{"id":258673,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-07T02:57:52","modified_gmt":"2016-12-06T21:27:52","slug":"jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 15\/09\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nWrit Petition(MD)No.8033 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010\n\n\nJeya Muthumani\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n\n1.The Managing Director,\n  Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd,\n  12, Thambusamy Road,\n  Kilapauk,\n  Chennai-10.\n\n2.N.Kumaresan\n3.Albert\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\t\t\n\nPetition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India praying for the\nissuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the entire process of tender held\non 24.06.2010 by the first respondent pursuant to his notification\nNo.MT9\/19652\/2010(2) advertised in the daily news paper viz.,\"Dhina Thanthi\" on\n11.04.2010 is null and void insofar as Virudhunagar, Ramanathapuram, Tuticorin\nand Kanyakumari Regions are concerned and further direct the first respondent to\nconduct fresh tender.\n\n!For petitioner\t     ...  Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu\n^For 1st respondent  ...  Mr.R.Janakiramalu\n\t\t\t  Spl.Govt.Pleader\n******\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\tThis Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Declaration<br \/>\ndeclaring the entire process of tender held, on 24.06.2010, by the first<br \/>\nrespondent pursuant to his notification No.MT9\/19652\/2010(2), advertised in the<br \/>\ndaily news paper, namely, &#8220;Dhina Thanthi&#8221;, on 11.04.2010, as null and void,<br \/>\ninsofar as Virudhunagar, Ramanathapuram, Tuticorin and Kanyakumari Regions are<br \/>\nconcerned, and to further direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh tender.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\t2.\tThe petitioner has stated that she has been a transport<br \/>\ncontractor, under the first respondent, for more than a decade.  She had been<br \/>\nallotted various contracts for the transportation of  essential commodities from<br \/>\nthe Food Corporation of India to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation<br \/>\nStorage Points.  As such, she has been fulfilling the assigned works, without<br \/>\nany blemish.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t\t3.\tIt has been further stated that after the contractual period<br \/>\nof the petitioner, for the year  2009-2010, had come to an end, the first<br \/>\nrespondent, vide his notification No.MT9\/19652\/2010(2), had advertised in the<br \/>\ndaily newspaper, namely, &#8216;Dhina Thanthi&#8217;, on 11.04.2010, inviting tenders for<br \/>\nthe transportation of essential commodities from the depots of the Food<br \/>\nCorporation of India to the storage points of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies<br \/>\nCorporation, for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011.  By the said<br \/>\nnotification, tenders had been invited for 33 regions of the State of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu.  As per the tender conditions, the tenderers, who are found to be<br \/>\nqualified in the technical bid will be called to participate in the price bid.<br \/>\nBoth the technical bid, as well as the price bid should be submitted at the same<br \/>\ntime.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t\t4.\tIt had also been stated that as a transport contractor, the<br \/>\npetitioner had made an offer for four regions, namely, Virudhunagar,<br \/>\nRamanathapuram, Tuticorin and Kanyakumari Regions.  Two other persons had also<br \/>\nmade the offers for the transportation of essential commodities.  The last<br \/>\ndate for submitting the tenders for Ramanathapuram region was on 20.05.2010 and<br \/>\nthe last date for submitting the tender for the other three regions was<br \/>\n24.05.2010.  The petitioner had submitted her tender on the scheduled dates.<br \/>\nThe technical bid had been opened on the same day and the petitioner had been<br \/>\nfound qualified to participate in the price bid.  However, the first respondent<br \/>\nhad not informed the petitioner about the date of the price bid.  While so, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent had opened the tender, on 24.05.2010, for Virudhunagar and<br \/>\nTuticorin regions.  The second respondent had been selected as the lowest bidder<br \/>\nfor Virudhunagar region and the third respondent had been selected as the lowest<br \/>\nbidder for Tuticorin region.  No rejection order had been communicated to the<br \/>\npetitioner, till date.  Since, the opening of the tender, by the first<br \/>\nrespondent without inviting the petitioner to participate in the price bid, is<br \/>\narbitrary, illegal and void, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ<br \/>\nPetition before this Court, under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t\t5.\tCounter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the first and<br \/>\nthe second respondents denying the averments and allegations made on behalf of<br \/>\nthe petitioner.  In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first<br \/>\nrespondent, it has been stated that certain lorries belonging to the petitioner<br \/>\nhad been intercepted by the Flying Squad and on receipt of a complaint from the<br \/>\nSpecial Tahsildar Flying Squad, the Inspector of Police Food Cell, Virudhunagar,<br \/>\nhad registered a case, in Crime No.167 of 2009, under the relevant provisions of<br \/>\nthe <a href=\"\/doc\/774360\/\" id=\"a_2\">Essential Commodities Act<\/a>,1955.  As against the seizure of the vehicles for<br \/>\ncarrying rice meant for the shops run under the public distribution system, the<br \/>\npetitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.8835 of<br \/>\n2009.  This Court had disposed of the Writ Petition directing the District<br \/>\nRevenue Officer, Virudhunagar to return the rice bags, if they had not been<br \/>\ndisposed of or sold till then, subject to the petitioner furnishing immovable<br \/>\nproperty security for the entire quantity of seized rice at Rs.25\/- per kilo<br \/>\ngram.  