{"id":11373,"date":"2002-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002"},"modified":"2016-07-21T01:36:35","modified_gmt":"2016-07-20T20:06:35","slug":"bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 18\/09\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nC.R.P. No.2734 of 1997\n\nBharat Kumar                                   ..              Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n\nThe Commissioner,\nCorporation of Chennai,\nChennai.                                        ..              Respondent\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India  praying\nfor the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :       Mr.Himmatmal Mardia\n\nFor respondent :  No appearance\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This  Civil  Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India as against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1996  made<br \/>\nin M.T.A.    No.58  of 1994 by the Court of Principal Judge, City Civil Court,<br \/>\nMadras, which itself has been filed against the order passed by the  Chairman,<br \/>\nTaxation Appeals  Committee,  Corporation of Madras in T.A.C.  No.1003 of 1993<br \/>\ndated 16.11.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Tracing the history of the case, it comes to  be  known  that  the<br \/>\nsubject  matter  is  regarding  the  Corporation tax levied as half yearly tax<br \/>\npertaining to the building of the petitioner, who is the appellant before  the<br \/>\nlower court.   The case of the petitioner before the initial authority is that<br \/>\nfor the property bearing door No.86\/2, Govindappa Naicken  Street,  Chennai-1,<br \/>\nthe  tribunal  has fixed the annual value of the property at Rs.1,74,720\/= and<br \/>\ndubbing the same as excessive, the petitioner, challenging the said  order  of<br \/>\nthe  tribunal, the Taxation Appeals Committee, Corporation of Madras in T.A.C.<br \/>\nNo.1003 of 199  3  dated  16.11.1994,  has  preferred  an  appeal  before  the<br \/>\nappellate  forum,  the City Civil Court, Madras and the said court also having<br \/>\npartly allowed the appeal of the tribunal, thereby modifying the rental  value<br \/>\nas  Rs.15,000\/=  per  month  and  directing  to  fix  the  half yearly tax and<br \/>\naccordingly had passed its order dated 30.8.1996 and it is against this  order<br \/>\nof  the appellate authority, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras the<br \/>\npetitioner has come forward to file the above revision under  Article  227  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution  of  India  on  grounds such as (i) that the lower court has<br \/>\nfiled to apply the basic principles contemplated under  the  Act  to  fix  the<br \/>\nannual rental value of the property; (ii) that the actual area of construction<br \/>\nin all  the  floors  is  only 7200 sq.ft.  and not 8800 sq.ft, which the lower<br \/>\ncourt has failed to note; (iii) that  the  lower  court  has  failed  to  give<br \/>\nfinding  that the premises bearing door No.86\/1 and 86\/2 in Govindappa Naicken<br \/>\nStreet, Madras-1 are two portions of the very same property  having  a  common<br \/>\npassage  divided  among  the  petitioner  and  his  brother and since both the<br \/>\nproperties are more or less the same in nature, the extent  and  usage,  there<br \/>\ncannot  be  vast  difference in the annual rental value of the same if uniform<br \/>\nprinciples as laid down by the Act are adopted; (iv) that the lower court  has<br \/>\nnot  disclosed the reasons and the basis on which the rental value is fixed at<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/= per month; (v) that the lower court had failed to apply the  norms<\/p>\n<p>of G.O.    Ms.No.1178 of 1987 dated 10.12.1987 in its perspective; and on such<br \/>\ngrounds, the petitioner would pray to allow the above civil revision  petition<br \/>\nas prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   During  arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner, besides tracing the facts and circumstances encircling  the  case,<br \/>\nwould  ultimately  end  up  saying  that the Taxation Appeals Committee or the<br \/>\nappellate authority have not assigned any tangible reason to arrive  at  their<br \/>\nconclusions  for  fixing  the annual rental value in the manner that they have<br \/>\nbeen fixed; that Section 4  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Buildings  (Lease  and  Rent<br \/>\nControl)  Act  should have been followed; that no conclusion had been given to<br \/>\nthe petitioner by these authorities as to how the value is arrived at and that<br \/>\nthe notice issued by the respondent does not  disclose  the  details  and  the<br \/>\nreasons for the rental value.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Summing  up  the  case of the petitioner in the above manner, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel would cite three  judgments  respectively  reported  in  (  i)<br \/>\n(1997) II  MLJ  457 <a href=\"\/doc\/1792306\/\">(RAMASWAMY vs.  COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS),<\/a> (ii)<br \/>\n(1993) II MLJ 262 (MAGDOOM SHERIFF alias  <a href=\"\/doc\/1989480\/\">SULTAN  SHERIFF  vs.    