{"id":271517,"date":"2007-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007"},"modified":"2016-07-05T20:25:17","modified_gmt":"2016-07-05T14:55:17","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 23\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.1078 of 2000\n\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n(Kumbakonam Division II) Ltd.,\nTrichy.\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n\nKarikalan\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173<\/a> of Motor Vehicles Act\nagainst the Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.1481 of 1993\non the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Additional Sub Judge),\nTrichy.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t    : Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t      For Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n\t\n\n^For Respondent      : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated
\n22.09.1999 passed by the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Additional Sub
\nJudge), Trichy in M.C.O.P.No.1481 of 1993 directing payment of a sum of
\nRs.55,000\/- together with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim
\ntill realisation and costs for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an
\naccident alleged to have taken place on 27.02.1993 at about 11.00 a.m.<\/p>\n
\t2. The respondent herein\/claimant preferred a claim on the file of the
\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Additional Sub Judge), Trichy by filing
\nM.C.O.P.No.1481 of 1993 praying for an award against the appellant\/respondent
\nfor the injuries sustained by the claimant who met with an accident on
\n27.02.1993 at about 11.00 a.m. Contending that on the date of accident, viz.,
\n27.02.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., the respondent\/claimant was proceeding in his
\nbullet motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-Y-4061 on the Trichy – Ariyalur
\nMain road; that while he was thus proceeding near Poovalur tank, the
\nappellant’s\/respondent’s bus bearing registration No.TN-45-N-0319, on its trip
\nfrom Meensuritti to Trichy, came there  at a high speed driven by its driver in
\na rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant; that the rash and
\nnegligent driving of the above said bus by its driver was the sole cause of the
\naccident and that in the said accident, the respondent\/claimant was seriously
\ninjured leading to permanent disability and consequential loss of earning
\ncapacity. According to the respondent\/claimant, the petitioner was aged about 35
\nyears and was employed as a Centre View Master in Kothari Sugars and Chemicals
\nLimited and was having a monthly income of Rs.2,300\/-  The respondent\/claimant
\nhad filed the above said M.C.O.P.No.1481 of 1993 under Sections 140<\/a> and 166<\/a> of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a sum of Rs.75,000\/- as compensation from the
\nappellant\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In order to prove his claim, the respondent\/claimant, besides examining
\nhimself as P.W.1, examined one more witness as P.W.2 and relied on six documents
\nmarked as Exs.A-1 to A-6.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The said claim was resisted by the appellant\/respondent who filed a
\ncounter statement denying the petition averments concerning the negligence
\naspect, liability of the appellant to pay compensation and quantum of
\ncompensation. With the further contention that the negligence on the part of the
\nrespondent\/claimant in driving his motorcycle was the sole cause of the
\naccident; that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus; that
\ndisregarding the horn sound of the bus, the claimant with a pillion rider on the
\nback seat of the motor cycle, came to the centre of the road in a rash and
\nnegligent manner and invited the accident; that the respondent\/claimant did not
\neven possess a valid licence to drive the motor cycle; that   in fact, he did
\nnot know how to raid it; that the injuries sustained by the respondent\/claimant
\nwere simple and superficial and that the amount claimed as compensation was
\nhighly excessive and unreasonable, the appellant\/respondent had prayed for the
\ndismissal of  M.C.O.P. with costs.   In support of the defence case of the
\nappellant\/respondent, only one witness was examined and no document was marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. After the conclusion of evidence, the Tribunal heard the arguments
\nadvanced on either side, framed the necessary questions for determination,
\nscrutinised the materials on record and on such scrutiny, held that the driver
\nof the bus belonging  to the appellant\/respondent was at fault and that the
\naccident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing
\nRegistration No.TN-45-N-0319 by its driver, mulcted the liability on the
\nappellant\/respondent as the owner of the offending vehicle, assessed the
\ncompensation at Rs.55,000\/- and passed an award directing the
\nappellant\/respondent to pay the above said amount to the respondent\/claimant as
\ncompensation with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim till
\nrealisation. The Tribunal has also directed the appellant\/respondent to pay
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award both on the question of
\nnegligence as well as quantum of compensation, the owner of the offending
\nvehicle has brought forth this appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel, advancing arguments on behalf of the
\nappellant, would submit that the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence
\naspect was erroneous and against the preponderance of evidence; that the
\nTribunal ought to have held that the accident was the result of the negligence
\non the part of the respondent\/claimant and that hence the respondent\/claimant
\nwas not entitled to claim any compensation based on the theory of fault and that
\nthe Tribunal should have either dismissed the claim petition in its entirety or
\nrestricted the award of compensation to what was payable under Section 140<\/a> of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act. Contending further, the learned counsel submitted that
\nthe award of a sum of Rs.55,000\/- towards compensation for the alleged injury
\nsustained by the respondent\/claimant was highly excessive and exorbitant; that
\nthough the permanent disability suffered by the respondent\/claimant was assessed
\nby the Tribunal at 15%, it committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.35,000\/-
\nfor permanent disability as such; that the award of a sum of Rs.15,000\/- towards
\nmedical expenses could not be sustained, as the same was not supported by
\ndocumentary evidence; that the award of a sum of Rs.15,000\/- towards medical
\nexpenses, as against a sum of Rs.1,643.21 paise, for which amount alone Ex.A-3
\nseries – medical bills have been produced, was highly unreasonable and that
\nhence viewed from any angle, the award of the Tribunal was excessive and liable
\nto be reduced drastically.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. This Court also heard the submissions made by Mr.S.Muthukrishnan,
\nlearned counsel on behalf of the respondent\/claimant and paid its anxious
\nconsiderations to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In the instant case, the respondent\/claimant, has made a specific plea
\nin his claim petition that the driver of the bus belonging to the
\nappellant\/respondent drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit him, while
\nhe was proceeding in his motor cycle slowly and cautiously. In order to prove
\nhis case that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the
\nbus belonging to the appellant\/respondent, the claimant himself deposed as P.W.1
\nrepeating and reiterating the petition averments regarding how the accident took
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In addition to the oral evidence of P.W.1, the claimant has also
\nproduced the certified copy of the First Information Report and marked the same
\nas Ex.A.1. The same proves that a case in Crime No.276 of 1993 was registered on
\nthe file of Lalgudi Police Station against the driver of the bus for alleged
\noffences punishable under Sections 279<\/a> and 337<\/a> IPC. The First Information Report
\nseems to have been registered based on the statement of the claimant recorded by
\nthe police, while he was taking treatment in the casualty ward of Government
\nHospital, Lalgudi, regarding which an intimation had been received by the
\npolice. The narration made by the claimant in the above said complaint statement
\nlends support to the claimant’s case and corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. In
\nthis regard, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unassailed even though he was
\nmeticulously cross-examined. The suggestions put to him that he did not possess
\na valid driving licence and ventured to drive the motorcycle without properly
\nlearning to drive have been stoutly denied by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1
\ninspires the the confidence of this Court, as the same is spontaneous, natural
\nand without any remarkable contradiction. On the other hand, the evidence of
\nR.W.1 the driver in charge of the offending vehicle, namely, the bus involved in
\nthe accident, seems to be unnatural and unreliable. Even though R.W.1 might have
\nstated that he saw the respondent\/claimant coming in the motorcycle at a high
\nspeed and with rashness and negligence at a distance of 30 feet, there is
\nnothing in his evidence to the effect that he took any step to avoid collision.