In the Writ Appeal filed by the District Revenue Officer,<\/p>\n<p>Virudhunagar, in W.A.No.725 of 2009, a Division Bench of this Court had issued a<br \/>\ndirection stating that the proceedings initiated against the first respondent<br \/>\ntherein should be decided in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t\t6.\tIt had also been submitted that a person, in order to<br \/>\nparticipate in the tender and to enter into the commercial bid, is to submit<br \/>\nxerox copies of the Registration Certificate books to prove his ownership of at<br \/>\nleast ten lorries, either in his name or in the name of a firm.  Even though the<br \/>\npetitioner was not having ten lorries, as per Part-1 Clause-III of the tender<br \/>\nconditions, the petitioner was qualified in the technical bid as one of his<br \/>\npartners, namely, one D.Harris Kennady, had furnished the necessary documents to<br \/>\nshow his ownership of five lorries.  However, before the price bid had taken<br \/>\nplace, the petitioner had been disqualified from participating in the same due<br \/>\nto the letter, dated 15.06.2010, submitted by the said D.Harris Kennady<br \/>\nwithdrawing his consent to provide the lorries in favour of the petitioner, for<br \/>\nthe supply of essential<br \/>\ncommodities. Therefore, the petitioner was disqualified from participating in<br \/>\nthe price bid even though she had been qualified at the stage of technical bid,<br \/>\nheld on 20.05.2010 and 24.05.2010. It had also been stated that the order<br \/>\nrejecting the tender of the petitioner had been communicated to him.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t\t7.\tThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first<br \/>\nrespondent had also submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is<br \/>\nnot maintainable as the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy<br \/>\nof filing an appeal, under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders<br \/>\nAct,1998.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t\t8.\tIn view of the submissions made by the learned counsels<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of<br \/>\nthe records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by<br \/>\nthe petitioner in the present Writ Petition.  It is<br \/>\nclear that even though the petitioner had been qualified in the technical bid,<br \/>\nheld on 20.05.2010 and 24.05.2010, she was disqualified from participating in<br \/>\nthe price bid due to the fact that her partner, namely, D.Harris Kennady, had<br \/>\nsubmitted a letter, dated 15.06.2010, withdrawing his offer to provide the<br \/>\nnecessary number of lorries, in favour of the petitioner, for the transportation<br \/>\nof essential commodities, to fulfil the requirement that the owner ought to have<br \/>\nownership of atleast ten lorries for participating in the price bid.  Further,<br \/>\nit is also seen that, even though it was open to the petitioner to file an<br \/>\nappeal, before the appropriate authority, under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nTransparency in Tenders Act,1998, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the<br \/>\njurisdiction of this Court, under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India. The<br \/>\npetitioner has not been in a position to show as to how she was qualified to<br \/>\nparticipate in the price bid after the letter, dated 15.06.2010, had been<br \/>\nsubmitted by D.Harris Kennady, withdrawing his offer to provide the lorries for<br \/>\nthe supply of essential commodities as required under the<\/p>\n<p>tender conditions.  As such, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid<br \/>\nof merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, it is dismissed.<br \/>\nNo costs.  However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to<br \/>\navail the appellate remedy provided, under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nTransparency in Tenders Act,1998, if so advised, before the appropriate<br \/>\nauthority, in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous<br \/>\npetition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">To<\/p>\n<p>The Managing Director,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd,<br \/>\n12, Thambusamy Road,<br \/>\nKilapauk,<br \/>\nChennai-10.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15\/09\/2010 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD)No.8033 of 2010 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010 Jeya Muthumani .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilapauk, Chennai-10. [&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-258673","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 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\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-06T21:27:52+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\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T21:27:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1283,\"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\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T21:27:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 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":"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 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\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-06T21:27:52+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\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T21:27:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":1283,"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\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010","name":"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T21:27:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jeya-muthumani-vs-the-managing-director-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jeya Muthumani vs The Managing Director on 15 September, 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\/258673","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=258673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}