{"id":101830,"date":"1998-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998"},"modified":"2015-11-17T12:43:11","modified_gmt":"2015-11-17T07:13:11","slug":"puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998","title":{"rendered":"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 (47) DRJ 304<\/div>\n
Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n
Bench: R Lahoti, D Bhandari<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 Dalveer Bhandari, J. <\/p>\n
 1.     This  appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of  Shri  Bhola Dutt, learned Sub-Judge, Delhi. The respondent, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited (in short DCM) filed a suit for possession and recovery  of  damages  before Shri Bhola Dutt,  learned  Sub-Judge,  Delhi.  The learned Sub-Judge by his judgment decreed the plaintiff’s suit.\n<\/p>\n
      The  appellant  aggrieved  by the judgment and decree  passed  by  the learned Sub-Judge, Delhi, has preferred this appeal. Brief facts which  are necessary to dispose off this appeal are recapitulated in succeeding  paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   According  to  the  appellant, he joined  the  respondent  company  on 2.2.1942  and continued with the respondent company until  his  retirement, i.e., on 30.10.1985. According to the appellant, he had taken a residential quarter No. 36, Lalkot, Kanisht Lane, Municipal House, 9173 Ward No.  16-E, Gaushala  Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi initially at a monthly rent  of  Rs.10\/- which was later on increased to Rs.42.70 per month. It is further mentioned that  this amount used to be deducted from the salary of the appellant.  In January,  1986,  immediately  after the retirement of  the  appellant,  the respondent  company served a notice upon the appellant calling upon him  to vacate  and  hand over the possession of the quarter in question.  The  respondent  company further required the appellant to pay the damages at  the rate  of  Rs.400\/- per month with effect from 16.1.1986. The  suit  of  the respondent company was decreed on 14.2.1989. The judgment and the decree of the learned Sub-Judge have been assailed before this Court. It is mentioned that  the residential quarter given to the appellant was not on  a  licence but  on a lease basis. The judgment of the trial court was also  challenged on  the ground that the trial court erred in holding that mere writing  the word ‘Tenant’ over the document does not mean that there was a tenancy  and the appellant was a tenant. It is further mentioned that in absence of  any written  agreement  between the parties, the learned trial court  ought  to have relied upon the documents as produced by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 3.   According to the appellant, the trial court also erred in holding that mere use of word in any receipt or writing will not make any person  tenant or the landlord. The various receipts placed on record show that the appellant was paying rent of the premises.\n<\/p>\n
 4.   The  judgment of the trial court was assailed on the ground  that  the trial court erred in awarding the damages at the rate of Rs.400\/- per month in favour of the respondent company particularly when the respondent company nowhere on record proved that Rs.400\/- per month was just and  equitable rate  of  damages of the premises in question. The onus to prove  that  the prevailing rate of rent in the market was Rs.400\/- had to be discharged  by the respondent company, which the respondent failed to discharge.\n<\/p>\n
 5.   The appellant also submitted that in absence of any evidence  produced by  the  respondent  company, no decree could be passed in  favour  of  the respondent  company for the damages at the rate of Rs.400\/- per  month  for the  premises  in dispute. The judgment of the trial court was  also  challenged  on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to  try  the suit.\n<\/p>\n
 6.   The case of the respondent company is that the appellant was  employed in the respondent company on 2.2.1942 and during the course of his  employment, the respondent company gave the premises in question to the appellant on  licence  on 16.4.1963. According to the respondent, the  appellant  was allowed  to use the premises as a licensee on the condition that  he  could use it so long as he remained as an employee of the respondent company. The appellant  retired from the service on 30.10.1985 and the allotment of  the quarter in his favour stood terminated from that date. The appellant became liable  to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the  quarter  in question  to the respondent company after his retirement. When the  possession of quarter was not handed over then on 11.1.1986, a notice was  served upon the appellant calling upon him to vacate and hand over the  possession of  the premises to the respondent company. Since the appellant failed  and neglected to hand over the possession of the premises, the suit for possession and damages was filed against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 7.   The appellant expired on 6.3.1991 and his legal heirs were brought  on record. The trial court framed the following issues :\n<\/p>\n