KANCHEEPURAM<br \/>\nMUNICIPALITY)  and<\/a> (iii) (1995) II MLJ 43 <a href=\"\/doc\/1926486\/\">(DINDIGUL ANNA TAX PAYERS SANGAM vs.<br \/>\nGOVT.  OF TAMIL NADU).  So<\/a> far as the first judgment cited above is concerned,<br \/>\nit is held therein:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Wherever buildings are subject to  rent-  control  restrictions,  the<br \/>\nrental  value  has  to be fixed with reference to the fair rent, if any, fixed<br \/>\nunder the statutory provisions for the building and if no fair rent  has  been<br \/>\nfixed  by  the  Rent  Controller,  the municipal authorities have to apply the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Rent Control  Act  and  determine  the  fair  rent  for  the<br \/>\nbuilding before assessing the property to tax.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as the second judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The  main  point  argued  by the learned counsel for the appellant is<br \/>\nthat the assessment made  on  27.12.1977,  enhancing  the  property  tax  from<br \/>\nRs.633-44  to  Rs.2,063-04  was  not  in  accordance with Section 82(2) of the<br \/>\nabovesaid Act, and the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1617224\/\">The Guntur Muncipal Council V.  The  Guntur<br \/>\nTown Rate Payers&#8217; Association,<\/a> (1971) 2 MLJ (S.C.) 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Section  82  provides  for  the  method  of assessment of property for<br \/>\nlevying property tax.  Section 82(2) says as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The annual value of lands and buildings shall be  deemed  to  be  the<br \/>\ngross  annual  rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month<br \/>\nto month or from year to year (less a deduction in the case of  buildings,  of<br \/>\nten per cent, of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the<br \/>\nbuildings  alone,  apart  from  their  sites and adjacent lands occupied as an<br \/>\nappurtenance thereto)&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as the third judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Whenever there is an enhancement in  the  assessment  pursuant  to  a<br \/>\ngeneral revision, it is the duty of the executive authority to issue a special<br \/>\nnotice to  the taxpayer as provided under the proviso to Rule 9.  The court is<br \/>\nof the view that the special notices issued by the executive authorities under<br \/>\nRule 9 informing the assessees about the enhancement in the  assessment  shall<br \/>\ncontain  reasons  for  the increase and if the reasons for the increase in the<br \/>\nassessment are not given in the special notice the assessee may  not  know  on<br \/>\nwhat  ground the enhancement has been made and consequently, he cannot be able<br \/>\nto put forward his objections specifically and effectively.  As no  reason  is<br \/>\nstated  in the special notices for enhancement of property tax in these cases,<br \/>\nthat cannot be sustained.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  On the part of the respondent, since no appearance had been  made,<br \/>\nthis  Court  is  left  with no option but to pass orders in the above revision<br \/>\npetition, in consideration of the facts and circumstances pleaded on the  part<br \/>\nof  the  petitioner,  having regard to the materials placed on record and upon<br \/>\nhearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  A perusal of the order passed by the lower appellate  court  dated<br \/>\n30.8.1996  would  show that the learned Judge, not only tracing the facts, but<br \/>\nalso framing proper point for consideration whether the order  passed  by  the<br \/>\ntribunal  is proper and correct, would find that the tribunal, in the light of<br \/>\nthe pleading of the appellant that the actual construction was only  7200  sq.<br \/>\nft.   and  the monthly rent to be realised was Rs.10,465\/-, would further find<br \/>\nthat the extent of 1740 sq.  ft.  was in  the  occupation  of  the  owner  for<br \/>\nresidential purposes  and  22  00 sq.ft.  was in the occupation of the tenants<br \/>\nand that the owner was in occupation of 460 sq.ft.   for  commercial  purposes<br \/>\nand the tenant  occupied  an  extent of 4400 sq.  ft.  for commercial purposes<br \/>\nand that the age of the building was 10 years, the original rental  value  was<br \/>\nRs.5,350\/=  and  it was proposed to be increased to Rs.17,140\/=, thus the rent<br \/>\nrealised being Rs.15,480\/=.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The court below would further find that in the ground  floor,  the<br \/>\ntenants  are  running  a  shop  and  the  first  floor  is also being used for<br \/>\ncommercial purposes; that the second  floor  is  occupied  by  the  owner  for<br \/>\nresidential  purpose  and  for  office purpose as well and the third floor has<br \/>\nbeen let out for tenants for residential purpose; that the floor is mosaic and<br \/>\nthe roof is terraced and these facts have not been seriously disputed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The lower court further going into the orders of the tribunal  and<br \/>\nthe  legal  points  raised therein, would fix the rental value at Rs.16 ,000\/=<br \/>\nper month and that the petitioner had not chosen to examine any of the tenants<br \/>\nto prove the actual payment of rent and in the estimate of the respondent, the<br \/>\nrent reaslised was Rs.15,480\/= and taking into consideration that  the  extent<br \/>\nof 4400 sq.  ft.  is in the occupation of the tenants for commercial purposes,<br \/>\nan extent  of  460  sq.ft.   was in the occupation of the owner for commercial<br \/>\npurposes and further an extent of 2200 sq.ft.  was in the  occupation  of  the<br \/>\ntenants and  174  0 sq.ft.  was in the occupation of the owner for residential<br \/>\npurpose, there was no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the rental<br \/>\nvalue had to be naturally enhanced  and  hence  fixing  the  rental  value  at<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/=  per month, the lower appellate court would pass its verdict, thus<br \/>\nslightly modifying and fixing the rental value by the tribunal to this  extent<br \/>\nand passing the order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   Accepting  the  norms fixed by the upper forms of law as given in<br \/>\nthe judgments cited above, according to which, while the fair rent is fixed in<br \/>\naccordance  with  the  statutory  provisions  by  the  rent  controller,   the<br \/>\napplication  of  the  provisions  of the Rent Control Act as held by the first<br \/>\njudgment cited supra by the petitioner does not  arise  and  further  only  in<br \/>\nadherence  of the legal principles embodied in the Act concerned, the fixation<br \/>\nof the rent for the demised building has been assessed  by  the  tribunal  and<br \/>\nsome of the grounds raised herein have neither been raised before the tribunal<br \/>\nnor  before the appellate court, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled<br \/>\nto raise the same before this court as the first time,  since  no  opportunity<br \/>\nhad  been  afforded  for  the  lower  authorities to consider such points, and<br \/>\nhence, it is safe to arrive at the conclusion that only in observance  of  the<br \/>\nlegal norms and following the procedures established by law, valid conclusions<br \/>\nhave  been arrived at in the fixation of the rent for the building premises of<br \/>\nthe petitioner and there  is  no  illegality  or  infirmity  or  inconsistency<br \/>\ncommitted  on  the part of both the tribunal and the appellate court, so as to<br \/>\ncause interference into the same.    Nor  is  there  any  legal  necessity  or<br \/>\ncompelling  circumstance  for  this revisional court to cause its interference<br \/>\nmaking use of its  supervisory  power  conferred  under  Article  227  of  the<br \/>\nConstitution of  India.    Therefore,  the only course open for this court, in<br \/>\nthese circumstances, is to dismiss the  above  revision  petition  as  without<br \/>\nmerit  and  to  confirm  the orders of the tribunal and the appellate court as<br \/>\nwell.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In result, the above civil revision petition fails  and  the  same  is<br \/>\ndismissed as without merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The judgment  and decree dated 30.8.1996 made in M.T.A.  No.58 of 1994<br \/>\nby the Court of Principal Judge, City  Civil  Court,  Madras,  thereby  partly<br \/>\nallowing the appeal, thus modifying the order passed by the Chairman, Taxation<br \/>\nAppeals Committee,  Corporation  of  Madras  in  T.A.C.  No.1003 of 1993 dated<br \/>\n16.11.1994 and fixing the rent in the manner effected therein, is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Consequently, C.M.P.  No.14163 of 1997 is also dismissed.<br \/>\n        However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order  as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/09\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ C.R.P. No.2734 of 1997 Bharat Kumar .. Petitioner -Vs- The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai. .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [&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-11373","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>Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 - 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\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-20T20:06:35+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-20T20:06:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1873,\"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\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-20T20:06:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 - 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\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-20T20:06:35+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-20T20:06:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002"},"wordCount":1873,"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\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002","name":"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-20T20:06:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-kumar-vs-the-commissioner-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Kumar vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/11373","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=11373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}