{"id":115135,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-20T08:57:40","modified_gmt":"2015-07-20T03:27:40","slug":"l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n                WRIT PETITION No. 2215 of 2004\n\n\n                   1.    L.N.Gupta\n                                   ...Petitioners\n\n                          VERSUS\n\n                   1.       Hindustan     Steel\n\n                    2.    General Manager\n\n\n                    3.    Union    of   India\n                                         ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!          Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n\n^          Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.\n           Shri S.K.Beriwal, Standing Counsel for the respondent\n           No. 3.\n\n\n\n\n           SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.\n\n         Dated:08\/07\/2008\n\n:        Judgement\n\n\nWRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226\/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA            \n\n\n                             ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
               (Passed on 8th day of July, 2008)<\/p>\n
  1.   By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the<\/p>\n
       respondents to release all the payments of the petitioner as<\/p>\n
       claimed by him with interest.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  2.     The  indisputable  facts, in nutshell,  are  that  the<\/p>\n
       respondent 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the<\/p>\n
       Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at 1,<\/p>\n
       Shakespear Sarani, 8th Floor Calcutta – 700071. All the shares<\/p>\n
       of  the respondent No. 1 were transferred to the Central<\/p>\n
       Government, thus, the respondent No. 1 is a public sector<\/p>\n
       undertaking. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working<\/p>\n
       on the supervisory post of Section Officer on the basic pay of<\/p>\n
       Rs. 7600\/- plus allowances. The petitioner made a conditional<\/p>\n
       application on 7.12.1999 seeking voluntary retirement. The said<\/p>\n
       application was returned back that the conditional retirement<\/p>\n
       cannot be accepted. Against the rejection of the conditional<\/p>\n
       voluntary retirement application, the petitioner preferred a<\/p>\n
       writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh being W.P.<\/p>\n
       No. 331 of 2000. The said petition was disposed of by order<\/p>\n
       dated 27.01.2000. Ultimately, the application of the petitioner<\/p>\n
       for voluntary retirement was accepted and an order to release<\/p>\n
       payment  of  all the employees who had sought  voluntary<\/p>\n
       retirement was ordered. According to the petitioner, he was<\/p>\n
       entitled to payment as detailed in para 5.8 of the petition,<\/p>\n
       which is as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        1.        Exgretia payment as  against  Rs. 424764.00
\n                  service of 27 years  pay  of
\n                  401\/2 months\n<\/p>\n
        2.        One month notice pay          Rs. 10488.00\n<\/p>\n
        3.        Gratuity                      Rs. 150000.00\n<\/p>\n
        4.        G.P.F.                        Rs. 75000.00\n<\/p>\n
        5.        Transportation Allowance      Rs. 18000.00\n<\/p>\n
        6.        Leave Encashment (EL + HPL)   Rs. 20000.00\n<\/p>\n
        7.        Difference     of      Leave  Rs. 15000.00
\n                  Encashment\n<\/p>\n
        8.        Arrears of salary July  1999  Rs. 100000.00
\n                  onwards till date\n<\/p>\n
        9.        Arrears of Central D.A.       Rs. 10000.00\n<\/p>\n
        10.       Outstanding    reimbursement  Rs. 15000.00
\n                  (Medical)
\n                  Approx. Grand Total           Rs. 838252.00
\n                  Less     Amount     previous  Rs. 278413.00
\n                  received.            –\n<\/p>\n
                  Net Amount                    Rs. 559849.00
\n                  (Rs.  Five  Lakhs Fifty Nine  Thousand  Eight
\n                  Hundred and Forty Nine Only.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  3.   The petitioner was entitled to free medical treatment as<\/p>\n
       per the circular dated 20.08.1992 (Annexure P\/5), but from his<\/p>\n
       final  payment, a sum to the extent of Rs. 27,862\/-  was<\/p>\n
       deducted. The petitioner was also entitled to Rs. 8000\/- on<\/p>\n
       account of reimbursement for special disease. Further, the<\/p>\n
       petitioner was also entitled to transportation allowance also<\/p>\n
       vide circular dated 18\/19 November, 1993 (Annexure P\/6). The<\/p>\n
       petitioner is a chronic patient of Hypertension  neurological<\/p>\n
       and has undergone micro vain diffused operation for which the<\/p>\n
       petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 4 lacs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  4.   Shri   Tamaskar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for   the<\/p>\n
       petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been denied his<\/p>\n
