{"id":246784,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-16T13:13:20","modified_gmt":"2015-06-16T07:43:20","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.215 of 2008\n&amp;\nM.P(MD)No.3 of 2008\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,\nKumbakonam Division,\nPudukottai.\t\t\t\t   ..Respondent\/Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1.Tamilarasi\n2.Palanisamy @ Selvam\n3.Radha @ Pitchaiammal\n4.Arayee\t  \t\t           ..Petitioners\/Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,  against the\nJudgment and Decree dated 21-09-2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2004 on the\nfile of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai.\n\n!For Appellant\t ...Mr.P.Thilakkumar\n^For Respondents ...Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for R2 to R3\n* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant the<br \/>\nState Transport Corporation Limited, against the award and decree made in<br \/>\nMCOP.No.102 of 2004 dated 21.09.2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai, for awarding compensation of Rs.2,93,940\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) together<br \/>\nwith 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till<br \/>\nthe date of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 29.12.2003, the deceased after finishing his work, came along with his<br \/>\nfriend one Palanivelu on their cycle at about 7.30 p.m on the road and when they<br \/>\nwere nearing Kudimian reservoir garden, at that time, the respondent bus bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TN-555-N-0276 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner<br \/>\nand dashed against the deceased Kannaiah.  Immediately, the deceased was taken<br \/>\nto the Government Hospital, wherein he died.  The claimants further narrated in<br \/>\nthe claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45<br \/>\nyears and his occupation was Mason and as such, he was earning about Rs.3,000\/-<br \/>\nper month.  The said accident case was registered in the Annavasal Police<br \/>\nStation in Crime No.293 of 2003 for the alleged offence under Sections<br \/>\n279,337,304(A) IPC against the driver of the respondent Corporation bus.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The first claimant is the wife of the deceased, the second claimant is<br \/>\nthe son of the deceased, the third claimant is the daughter of the deceased and<br \/>\nthe fourth claimant is the mother of the deceased.  The claimants had further<br \/>\nstated that the deceased is the only bread winner of the family and the<br \/>\nclaimants were depending upon the income of the deceased.  As such, the<br \/>\nclaimants claimed Rs.7,00,000\/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation with<br \/>\n15% interest against the respondent Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The respondent Corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted<br \/>\nthe claim of the compensation.  The respondent has stated in the counter<br \/>\nstatement that the deceased and his friend one Palanivelu both  came on the<br \/>\nmiddle of the road and the deceased rode his cycle at high speed in a rash and<br \/>\nnegligent manner and dashed against the bus and hence, the accident had<br \/>\nhappened.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned Counsel for the respondent further stated that due to<br \/>\nnegligence of the deceased, the said accident had happened and as such<br \/>\ncontributory negligence is involved in this case.   Further, the respondent<br \/>\ndenied the age, occupation and income of the deceased.  The respondent also<br \/>\nstated that the claim amount is excessive.  As such, the respondent prayed<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.After considering the claim petition and counter statement of the<br \/>\nrespondent, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge,<br \/>\nPudukottai, framed the issues namely:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta)Whether the respondent&#8217;s bus driver is responsible for the accident or<br \/>\nthe deceased was the cause for the accident?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb)Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation?  If so, what<br \/>\nis the quantum of compensation?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.On the side of the claimants PW.1 widow of the deceased was examined and<br \/>\nthe PW.2 Kudiminathan was examined.  On the side of the claimants, there are six<br \/>\ndocuments marked as Ex.P1 to P6 namely:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tEx.P1 \t\t&#8211; First Information Report(FIR)<br \/>\n\tEx.P2\t\t&#8211; Motor Vehicle Report<br \/>\n\tEx.P3\t\t&#8211; Post-Mortem Certificate<br \/>\n\tEx.P4 \t\t&#8211; Handicapped Identity Card<br \/>\n\tEx.P5\t\t&#8211; Family Ration Card<br \/>\n\tEx.P6\t\t&#8211; Legal Heir Certificate<\/p>\n<p>\t8.On the side of the respondents, one Padmanathan was examined as RW.1.<br \/>\nNo documentary evidence was marked on the side of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.After considering the evidence of the claimants and documentary evidence<br \/>\nand also considering the respondent&#8217;s evidence, the learned Motor Accident<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal has come to conclusion that the accident had happened due to the<br \/>\nrash and negligent driving of the respondent&#8217;s bus driver.  As such, the<br \/>\nrespondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai,<br \/>\nafter considering the legal heir certificate, has come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nall the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased.  PW.1 had adduced the<br \/>\nevidence stating that her husband deceased Kannaiah was working as a Mason,<br \/>\nbesides he was also involved in seasonal agricultural operations, hence his<br \/>\nearning of Rs.3,000\/- per month.  She adduced further evidence that her husband<br \/>\nbeing aged 45 years at the time of the accident.  The learned Sub-Judge after<br \/>\nconsidering the evidence has come to the conclusion that the deceased&#8217;s income<br \/>\nwas Rs.2,000\/- per month and his age was 45 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.After deducting 1\/3rd being the personal expenditure of the deceased,<br \/>\n2\/3rd amount was as contribution to the claimants.  Hence, the Tribunal awarded<br \/>\nRs.2,39,940\/- under the head of Loss of Income after considering the age and<br \/>\nincome of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000\/- under the head<br \/>\nof loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs.40,000\/- to the claimants<br \/>\nunder the head of loss of Love and Affection  and further awarded Rs.4,000\/-<br \/>\nunder the head of funeral expenses, in total the learned Sub-Judge awarded<br \/>\nRs.2,93,940\/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim<br \/>\npetition till the date of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Further, the Tribunal permitted the 4th claimant i.e, mother of the<br \/>\ndeceased to withdraw a sum of Rs.40,000\/-. The balance amount of compensation of<br \/>\nRs.2,53,940\/- has to be divided by the three others equally.  