{"id":37289,"date":"1994-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994"},"modified":"2016-06-25T01:20:21","modified_gmt":"2016-06-24T19:50:21","slug":"managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994","title":{"rendered":"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR  316, \t\t  1994 SCC  (6) 339<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Anand<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Anand, A.S. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMANAGING DIRECTOR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/09\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nANAND, A.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nANAND, A.S. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  316\t\t  1994 SCC  (6) 339\n JT 1994 (6)   166\t  1994 SCALE  (4)148\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n\t     DR A.S. ANAND, J.- Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>+    From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  19-9-1989  of\t the<br \/>\nMadras High Court in W.A. No. 675 of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1982<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">340<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   This  appeal  is directed against the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Madras dated 19-9-1989 dismissing\t appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nWrit Appeal No. 675 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The  first respondent, a private transport operator  in<br \/>\nthe  State  of Andhra Pradesh who at the material  time\t was<br \/>\noperating  his\tstage  carriage\t on  the  inter-State  route<br \/>\nChittoor (in Andhra Pradesh) to Salem (in Tamil Nadu), filed<br \/>\nWrit  Petition No. 4343 of 1980 in the High Court of  Madras<br \/>\nseeking\t quashing of the scheme of nationalisation  approved<br \/>\nunder  Section\t68(d)  of the Motor Vehicles  Act,  1959  as<br \/>\npublished  in  GOMs  No. 579 Home  dated  7-4-1975  and\t for<br \/>\ncertain other reliefs.\tThe learned Single Judge of the High<br \/>\nCourt allowed the writ petition holding inter alia that\t the<br \/>\nentire scheme as approved, was inconsistent and not  capable<br \/>\nof  implementation  and\t that  the  writ  petitioner   (1st.<br \/>\nrespondent   herein)  was  entitled  to\t have  his   renewal<br \/>\napplication considered on the said basis.  The appellant who<br \/>\nhad  been  impleaded  as  the 3rd  respondent  in  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition,  filed  Writ\tAppeal No. 675 of  1982\t within\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tof  limitation.\t  The State of Tamil  Nadu,  also  a<br \/>\nrespondent  in\tthe  writ petition, filed  a  separate\twrit<br \/>\nappeal\tbut  beyond 150 days of the  period  of\t limitation,<br \/>\nalong  with an application seeking condonation of  delay  in<br \/>\npreferring the appeal.\tWhile notice was issued on the\twrit<br \/>\nappeal\tfiled by the appellant, in the writ appeal filed  by<br \/>\nthe   State   notice  was  issued  in  the   condone   delay<br \/>\napplication.   On  4-3-1986  a Division Bench  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,\tdeclined  to  condone the delay\t and  dismissed\t the<br \/>\nappeal\tfiled by the State.  When the writ appeal  filed  by<br \/>\nthe appellant came up for hearing before the Division Bench,<br \/>\nthe  same  was dismissed on the sole ground that  since\t the<br \/>\nwrit appeal filed by the State had already been dismissed by<br \/>\nthe  Division Bench, the writ appeal filed by the  appellant<br \/>\nwas barred by the principle of res judicata and was as\tsuch<br \/>\nnot maintainable.  Reliance was placed by the Division Bench<br \/>\nupon the judgment in <a href=\"\/doc\/1633194\/\">Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar1.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court is not<br \/>\nsustainable  and the reliance placed by it on Sheodan  case1<br \/>\nis misplaced.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   In Sheodan case1 the facts were entirely different.  In<br \/>\nthat case the trial court had decided common issue  relating<br \/>\nto  title which was a common issue in four different  suits.<br \/>\nFour  separate\tdecrees\t had  been  prepared.\tTwo  of\t the<br \/>\nappeals,  arising  out\tof two suits, were  dismissed  on  a<br \/>\npreliminary ground with the result that the decrees in those<br \/>\ntwo   suits  became  final.   In  the  two   appeals   filed<br \/>\nsubsequently,  the earlier order dismissing the two  appeals<br \/>\nwas  held to operate as res judicata and the two  subsequent<br \/>\nappeals were accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   In the present case the factual and legal situation  is<br \/>\nentirely different.  The State as well as the appellant were<br \/>\nrespondents  in one and the same writ petition, against\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of  which they had filed  separate  appeals.\t The<br \/>\ndismissal  of  the  writ appeal filed by the  State  on\t the<br \/>\nground\tof delay not being condoned could not in law  affect<br \/>\nthe maintainability of the writ appeal<br \/>\n1 AIR 1966 SC 1332 : 1966 All LJ 578 : ILR (1966) 2 All 232<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">341<\/span><br \/>\nwhich  had been filed by the appellant within time  and\t was<br \/>\npending\t final hearing in the High Court.  The order in\t the<br \/>\nwrit petition could have been challenged by one appeal\tonly<br \/>\nunlike\tin  Sheodan  Singh case1  where\t four  appeals\twere<br \/>\nrequired  to be filed in law against the four  decrees\teven<br \/>\nthough\tdeciding  the common issue relating  to\t title.\t  We<br \/>\ncannot,\t therefore, subscribe to the view of the High  Court<br \/>\nthat  the  dismissal  of State&#8217;s appeal, in  the  facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case could operate as res judicata\t and<br \/>\nbar   the  maintainability  of\tthe  appeal  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   In\t Narhari  v. Shanker2 on the suit of  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nbeing decreed in the trial court, two separate appeals\twere<br \/>\ntaken by two set of defendants.\t The appellate court allowed<br \/>\nboth  the appeals and dismissed the plaintiff&#8217;s suit by\t one<br \/>\njudgment and ordered a copy of the judgment to be placed  on<br \/>\nthe file of the connected appeal.  