      1.   Whether the suit is barred under Section 50 of DRC Act? OPD. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      2.   Whether  the  plaintiff has no right or title  to  file  the present suit? OPD. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      3.   Whether  the plaint is signed by a duly  authorised  person? OPP. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      4.   Whether the defendant is a tenant? OPD. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      5.   Whether the plaintiff has any right to claim damages? OPP. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      6.   Whether any cause of action has ever arisen? OPP. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      7.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession? OPP. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      8.   Whether the defendant was a licensee? OPP. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      9.   Relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
 8.   Issue  No. ‘4’ and ‘8’ relate to the fact whether the appellant was  a tenant or a licensee and these issues have been decided together. The trial court referred to the statement of Jagat Singh, PW-3 working in the  establishment  of the respondent company, appeared on behalf of  the  respondent company.  He  had deposed that the appellant was allotted  the  quarter  in dispute  as  a licensee and after his retirement, his licence  to  use  the quarter  stood terminated. He also mentioned in the cross-examination  that the  licence fee was increased from time to time. PW-3 also mentioned  that the appellant was informed that in case he failed to vacate the quarter,  he would  be  required to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation  of  the quarter  at  the  rate of Rs.400\/- per month with  effect  from  16.1.1986. Despite notice the appellant failed to vacate the quarter in question.  The respondent  also examined B.L. Batra, PW-1, Rajbir Singh, PW-2, P.S.  Jain, PW-4, Anil Aggarwal, PW-5 apart from Jagat Singh P.W.3to prove its case.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   On behalf of the appellant other than himself Narender Pratap DW-2 and Moti  Lal,  DW-3  were also examined. The appellant admitted  that  he  had joined  the  respondent company in 1942 and retired in 1985. He  also  mentioned  that he was living in the quarter since 1963 in the capacity  of  a tenant.  He also admitted that he had received a notice of  termination  of licence  from  the respondent company. He also mentioned  that  there  were 1,200  quarters of respondent company and there were 5,000  employees.  The appellant admitted that the colony was surrounded by a boundary wall.  DW-3 Moti  Lal mentioned in his evidence that it is correct that the  respondent company  gave the houses to its employees for their  residential  purposes. The learned trial court gave categoric finding that the quarter in question was  allotted  to  the appellant only on licence and the  appellant  was  a licensee and not a tenant. The issue No. ‘1’ relates to whether the  appellant  was entitled to possession? The issue Nos. 6 and 7 relate to  whether any cause of action had arisen and the plaintiff respondent was entitled to possession. The trial court gave categoric finding that after retirement of the  appellant from the service of the respondent company he had to  vacate the  quarter and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent  which  he had not done.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  In  this view of the matter, the respondent is entitled to  possession as well as damages. The trial court while giving finding on issue No.  ‘5’, had mentioned that Jagat Singh, PW-3 had deposed that the defendant is also liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of the quarter at the rate of Rs.400\/- per month from 16.1.1986. As a matter of fact, the  appellant  was given notice to this effect immediately after his  superannuation from the service.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  The  learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the  same  arguments before this Court and submitted that the appellant was not a licensee but a tenant and could not be evicted from the quarter in question even after his superannuation  from the respondent company. The appellant  also  submitted that he was put in possession exclusively in the quarter, therefore, he was given the premises as a tenant and not as a licensee.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  The  respondent also submitted that the controversy involved  in  this suit is no longer res-integra. It is submitted that the respondent  company had  1200 quarters and these quarters were allotted to their  employees  on licence  basis and after their superannuation these quarters had to  revert to the company. For allotment of the quarter a small licence fee used to be charged by the respondent company. This court in a number of exactly  similar  suits and appeals had occasions to examine the same controversy.  This Court  unanimously  in a large number of proceedings came  to  a  categoric conclusion that the quarters in question were allotted to the employees  as long  as they were in service and after their superannuation, the  quarters had  to revert to the company. It is submitted by the learned  counsel  for the respondent that except for the appellant’s legal  heirs\/representatives all other quarters have been vacated.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  The issue whether the quarter allotted to the appellant was on a lease or  a  licence basis, has also been examined in a number of  cases  of  the respondent  company (concerning its various employees at  various  stages). Single  Benches, Division Benches, and Full Benches of this Court and  even the Hon’ble Supreme Court also on various occasions had examined this  very