       legal due payments which comes to the tune of Rs. 5,59,849\/-<\/p>\n
       with interest.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  5.   Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent<\/p>\n
       No. 1 and 2, per contra, would  submit that the respondent No.<\/p>\n
       1 company, sometimes in the year 1988, was struggling with the<\/p>\n
       financial crunch, it was difficult for the company to pay the<\/p>\n
       wages and salary in respect of the workers and the employees at<\/p>\n
       all levels at different project units of the company, spread<\/p>\n
       all over the country. The company became financially weak on<\/p>\n
       account of drastic fall in revenue earnings for loss of order<\/p>\n
       from the Steel Authority of India Limited, the principal<\/p>\n
       purchaser of the products of respondent No. 1. In view of the<\/p>\n
       above stated situation, the company had to frame scheme for<\/p>\n
       voluntary retirement (hereinafter referred to as `the VRS’) and<\/p>\n
       the same was approved by the Board, on grant of financial<\/p>\n
       assistance (term loan) to the tune of Rs. 318.36 crores from<\/p>\n
       the State Bank of India and other financial institutions<\/p>\n
       against the guarantee executed by the Government of India and<\/p>\n
       on hypothecation of the plants and machinery of the respondent<\/p>\n
       No. 1 company, by way of special package for revival of the<\/p>\n
       company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  6.   The VRS scheme, which was introduced earlier in November<\/p>\n
       1988 was again revised with following post retrial benefits<\/p>\n
       i.e. encashment of half pay leave to CDA pattern employees and<\/p>\n
       additional leave in the case of workers, reimbursement of<\/p>\n
       travelling and transportation expenses of personal effects<\/p>\n
       given for the recorded home town of the employees. The above<\/p>\n
       stated facilities\/benefits were withdrawn on serious objection<\/p>\n
       of the Principal Director, Commercial Audit, Ranchi with<\/p>\n
       retrospective effect by order dated 28.08.2000. The petitioner<\/p>\n
       was  paid retrial benefit i.e. ex-gratia provident fund,<\/p>\n
       gratuity,  earned  leave encashment, outstanding  salary<\/p>\n
       quantified to the tune of Rs. 2,96,709.50 initially.<\/p>\n
  7.   Shri Koshy would further submit that the basic pay of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner was  Rs. 7600\/- in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000\/-. The<\/p>\n
       revised pay with effect from 1.1.99 was frozen. The petitioner,<\/p>\n
       thereafter, pursuant to the observation made by this Court in<\/p>\n
       the  order dated 01.12.2006, has been paid a sum of  Rs.<\/p>\n
       7,14,150.53, (Document No. 1) which reads as under:<\/p>\n
          “Details of payments made to Shri L.N.Gupta P.No.<\/p>\n
\n                       60391 Ex SO\/HSCL Bhilai\n\n                       Date of V.R. 09.06.2000\n\n            Item     Amount in            Reference\n                        Rs.\n        1.        Ex  2,96,709.\n        Gratia               50<\/span>\n        2.      Spl.  74,170.50\n        Exgratia\n                       9,272.00\n<\/pre>\n
           Total Rs.  3,80,152. Ref. WE\/2411 dt. 22.7.2000
\n                             00<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
        3. Gratuity   1,39,080. Ref. W\/2410 dt. 22.7.2000
\n                             00<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
        4.            38,633.00 Ref. WE\/2409 dt. 22.7.2000
\n        Encashment\n<\/p>\n
        5. CPF        1,02,522. H.O.  Cheque No.  427773  dt.<\/p>\n
\n                             00 26.9.03\n                                (Sent to Bank on 13.10.03)\n        6. CPF           357.75 Cheque    No.   419388    dt.\n                                12.2.03\n                                (Sent to Bank on 26.02.03)\n        7. CPF         4,104.78 Cheque    No.   808762    dt.\n                                31.03.04\n                                (Sent to Home on 14.05.04)\n        8.  Back Log  37,271.00 Cheque    No.   412602    dt.\n        Salary                  3.07.02\n                                (Sent to Bank on 5.09.02)\n        9.  Back Log  12,030.00 Cheque    No.   881447    dt.\n        Salary                  5.10.04\n                                (Sent to Bank on 18.10.04)\n        Total         7,14,150.\n                             53<\/span>\n                                            Sd\/-\n\n                                          Illegible\n\n                                          B.D.Singh\n\n                                          Manager (Fin)\n\n                                          Hscl\/Bhilai\"\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
  8.   The  petitioner was not paid interest as the reasons for<\/p>\n
       the delay was beyond control of the respondents. The amount<\/p>\n
       calculated by the petitioner was approximate and not  on<\/p>\n
       actuals. In the affidavit dated 2nd March 2007, filed by the<\/p>\n
       petitioner, according to him, his claim has still not been<\/p>\n
