{"id":1178,"date":"1970-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970"},"modified":"2018-10-15T05:34:18","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T00:04:18","slug":"asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970","title":{"rendered":"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 100, \t\t 1970 SCR (3) 752<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASBESTOS CEMENT LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.D. SAWARKAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/02\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR  100\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 752\n 1970 SCC  (1) 475\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC1598\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of  India,  Arts. 133(1)\t&  226-Final  order-\nInterim award by arbitrators under Industrial Disputes\tAct,\n1947 deciding one of several issues-Other issues left to  be\ndecided later-Award published in Gazette under s. 17 of Act-\nSuch  award  whether  an  interlocutory\t order-High  Court's\ndecision dismissing writ petition against such award whether\na 'final order,'.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  4th  respondent was a union of workmen in\tone  of\t the\nfactories ,owned by the appellant company.  By an  agreement\nbetween\t the  4th respondent and the company  a\t charter  of\nworkmen's   demands   was  referred   to   adjudication\t  by\narbitrators  under  s. 1OA of the Industrial  Disputes\tAct,\n1947.  The arbitrators decided first the dispute relating to\ndearness allowance, leaving other disputes to be  considered\nlater.\t This Part I award was published in  the  Government\nGazette under s. 17 of the Act.\t Aggrieved by the said award\nthe  company  filed a writ petition under  Art.\t 226-of\t the\nConstitution.  The petition was dismissed by the High Court.\nThe company applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to\nthis  Court.   This  was  refused on  the  ground  that\t the\narbitration  was  not completed and  therefore\tneither\t the\naward in question nor the High Court's order dismissing\t the\nwrit  petition was a final order within the meaning of\tArt.\n133(1) of the Constitution.  Against the High Court's  order\nrefusing  leave. the company, by special leave,\t applied  to\nthis Court.\n     HELD  : (i) Under sub-s. 4 of s. 10-A, the\t arbitrators\nsubmitted the Part I Award duly signed by all of them to the\nGovernment.   As  required by s. 17(1), the  said.   Part  I\nAward  was published in the manner prescribed  therefore  by\nthe State Government and thereupon under s. 17(2) it  became\nfinal  and could not be called in question in any  court  in\nany  manner  whatsoever.  Under s. 17A(1) the  award  became\nenforceable  on the expiry of 30 days from the date  of\t its\npublication.   Therefore so far as the question of  dearness\nallowance among other disputes, was concerned, Part I  Award\nbecame\tfinal  and binding on the parties.  It\twas  not  an\ninterlocutory  order in the sense of any dispute in  respect\nof its subject matter remaining to be finally adjudicated by\nthe  arbitrators  or the rights of the parties\tin  relation\nthereto remaining pending any further determination. [755 B-\nE]\n     (ii) The petition filed by the appellant-company for  a\nwrit  of certiorari and for quashing the said Part  I  Award\nunder  Art. 226 was a proceeding independent of the  dispute\nbetween\t the  parties.\tSuch a writ proceeding\twas  not  an\ninterlocutory  proceeding  nor the order  dismissing  it  an\ninterlocutory order leaving any question raised in the\twrit\npetition  to be determined at any later stage.\tThe)  effect\nof the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court\t was\nthat  the said Part I Award, Subject to any appeal  to\tthis\nCourt,\twas  not  liable to be\tquestioned  on\tthe  grounds\nalleged\t in  that writ petition\t and  the  appellant-company\nwould  be bound to pay to its workmen dearness allowance  at\nthe  rates provided in that award.  The controversy  between\nthe  parties on questions raised in the writ  petition\t-was\nfinally determined and brought to an end as a result of\t the\norder ,dismissal.  In view of the decision of this Court  in\nRamesh v. Seth Genadadal<\/a>\n753\nthe  High Court must be said to be in error in holding\tthat\nits order dismissing the writ petition was not a final order\nwithin\tthe  meaning  of Art. 133(1)  and  that\t no  appeal,\ntherefore, lay therefrom in this Court. [755 F-G; 766 B-C]\n     Ramesh v. Seth Gendadal<\/a> [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198, applied.\n     Mohanlal Maganlal Thacker v. State of Gujarat, [19681 2\nS.C.R. 685, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2448 of1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal  by special leave from the order dated  November
\n25,  1968  of the Bombay High Court in Supreme\tCourt  Civil
\nApplication No. 2687 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
      V.  M. Tarkunde, P. N. Tiwari, and  O. C. Mathur,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      B. Sen and S. K. Dholakia, for respondent No. 4.