\nThough he might have asserted in his evidence that the accident took place on
\nthe left side of the road and that the motorcycle came into contact with the bus
\non its front right side portion, the appellant\/respondent has not chosen to
\nadduce any corroborate peace of evidence. Copy of the observation mahazar and
\nrough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer showing the topography of the
\nplace of occurrence have not been obtained and produced. R.W.1 would state in
\nhis evidence that the criminal case registered against him was dismissed. But,
\nwhether it was an honourable acquittal or an acquittal giving benefit of doubt
\nto the accused is not known. The Tribunal, after properly analysing the evidence
\nboth oral and documentary, rightly disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1 and
\nbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 and came to a correct
\nconclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration
\nNo.TN-45-N-0319 belonging to the appellant\/respondent was the sole cause of the
\naccident. Based on the said finding on the question of negligence, the Tribunal
\nhas cast the liability on the appellant\/respondent, as the owner of the
\noffending vehicle, to pay compensation to the respondent\/claimant. This Court is
\nnot in a position to notice any infirmity, error or illegality in the above said
\nfinding rendered by the Tribunal and hence the same deserves to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In order to prove that the injuries sustained by the
\nrespondent\/claimant in the accident resulted in permanent disability, the
\nclaimant, besides disposing as P.W.1, examined one Dr.Illangovan as P.W.2. P.W.2
\nafter going through the medical records and based on his clinical examination of
\nthe respondent\/claimant found him with 15% permanent disability referable to the
\ninjury sustained in the accident and issued Ex.A.6 – disability certificate. The
\nevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.6 in this regard remain unchallenged, as
\nthere is no contra evidence. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion
\nthat the claimant sustained 15% permanent disability due to the injuries caused
\nin the accident in question. Relying on the disability certificate issued by
\nP.W.2 produced and marked as Ex.A.6, the Tribunal proceeded with the assessment
\nof compensation on various heads and fixed the total amount of compensation at
\nRs.55,000\/-, the details which are found as follows:<\/p>\n
\n\t\n\n\tCompensation for permanent\n\tdisability \t\t\t= Rs.35,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for medical\n\texpenses \t\t\t= Rs.15,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for pain and\n\tsuffering \t\t\t= Rs. 3,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for expenses\n\tincurred towards extra-\n\tnourishment \t\t\t= Rs. 2,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\tTotal \t\t\t= Rs.55,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t12. In the above assessment made by the Tribunal, the award of a sum of
\nRs.2,000\/- towards expenses for extra-nourishment and a sum of Rs.3,000\/-
\ntowards pain and suffering has not been challenged by the appellant to be
\nexcessive. Therefore, without any impediment whatsoever, the same can be
\nconfirmed. The challenge made by the appellant is confined to the award of
\nRs.35,000\/- for permanent disability and Rs.15,000\/- towards medical expenses.
\nIn cases of injuries sustained in the accident resulting in permanent disability
\neither a lump sum amount for the permanent disability as such can be awarded
\nwhich will incorporate in itself the loss of future earning capacity and loss of
\namenities in life or award separate amounts for loss of future earning capacity
\nand loss of amenities in life. In case, the second method is adopted, there is
\nno need for awarding separate amounts for permanent disability as such and in
\nfact if such an award is made, the same will result in duplication.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the instant case, even though the respondent\/claimant has made an
\naverment that the permanent disability has resulted in loss of earning capacity
\nalso, there is nothing on record to show that there was either loss of job or
\nloss of income from the job. It is not in dispute that the claimant prior to the
\naccident was working as a Centre View Master in Kothari Sugars and Chemicals
\nLimited. But there is no evidence to show that he was removed from service,
\ndemoted or denied promotion. Nor is there any evidence to show that his prospect
\nof promotion has been diminished because of the disability. Under these
\ncircumstances, applying the second method of assessment of compensation, namely,
\nseparate assessment being made on the heads of future loss of earning capacity
\nand loss of amenities in life will not be appropriate and the first method,
\nviz., awarding a lump sum payment for permanent disability will alone be
\nappropriate. Thus, the Tribunal has adopted the correct method in awarding a
\nlump sum amount for permanent disability as such. At the same time, awarding a
\nsum of Rs.35,000\/- for 15% spermanent disability, according to view of this
\nCourt, is definitely disproportionate and is on the higher side.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. When the method of awarding lump sum amount for permanent disability
