{"id":268983,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-14T10:06:21","modified_gmt":"2015-11-14T04:36:21","slug":"tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 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: 29\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1069 of 2005\nand\nC.M.P.(MD)No.6752 of 2005\n\nTamil Nadu State\n Transport Corporation (Div.2),\nPeriyamilaguparai,\nDistrict Collector's Office Road,\nTiruchirapalli,\nrep.by its Managing Director.  \t\t... Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n1.Kalarani\n\n2.Minor Sanjeevakanna\n\n3.Minor Vedavani\n\n4.Abirami\n\n5.Raghavan                 \t \t... Respondents\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/147367599\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 173<\/a> of the Motor Vehicles\nAct as against the Award and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\/\nSubordinate Court, Kulithalai, dated 14.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 2004.\n\n!For appellant  ... Mr.M.Prakash\n^For respondents... Mr.A.Saravanan\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Judgment of the Court was<br \/>\n delivered by R.BANUMATHI, J)<br \/>\n\tThis Appeal arises out of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal\/Subordinate Court, Kulithalai, dated 14.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.48<br \/>\nof 2004 in awarding compensation of Rs.18,04,000\/- for the death of R.Gokul<br \/>\nKanna in the road accident on 16.10.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. On 16.11.2002 at about 1.30p.m., when the deceased was riding Hero<br \/>\nHonda Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 45E 9868 from South to north in the Trichy<br \/>\nto Chennai bye-pass road at the place near Adaikalaraj Catering College, a bus<br \/>\nbearing Reg.No.TN\/45\/N\/1546, which belongs to the appellant Corporation, was<br \/>\ncoming behind him and dashed the two wheeler due to rash and negligent driving<br \/>\nof the bus by its driver. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple<br \/>\ngrievous injuries all over the body and he died on his way to the hospital.<br \/>\nRegarding the accident, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.316\/2002<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1371604\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 304-A<\/a> of the IPC.  The deceased Gokul Kanna was working as a<br \/>\nJunior Engineer, Grade I, Transform Erection, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\nCollectorate, Trichy and was getting salary of Rs.15,000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the<br \/>\nbus driver, the claimants &#8211; wife and children of the deceased Gokul Kanna filed<br \/>\na Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4. The appellant corporation resisted the claim petition contending that<br \/>\nthe deceased motor cyclist, on hearing horn of the appellant Corporation Bus,<br \/>\nwent to his left and gave way for the respondent\/bus to overtake him and when<br \/>\nthe bus was just five feet behind the deceased motor cyclist, a  buffalo, which<br \/>\nwas on the western, suddenly turned right and the deceased motor cyclist, in<br \/>\norder to avoid colliding with the buffalo suddenly turned right and hit against<br \/>\nthe left side corner of the bus.  The driver of the appellant Corporation was in<br \/>\nno way responsible for the accident and the accident was solely due to<br \/>\ncontributory negligence on the part of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5.  Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as PW.1.  As<br \/>\neye-witness, one K.Palanichamy was examined as PW.2 and one Adhiyaman was<br \/>\nexamined as PW.3.  Exs.P1 to P14 were marked on the side of the<br \/>\nclaimants\/respondents.  The mother of the deceased Gokul Kanna and the conductor<br \/>\nof the appellant bus was examined as RWs.1 and 2 respectively.  Upon<br \/>\nconsideration of the oral and documentary evidence, referring to Ex.P.1 FIR, the<br \/>\nTribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus<br \/>\ndriver.  Insofar as the evidence of RW.2 Conductor, the Tribunal observed that<br \/>\nthe Conductor would have been pre-occupied with the issuance of tickets and<br \/>\ntherefore, he would not be in a position to depose as to how the accident<br \/>\noccurred and who was responsible for the accident.  Pointing out that the driver<br \/>\nof the vehicle was not examined, the Tribunal held that, the accident was due to<br \/>\nrash and negligent driving of the appellant Corporation bus by its driver.<br \/>\nBased upon Ex.P.14 Salary Certificate, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income<br \/>\nof the deceased as Rs.14,042.50.  After deducting 1\/3rd for personal expenses<br \/>\ni.e. Rs.4,632\/-, the balance amount of Rs.9,360\/- per month was taken as the<br \/>\ncontribution to the family.  Thus, the annual loss of income of the deceased was<br \/>\narrived at Rs.1,12,320\/-.  Since the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of<br \/>\nthe accident, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 16 and the Tribunal calculated<br \/>\nthe Total loss of income as Rs.17,97,120[Rs.1,12,320 X 16].  The Tribunal added<br \/>\nconventional damages i.e. Rs.2,000\/- for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000\/- for loss<br \/>\nof love and affection.  In toto, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of<br \/>\nRs.18,04,000\/- to the claimants 1 to 3 and the parents of the deceased.  Out of<br \/>\nthe total compensation amount awarded i.e. Rs.18,04,000\/-, the first claimant<br \/>\nwas entitled to Rs.5,54,000\/-, the second and third claimants was entitled to<br \/>\nRs.4,00,000\/- each; and parents of the deceased viz., respondents 4 and 5 herein<br \/>\nwere entitled to Rs.2,25,000\/- each.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t6. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation\t raised<br \/>\ncontention regarding the finding of the Tribunal as to the negligence of the bus<br \/>\ndriver, during the course of the arguments, the negligence of the bus driver was<br \/>\nnot under serious challenge.  PW.3 has clearly spoken about the accident about<br \/>\nthe negligence driving of the bus driver.  PW.3 has stated that on the date of<br \/>\nthe accident, he was proceeding behind Gokul Kanna and at that time, the<br \/>\nappellant Corporation bus bearing Reg.No.TN\/45\/N\/1546 being driven in a rash and<br \/>\nnegligent manner came behind the vehicle of the deceased and hit against Goukl<br \/>\nKanna due to which, Gokul Kanna was thrown away from the vehicle and sustained<br \/>\nfatal injuries and died on his way to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t7. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the driver of the bus was not examined.