\n      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n      Shelat,  J. This appeal, by special leave, raises\t the
\nquestion  as to whether an order dismissing a writ  petition
\nchallenging  the  validity  of an  industrial  award,  which
\ndisposes  of  one of the items of a charter  of\t demands  by
\nworkmen but leaves the rest of the demands to be adjudicated
\nby  a,\tsubsequent  award,  is a  final\t order\tin  a  civil
\nproceeding of a High Court within the meaning of Art. 133(i)
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      The following  are the relevant facts
\n      The appellant-company conducts factories at Mulund  in
\nGreater\t Bombay, Kymore, Calcutta and Podanur.\tThe  present
\ndispute\t relates to the factory at Mulund where the  company
\nemploys more than 1700 workmen and has its Head Office also.
\nOn September 21, 1962 the 4th respondent union on behalf  of
\nthe  workmen  of the Mulund factory submitted a\t charter  of
\ndemands\t consisting  of 20 items including  the\t demand\t for
\nincreased   dearness  allowance.   By  an  agreement   dated
\nNovember 26, 1964 between the appellant-company and the\t 4th
\nrespondent  union  made\t under S.  10-A\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act,\t1947,  the said demands\t were  referred\t for
\nadjudication  to  a  board  of\tarbitrators  consisting\t  of
\nrespondents  I to 3. A notification dated December  5,\t1964
\nreferring the said disputes to respondents 1 to 3 was issued
\nby   the  Maharashtra  Government  and\tpublished   in\t the
\nGovernment  Gazette.  Demand No. 1A in the said\t charter  of
\ndemands\t related  to dearness allowance to be paid  to\tboth
\nmonthly and daily rated workmen at the rates threin set out.
\nThe  arbitrators decided to hear and dispose of, first,\t the
\ndispute as to dearness ‘allowance -and then to deal with the
\nrest of the
\n754<\/span>
\ndisputes  relating  to\tother  demands.\t  Accordingly,\t the
\nparties were heard and ultimately the arbitrators gave their
\naward  which they called Part 1 Award dated March 27,  1965.
\nThe said award was a majority decision in the sense that one
\nof  the arbitrators dissented from the opinion of the  other
\ntwo.   So far as the present appeal is concerned, it is\t not
\nnecessary  to set out the contents of the award.   The\tsaid
\nPart  I\t award was thereafter published\t in  the  Government
\nGazette dated April 15, 1965 and became enforceable under s.
\n17-A  of the Act on the expiry of 30 days from the  date  of
\nits publication.  If the Appellant-company were to be right,
\nthe said award imposed a burden of about Rs. 40 lacs by\t way
\nof  arrears,  the award having been  made  retrospective  in
\noperation,  and\t Rs. 5.58 lacs as and by  way  of  recurring
\nliability every year.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by the said award the appellant-company filed
\na  writ\t petition under Art. 226 of the\t Constitution  being
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 824 of 1965 in the High  Court
\nof  Bombay for quashing the said award on  diverse  grounds.
\nThe  writ  petition came up for hearing\t before\t a  Division
\nBench  and was dismissed on merits by an order\tdated  April
\n10,   1968.   The  appellant-company  thereupon\t  filed\t  an
\napplication  being Supreme Court Civil Application No.\t2687
\nof 1968 for leave to appeal to this Court.  That application
\nwas  rejected  by  an order dated November  25,\t 1968  which
\nstated
\n     “No  application  lies under article 226  of  the\tCon-
\nstitution as there is further arbitration.”
\nIt  appears that the words “Art. 226” were mentioned in\t the
\nsaid order through inadvertence.  What was meant was that as
\nthe arbitration proceedings were still pending and the board
\nof  arbitrators\t had yet to adjudicate on the  rest  of\t the
\nreference,  the\t disputes between the parties could  not  be
\nsaid  to have been finally disposed of, and that  therefore,
\nthe   said  Part  I  award  was\t an   interlocutory   order.