The plaintiffs  preferred<br \/>\ntwo  separate  appeals.\t One of the appeal  was\t held  time-<br \/>\nbarred\tand invoking the principle of res judicata the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  dismissed  the  other  appeal  also.   Reversing\t the<br \/>\ndecision of the High Court, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The question of res judicata arises only when<br \/>\n\t      there are two suits.  Even when there are\t two<br \/>\n\t      suits, it has been held that a decision  given<br \/>\n\t      simultaneously  cannot  be a decision  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      former suit.  When there is only one suit, the<br \/>\n\t      question of res judicata does not arise at all<br \/>\n\t      and in the present case, both the decrees\t are<br \/>\n\t      in  the  same  case  and\tbased  on  the\tsame<br \/>\n\t      judgment, and the matter decided concerns\t the<br \/>\n\t      entire suit.  As such, there is no question of<br \/>\n\t      the  application\tof  the\t principle  of\t res<br \/>\n\t      judicata.\t  The  same judgment  cannot  remain<br \/>\n\t      effective just because it was appealed against<br \/>\n\t      with  a different number or a copy of  it\t was<br \/>\n\t      attached\tto  a  different  appeal.   The\t two<br \/>\n\t      decrees in substance are one.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.   It\t is relevant to notice here that in  Sheodan  case1,<br \/>\nthe  Bench  considered\tthe judgment in\t Narhari  case2\t and<br \/>\npointed\t out the distinguishing features in the\t two  cases.<br \/>\nThis Court referring to Narhari case2 observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;That  case however has no application to\t the<br \/>\n\t      facts  of the present case because  there\t the<br \/>\n\t      suit  was only one which was followed  by\t two<br \/>\n\t      appeals.\tThe appeals were heard together\t and<br \/>\n\t      disposed\tof  by\tthe  same  judgment   though<br \/>\n\t      separate decrees were prepared.  An appeal was<br \/>\n\t      taken  against one of the decrees.   In  those<br \/>\n\t      circumstances  this Court held that  as  there<br \/>\n\t      was  only\t one suit, it was not  necessary  to<br \/>\n\t      file  two separate appeals and the  fact\tthat<br \/>\n\t      one  of  the appeals was time-barred  did\t not<br \/>\n\t      affect the maintainability of the other appeal<br \/>\n\t      and  the question of res judicata did  not  at<br \/>\n\t      all  arise.   In the present case\t there\twere<br \/>\n\t      different\t suits from which different  appeals<br \/>\n\t      had to be filed.\tThe High Court&#8217;s decision in<br \/>\n\t      the two appeals arising from Suit Nos. 77\t and<br \/>\n\t      91  was undoubtedly earlier and therefore\t the<br \/>\n\t      condition\t that  there  should  have  been   a<br \/>\n\t      decision in a former suit to give rise to\t res<br \/>\n\t      judicata in a subsequent suit was satisfied in<br \/>\n\t      the present case.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t    (emphasis supplied)<br \/>\n2 AIR 1953 SC 419 : 1950 SCR 754<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">342<\/span><br \/>\nThe  law laid down in Narhari case2 squarely applies to\t the<br \/>\nfacts  of  the present case and the High  Court,  therefore,<br \/>\nfell in error to hold that the appeal filed by the appellant<br \/>\nwas not maintainable being barred by res judicata.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   We\t are also of the opinion that since the writ  appeal<br \/>\nfiled  by the appellant, within time, had been admitted\t and<br \/>\nwas pending hearing, it would have been more appropriate for<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  to give the benefit of Section  5  of\t the<br \/>\nLimitation Act and condone the delay in filing the appeal by<br \/>\nthe  State  and heard both the appeals together\t on  merits.<br \/>\nHowever, since the State has not   come up in appeal, we may<br \/>\nsay nothing more regarding the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  Since,  the  High\tCourt dismissed the  appeal  as\t not<br \/>\nmaintainable, without\t going into the merits of the  case,<br \/>\nwe  set it aside and remit the case back to the\t High  Court<br \/>\nfor  a fresh disposal of the appeal on merits in  accordance<br \/>\nwith law.  It shall be open to the parties to raise all such<br \/>\npleas  as are available to them in law in respect  of  their<br \/>\nrespective  claims before the High Court during the  hearing<br \/>\nof the appeals.\t We request the High Court to dispose of the<br \/>\nwrit  appeal  expeditiously and as far\tas  possible  within<br \/>\nthree  months from the date of receipt of the copy  of\tthis<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">343<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 316, 1994 SCC (6) 339 Author: A Anand Bench: Anand, A.S. (J) PETITIONER: MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. RESPONDENT: K. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/09\/1994 BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) CITATION: 1995 AIR 316 [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-24T19:50:21+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=\"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\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T19:50:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\"},\"wordCount\":1359,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\",\"name\":\"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T19:50:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-24T19:50:21+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994","datePublished":"1994-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T19:50:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994"},"wordCount":1359,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994","name":"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T19:50:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/managing-director-vs-k-ramachandra-naidu-on-15-september-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Managing Director vs K. Ramachandra Naidu on 15 September, 1994"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/37289","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=37289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}