticket from the Conductor.  The Tribunal also came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that keeping in view the number of passengers traveled, &#8220;failure to<br \/>\nissue one ticket to one passenger cannot be taken as  a  serious  misconduct&#8221;.<br \/>\nThe  Tribunal  also accepted that excess cash was towards batta of the driver,<br \/>\nwhich he had failed to receive from  the  Conductor.    The  Tribunal  further<br \/>\nobserved that the Standing Order of the Corporation marked as Ex.M.12 does not<br \/>\nshow  that  keeping  of  excess  amount  over  and  above  the collection is a<br \/>\nmisconduct.  After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court reported  in<br \/>\n1984 (I)  LLJ 16 <a href=\"\/doc\/1513240\/\">(GLAXO LABORATORIES LTD., v.  LABOUR COURT, MEERUT &amp; OTHERS),<br \/>\nthe Tribunal<\/a> further concluded :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;&#8230;  From the decision of our Supreme Court, it is clear that keeping<br \/>\nexcess cash is not  a  misconduct  enumerated  in  the  Standing  Orders,  the<br \/>\ncontention  of  the  petitioner  that  the  respondent  has committed the said<br \/>\nmisconduct must be rejected.  This charge for keeping excess cash  has  to  be<br \/>\naccommodated  only  in  Clause  24(4) which says &#8220;Any other acts and omissions<br \/>\nthat may be reasonably considered by the management as a misconduct.&#8221; However,<br \/>\nwhen there is no specific clause  to  show  that  keeping  excess  cash  is  a<br \/>\nmisconduct, it has to be held that this charge has not been proved.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Tribunal  further concluded that show cause notice has been issued by the<br \/>\nGeneral Manager, who was  required  to  pass  the  dismissal  order,  but  the<br \/>\nManaging  Director,  who was the appellate authority, has passed the dismissal<br \/>\norder thus depriving the first respondent an opportunity of filing an  appeal.<br \/>\nOn the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the Approval Petition was rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   On  a  perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is<br \/>\napparent that the Tribunal has exceeded its  jurisdiction  in  re-appreciating<br \/>\nthe evidence,  which  had  been  laid before the disciplinary authority.  In a<br \/>\nproceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal<br \/>\nis only required to find out whether the disciplinary proceeding is  conducted<br \/>\nin  consonance  with  the principles of natural justice and whether there is a<br \/>\nprima facie case for according approval.  The scope  of  Section  33(2)(b)  is<br \/>\nmuch  more  limited  when  compared to ordinary Industrial Dispute relating to<br \/>\norder of  termination.    Technically  speaking,  however,   there   is   some<br \/>\njustification  in  the  conclusion of the Tribunal that the order of dismissal<br \/>\nhaving been passed by the Managing Director, Respondent No.1 was  deprived  of<br \/>\nfiling of appeal as the Managing Director himself is the appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Learned  counsel  for  the Corporation has submitted that<br \/>\nRespondent No.1 could have filed appeal before the Board.    However,  in  the<br \/>\norder of  dismissal,  it was not so indicated.  On the basis of this technical<br \/>\ndefect, the ultimate order of the Tribunal in not according  approval  can  be<br \/>\nsaid to  be  justified.  However, the basic fact that the Conductor\/Respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 failed to issue a ticket and excess amount had been found, cannot be lost<br \/>\nsight of.  The conclusions of the Tribunal on these aspects cannot be said  to<br \/>\nbe justified.   The recent decisions of the Supreme Court is to take a serious<br \/>\nnote regarding misappropriation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The petitioner has asserted that  before  filing  of  writ<br \/>\npetition, some  efforts  had  been made for amicable settlement.  In course of<br \/>\nhearing, learned counsel for Respondent No.1  has  suggested  that  Respondent<br \/>\nNo.1  has  already  attained  the  age  of superannuation, and therefore, even<br \/>\nthough there is no scope for  reinstatement,  the  respondent  should  not  be<br \/>\ndeprived of the retirement benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,<br \/>\nI feel interest of justice would be served  by  modifying  the  order  of  the<br \/>\nTribunal and issuing the following directions :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)  Respondent  No,.1  shall  be  deemed  to  have been reinstated in<br \/>\nservice.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii) Respondent No.1 would not be entitled to any backwages  from  the<br \/>\ndate  of  order  of dismissal till the date of retirement, save and except the<br \/>\namounts already received by him pursuant to various interim orders  passed  by<br \/>\nthe High Court from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii)   However,   the  entire  period  shall  be  calculated  towards<br \/>\nincrement, and retirement benefits should be so calculated and shall  be  paid<br \/>\nto Respondent No.1.  This may be done within a period of three months from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  With the above directions and subject to modification, the<br \/>\nwrit petition is disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nIndustrial Tribunal,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24\/03\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION NO.1637 OF 1998 Managing Director Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam 612 001. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. C. Peter Raphel [&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-242097","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>Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 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\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-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=\"2005-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-06T02:33:47+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\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-06T02:33:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1113,\"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\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005\",\"name\":\"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-06T02:33:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 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":"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 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\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-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":"2005-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-06T02:33:47+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\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-06T02:33:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005"},"wordCount":1113,"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\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005","name":"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-06T02:33:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-c-peter-raphel-on-24-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Managing Director vs C. Peter Raphel on 24 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\/242097","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=242097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}