\nis adopted, the age of the claimant shall play an important role. The award may
\nrange from Rs.1,000\/- to Rs.2,000\/- per 1% disability depending upon the age of
\nthe claimant. Maximum rate shall be applied in case of youngsters and minimum
\nrate shall be applied in case of aged persons. As per evidence, the claimant had
\ncompleted 35 years of age as on the relevant date. Applying such a test, this
\nCourt holds that awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500\/- per 1%
\ndisability in the case of the respondent\/claimant in this case shall be
\nabsolutely justifiable. Thus the lump sum amount to be awarded  towards
\ncompensation for permanent disability to the respondent\/claimant in this case
\nshall have to be fixed at Rs.1,500 x 15 = Rs.22,500\/- instead of Rs.35,000\/-. If
\nsuch a method of calculation is adopted, the award of Rs.35,000\/- as
\ncompensation for the permanent disability, as such, shall have to be brought
\ndown to Rs.22,500\/-. In case of adoption of either of the method indicated
\nabove, loss of earning occasioned to the claimant during the period of treatment
\nprior to the date of claim shall have to be awarded as a component of pecuniary
\ndamages. In this case, the claimant has produced Ex.A.5 – certificate issued by
\nKothari Sugars and Chemicals Limited that he was on leave on loss of pay from
\n28.02.1993 to 20.05.1993 and that the loss of remuneration suffered by him was
\nRs.8,122.24\/-. Giving a small increase, the same can be rounded to Rs.8,500\/-.
\nSo far as the assessment of compensation for medical expenses is concerned, this
\nCourt is of the considered view that the award of Rs.15,000\/- by the Tribunal
\ncannot be sustained. The claimant has produced Ex.A.3 series covering a sum of
\nRs.1,643.21\/- alone. Giving a marginal increase to the said amount, we can
\nsafely arrive at a conclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.2,000\/- alone for
\nmedical expenses shall be quite reasonable. If such reductions, additions and
\nadjustments are made, the reasonable amount that could be awarded as total
\ncompensation shall be only Rs.38,000\/-. At the cost of repetition, the details
\nof the assessment of compensation are given as under:<\/p>\n
\n\tCompensation for permanent\n\tdisability \t\t\t= Rs.22,500\/-\n\n\tCompensation for loss of\n\tremuneration during the period\n\tof treatment\t\t\t= Rs. 8,500\/-\n\t\n\tCompensation for medical\n\texpenses \t\t\t= Rs. 2,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for pain and\n\tsuffering \t\t\t= Rs. 3,000\/-\n\n\tCompensation for expenses\n\tincurred towards extra-\n\tnourishment \t\t\t= Rs. 2,000\/-\n\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\tTotal \t\t\t= Rs.38,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t15. For the reasons stated supra, this Court comes to a conclusion that
\nthe award of the Tribunal in respect of its quantum is slightly on the higher
\nside and the same deserves to be reduced to 38,000 from Rs.55,000\/- and subject
\nto the above said reduction, the award of the Tribunal deserves to be confirmed
\nin all other respects. If the award amount has already been deposited to the
\ncredit of M.C.O.P.No.1481 of 1993, the Tribunal is directed to refund the
\nbalance amount to the appellant\/respondent within a period of two months from
\nthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Civil
\nMiscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to payment of
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\n(IIIrd Additional Sub Judge),
\nTrichy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23\/04\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.1078 of 2000 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Division II) Ltd., Trichy. .. Appellant Vs. Karikalan .. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under […]<\/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-271517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\" \/>\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 Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-05T14:55:17+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=\"14 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-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T14:55:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2667,\"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-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T14:55:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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 Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-karikalan-on-23-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-05T14:55:17+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T14:55:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007"},"wordCount":2667,"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-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007","name":"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T14:55:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-karikalan-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Karikalan on 23 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/271517","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=271517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}