\nissue  concerning  the similarly placed other former employees of  the  respondent company in a number of cases. It may be pertinent to reproduce the findings which were arrived at by the various courts.\n<\/p>\n
 13.1 In R.S.A. No. 62\/86, Shri Kedari Singh Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.  Ltd., Usha Mehra, J., learned Single Judge of this Court  observed  as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “the quarter was allotted as a personal privilege to stay in  the quarter  of the company for greater convenience of his work.  The intention of the parties become clear that the allotment was only a  licence and not lease. As soon as the services were  dispensed with  on account of retirement the employee was required to  hand back  the  quarter to the employer. No right vested in  the  land separate and distinct from the contract of service”.\n<\/p>\n
 13.2 M.S.A.  Siddiqui,  J.  of this Court in the matter of  Arun  Mudgil  & Another Vs. D.C.M. Ltd. R.S.A. No. 17\/96 observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “the  licensee  by  virtue of his employment  in  the  respondent company  was permitted to occupy the suit accommodation  for  the greater  convenience of his work. It appears that primary  object of  the  allotment of the suit accommodation was  to  secure  the service  of the defendant and the accommodation was a  subsidiary object. Thus, the licensee’s employment in the respondent company was a circumstance justifying the creation of a licence. From the facts and circumstances surrounding and appertaining the transaction, it is clear that it was a licence and not a lease.”\n<\/p>\n
 13.3 In R.S.A. No. 60\/97, Mohd. Shamim, J. of this Court observed that
\n      “Hence the appellants have no right, title or interest to  retain the possession over the disputed property”\n<\/p>\n
 13.4 Thereafter, the matter has been dealt by the Full Bench of this  Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and some of their findings are  reproduced hereunder and in the following paragraphs:\n<\/p>\n
      “In the present case we find that the terms of the licence, which we  have reproduced above, clearly show that this  document  does not  create  a relationship of landlord and  tenant  between  the company and its workmen.”\n<\/p>\n
      This order has been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court  in a special leave petition preferred against this order.\n<\/p>\n
 14.  This  Court  had  also  taken the same  view  in  the  judgment  dated 27.3.1989  delivered by this Division Bench in a large number  of  applications which came up for consideration in C.W.P. No. 2476\/88. This order has also  been  upheld by the Supreme Court in a special leave  petition  filed against  the said judgment. In view of the findings of a number  of  courts including  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of similarly  placed  other employees  of  the  respondent company, no infirmity can be  found  in  the findings  arrived at in the impugned judgment and the findings are  accordingly affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
 15.  The  findings of trial court are based mostly on appreciation of  oral evidence. Whether the appellant is a tenant or licencee depended on  appreciation of the statement of appellant (DW.1) and Jagat Singh (PW1). It is a case  of  oath against oath. Jagat Singh has been believed as  against  the appellant. Such a case is hardly open for interference in appeal more so in
\nview of the several judicial findings referred to in previous paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
 16.  The  appeal filed by the appellant is totally devoid of any merit  and is  dismissed accordingly. Ordinarily this appeal ought to have  been  dismissed  with  costs but in view of the fact that the appellant  was  an  ex workman,  now survived by his legal representatives therefore,  we  refrain from imposing any costs and direct the parties to bear their own costs. The appellant’s  legal  representatives are directed to hand  over  the  vacant possession of the quarter in question by 30.9.1998.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 (47) DRJ 304 Author: D Bhandari Bench: R Lahoti, D Bhandari ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of Shri Bhola Dutt, learned Sub-Judge, Delhi. The respondent, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPuran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 - 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\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-17T07:13:11+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-17T07:13:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2240,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\",\"name\":\"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-17T07:13:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 - 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\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-17T07:13:11+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-17T07:13:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998"},"wordCount":2240,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998","name":"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-17T07:13:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puran-singh-vs-d-c-m-limited-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Puran Singh vs D.C.M. Limited on 1 September, 1998"}]},{"@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\/101830","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=101830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}