       satisfied.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  9.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the<\/p>\n
       pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is apparent that<\/p>\n
       the claims raised by the petitioner is inflated and not on the<\/p>\n
       basis of actuals, as against the claim of gratuity, it was<\/p>\n
       determined as 1,39,080\/-, the petitioner, after rounding of,<\/p>\n
       has  claimed Rs. 1,50,000\/- . Against all the heads, the<\/p>\n
       petitioner has rounded of and has not proceeded on actuals.<\/p>\n
       Thus, the figures and calculations made by the respondent<\/p>\n
       company seems to be correct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  10.  Thus, it is held that the retrial benefits as due to the<\/p>\n
       petitioner stands satisfied. The petitioner was paid a sum of<\/p>\n
       Rs. 2,96,709.50 in 1995 and after the petitioner was directed<\/p>\n
       to be reinstated, it was incumbent on the petitioner to pay<\/p>\n
       back the amount and claim the said amount after compulsory<\/p>\n
       retirement was granted to the petitioner. Be that as it may,<\/p>\n
       now nothing remains for adjudication by this Court.<\/p>\n
  11.  With regard to interest, since the respondent No. 1 was in<\/p>\n
       financial  difficulty resulting into taking decision  of<\/p>\n
       voluntarily retiring employees, the petitioner may not be<\/p>\n
       entitled to higher rate of interest. However, in view of the<\/p>\n
       fact that the payment of the amount was delayed for a long<\/p>\n
       period, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of<\/p>\n
       6% per annum from the date it became due till the actual<\/p>\n
       payment was made.\n<\/p>\n
  12.  The Supreme Court, in the matter of A.K.Bindal and another<\/p>\n
       v. Union of India and others1, observed as under:<\/p>\n
           “22.  ..Therefore, it appears to be  the  consistent
\n           view  of  this Court that the economic viability  or
\n           the  financial  capacity  of  the  employer  is   an
\n           important  factor  which  cannot  be  ignored  while
\n           fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself
\n           may  not  be able to function and may have to  close
\n           down   which   will   inevitably   have   disastrous
\n           consequences  for  the  employees  themselves.   The
\n           material on record clearly shows that both  FCI  and
\n           HFC  had  been suffering heavy losses for  the  last
\n           many  years  and the Government had  been  giving  a
\n           considerable amount for meeting the expenses of  the
\n           organisations.  In such a situation,  the  employees
\n           cannot  legitimately  claim  that  their  pay  scale
\n           should  necessarily  be revised  and  enhanced  even
\n           though  the organisations in which they are  working
\n           are  making continuous losses and are deeply in  the
\n           red.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  13.  The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of<\/p>\n
       A.K.Bindal (supra) was subsequently approved in the matter of<\/p>\n
       Officers and Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & MD, I.D.P.L.<\/p>\n
       and others<\/a>2.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  14.  Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts<\/p>\n
       of the case, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner<\/p>\n
       with regard to retrial benefits has been satisfied. In view of<\/p>\n
       long delay, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate<\/p>\n
       of 6% per annum from the date it became due till the date of<\/p>\n
       actual payment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  15.  For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition  is<\/p>\n
       allowed to the above extent. Costs easy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2215 of 2004 1. L.N.Gupta …Petitioners VERSUS 1. Hindustan Steel 2. General Manager 3. Union of India …Respondents ! Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. ^ Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nL.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-20T03:27:40+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\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T03:27:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1349,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T03:27:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-20T03:27:40+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\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T03:27:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":1349,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008","name":"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T03:27:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-n-gupta-vs-hindustan-steel-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L.N.Gupta vs Hindustan Steel on 8 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/115135","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=115135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}