<br \/>\nEven though the appellant Corporation has taken plea that the deceased<br \/>\ncontributed to the accident, as pointed out by the Tribunal, the bus driver was<br \/>\nnot examined.  On the other hand, only the conductor was examined as RW.2.  As<br \/>\nrightly pointed  out by the Tribunal, the Conductor, who was inside the bus,<br \/>\nmust have been issuing the tickets and must have been filling up of trip sheets.<br \/>\nWhile so, he could not exactly speak as to who was responsible for the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t8. Based upon the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.P.1, the Tribunal has rightly<br \/>\nheld that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver<br \/>\nand fastened the liability upon the appellant Corporation. \tAs pointed out<br \/>\nearlier, the Criminal Case in Crime No.316\/2002 under <a href=\"\/doc\/1371604\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 304-A<\/a> of the IPC<br \/>\nwas registered against the bus driver.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t9. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation contended that the<br \/>\ncompensation amount  of Rs.18,04,000\/- awarded to the claimants and the parents<br \/>\nof the deceased is very much on the higher side.  It was further submitted that<br \/>\nthe Tribunal erred in taking into account the gross salary of the deceased for<br \/>\ncalculating the compensation amount instead of taking the take home salary of<br \/>\nthe deceased every month after deductions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t10. The deceased Gokul Kanna was working as a Junior Engineer Grade I,<br \/>\nTransform Erection, TNEB, Collectorate, Trichy.  Ex.P.13 is his Service<br \/>\nRegister, from which it is seen that his date of birth was 16.5.1966 and at the<br \/>\ntime of the accident, he was aged 36 years.  Ex.P.14 is the Salary Certificate<br \/>\nof the deceased from which it is seen that he was getting salary of<br \/>\nRs.14,042.50.  Ex.P.3 is the Legal Heirship Certificate showing that the<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 5 herein viz., wife, children and parents of the deceased are<br \/>\nthe legal heirs of the deceased Gokul Kanna. The Tribunal has taken the monthly<br \/>\nincome of the deceased as Rs.14,042.50.  Even though his take home salary was<br \/>\nless, as has been consistently held, for calculating the income, only the gross<br \/>\nsalary has to be taken into account.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t11. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at<br \/>\nRs.14,042.50 and deducted 1\/3rd for personal expenses Rs.4,632\/- and has taken<br \/>\n2\/3rd of the monthly income as contribution to the family Rs.9,360\/- and<br \/>\ncalculated the annual loss and dependency at Rs.1,12,320.  At the time of the<br \/>\naccident, since the deceased was aged 36 years, as per the second schedule, the<br \/>\nTribunal has adopted multiplier 16 and calculated the total loss of dependency<br \/>\nat Rs.17,97,120\/-.  Insofar as the conventional damages awarded as Rs.2,000\/-<br \/>\nfor funeral expenses; Rs.5,000\/- for loss of love and affection to the claimants<br \/>\nand parents of the deceased are very reasonable. The total compensation awarded<br \/>\nby the Tribunal as Rs.18,04,000\/- is just and reasonable compensation and we<br \/>\nfind no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation.  Insofar as the<br \/>\ninterest, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest.  As per the consistent view<br \/>\ntaken by the Supreme Court, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5%.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t12. In the result, the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.48 of<br \/>\n2004 dated 14.12.2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\/Subordinate Court,<br \/>\nKulithalai is confirmed and the rate of interest awarded @ 9% by the Tribunal is<br \/>\nreduced to 7.5% and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to that<br \/>\nlimited extent. No order as to costs.  Connected Miscellaneous Petition is<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t13. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the entire<br \/>\ncompensation amount less the amount already deposited.  On such deposit, the<br \/>\nfirst claimant wife and parents of the deceased, are permitted to withdraw the<br \/>\nentire compensation amount payable to them.  Insofar as the compensation<br \/>\napportioned to the minor claimants, the Tribunal shall continue to invest the<br \/>\nsame in a nationalised bank under reinvestment scheme till the minors attain the<br \/>\nmajority.\tThe direction of the Tribunal permitting the first claimant\/mother<br \/>\nof the minor children to periodically withdraw the interest of the minors&#8217; share<br \/>\ndirectly from the bank shall hold good.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\/<br \/>\nSubordinate Court, Kulithalai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD)No.1069 of 2005 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6752 of 2005 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Div.2), Periyamilaguparai, District Collector&#8217;s Office Road, Tiruchirapalli, rep.by its [&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-268983","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>Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 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\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-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=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-14T04:36:21+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\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T04:36:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1515,\"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\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T04:36:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 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":"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 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\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-14T04:36:21+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\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T04:36:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1515,"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\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010","name":"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T04:36:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-vs-kalarani-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu State vs Kalarani on 29 November, 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\/268983","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=268983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}