The Tribunal<br \/>\nfurther directed that the said compensation amount has to be deposited in any<br \/>\nnationalized bank for a period of three years under the fixed deposit scheme.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the Tribunal awarded the compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.Having not been satisfied the award and decree of the Motor Accident<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal, Pudukottai, in MCOP.No.102 of 2004 dated 21.09.2006, the<br \/>\nappellant filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Motor Accident<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal, Pudukottai, has come to the conclusion that the deceased income<br \/>\nof Rs.2,000\/- is reasonable in the absence of the income proof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.The learned Counsel for the claimant further pointed out that the<br \/>\nclaimants are four in numbers as such 1\/4th amount has to be deducted instead of<br \/>\n1\/3rd amount.  The learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that<br \/>\nthe adoption method for calculating the compensation under the head of loss of<br \/>\nincome is erroneous.  The Tribunal also had not awarded sufficient compensation<br \/>\nunder the head of funeral expenses.   He further pointed out that the deceased<br \/>\nis only the bread winner of the family and the claimants are depending only on<br \/>\nthe deceased&#8217;s income.  The first claimant is a young widow of the deceased, the<br \/>\n4th claimant is the aged mother of the deceased.  In any event the compensation<br \/>\ngranted by the Tribunal is on the lower side.  Hence, the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe claimants are seeking for compensation by way of appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that in the<br \/>\nabsence of income proof, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had come to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the deceased&#8217;s income was Rs.2,000\/- which is proper.<br \/>\nConsidering the age of the deceased and dependencies of the deceased, the<br \/>\nTribunal awarding Rs.2,93,940\/- is proper.  The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nPudukottai, after considering the evidence of the claimants and the respondents,<br \/>\nthe age, occupation and income of the deceased, properly granted the award.  He<br \/>\nfurther pointed out that the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000\/- under the head of<br \/>\nConsortium to the first claimant i.e., widow of the deceased and again awarded<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- to the first claimant\/widow of the deceased under the head of loss<br \/>\nof Love and Affection which is not pertinent in the incident case.  As such<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- is scaled down from the compensation.  Hence, the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent submitted that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not<br \/>\nsustainable under the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of<br \/>\nthe appellant and the respondents, this Court is of the view that the learned<br \/>\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukottai award of compensation Rs.2,93,940\/-<br \/>\ntogether with 7.5% per annum interest, is fair and equitable.  There are no<br \/>\ndiscrepancies in the said award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Pudukottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.This Court granted an interim stay on 14-02-2008 on condition that the<br \/>\nappellant Transport Corporation will deposit the entire award amount to the<br \/>\ncredit of M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Pudukottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.As the accident had happened in the year 2004, it is open to the<br \/>\nclaimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest<br \/>\nthereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2004 on the file of the Motor<br \/>\nAccident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, after filing necessary<br \/>\napplication in accordance with law subject to had withdrawals if any, made<br \/>\nalready.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.<br \/>\nConsequently, the award and<br \/>\ndecree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Pudukottai,<br \/>\nin M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2004<br \/>\ndated 21-09-2006 is confirmed. No costs.  Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.3 of<br \/>\n2008 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gsr<\/p>\n<p>TO<br \/>\nThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n<\/p>\n<p>-cum- Sub-Judge,<br \/>\nPudukottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.(MD)No.215 of 2008 &amp; M.P(MD)No.3 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Division, Pudukottai. ..Respondent\/Appellant Vs 1.Tamilarasi 2.Palanisamy @ Selvam 3.Radha @ Pitchaiammal [&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-246784","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 Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 - 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-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\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 Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 - 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-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-16T07:43:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-16T07:43:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1541,\"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-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-16T07:43:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 - 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-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-16T07:43:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-16T07:43:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":1541,"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-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010","name":"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-16T07:43:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-tamilarasi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Tamilarasi on 22 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/246784","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=246784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}