\nConsequently,  neither that award nor the  order  dismissing
\nthe  writ  petition  against that award was  a\tfinal  order
\nwithin\tthe meaning of Art. 133(1).  This appeal  challenges
\nthe correctness of this order.\n<\/p>\n
     The  only question arising in this appeal,\t is  whether
\nthe  High Court’s order dated November 25,  1968  dismissing
\nthe  writ  petition is a final order within the\t meaning  of
\nArt.  133(1).\tThere  is no dispute that  the\tquestion  of
\ndearness  allowance along with several other questions\twas,
\nby   agreement\t between  the  parties,\t referred   to\t the
\narbitration of respondents 1 to 3 as provided by  s.   10-A
\nof the Act and that a copy thereof was published in the
\n755<\/span>
\nGovernment Gazette as required by sub-s. 3 of that  section.
\nThere is similarly no dispute that the -arbitrators, instead
\nof  determining all the disputes at one time, first took  up
\nthe question of’ dearness allowance, deciding to take up the
\nrest  of the disputes at a subsequent stage and\t gave  their
\naward calling it Part 1, Award.\t Under sub-s. 4 of S.  10-A,
\nthe arbitrators submitted the said Part I Award duly  signed
\nby- all of them to the Government.  As required by s. 17(1),
\nthe  said  Part\t I  Award  was.\t published  in\tthe   manner
\nprescribed  therefore by the State Government and  thereupon
\nunder  S. 17(2) it became final and could’ not be called  in
\nquestion  by any court in any manner whatsoever.   Under  S.
\n17A(1),\t the  award became enforceable on the expiry  of  30
\ndays  from  the date of its publication under S.  17-in\t the
\npresent\t case, as from May 15, 1965.  Therefore, so  far  as
\nthe  question of dearness allowance, among  other  disputes,
\nwas concerned, Part I Award became final and binding on\t the
\nparties\t  and  nothing\tfurther\t remained  to  be  done\t  or
\ndetermined in respect of the controversy between the parties
\non   the  question  of\tdearness  allowance.\tThe   award,
\ntherefore,  was not an interlocutory order in the, sense  of
\nany dispute in respect of its subject matter remaining to be
\nfinally adjudicated by the arbitrators or the rights of\t the
\nparties\t in relation thereto remaining pending\tany  further
\ndetermination.\tIn this sense there can be no doubt that  so
\nfar  as the dispute as to dearness allowance was  concerned,
\nthe arbitrators by the said Part I Award finally adjudicated
\nit and gave their decision leaving nothing to be adjudicated
\nor decided upon at any subsequent stake of the arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
     Quite apart from this consideration, the petition filed
\nby  the appellant-company for a writ of certiorari  and\t for
\nquashing  the  said  Part  I Award under  Art.\t226  was  ‘a
\nproceeding  independent on the dispute between the  parties.
\nSuch  a writ proceeding was not an interlocutory  proceeding
\nnor  was  the  order dismissing it  an\tinterlocutory  order
\nleaving\t any  question\traised in the writ  petition  to  be
\ndetermined  at\tany  later  stage.   Once  the\tHigh   Court
\ndismissed  the\twrit petition, the controversy\tbetween\t the
\nparties raised therein was finally determined and  therefore
\ncame  to  an end.  In Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal<\/a>(1)  a  similar
\nquestion arose for consideration and this Court held that  a
\nwrit petition under Art. 226 is a civil proceeding of a High
\nCourt,\tthat such a proceeding is quite independent  of\t the
\noriginal controversy between the parties and that a decision
\nin  exercise  of jurisdiction under  that  article,  whether
\ninterfering with the proceedings impugned or declining to do
\n‘so,  is  a final decision in so far as the  High  Court  is
\nconcerned,  if\tthe effect is to terminate  the\t controversy
\nbefore it and the order must in that case be
\n(1)  [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198.\n<\/p>\n
756<\/span><\/p>\n
regarded  as  final  for the purpose of\t an  appeal  to\t the
\nSupreme Court. (See also Mohanlal Maganlal Thacker v.  State
\nof Gjarat(1).\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  clear that the effect of the dismissal  of\t the
\nwrit  petition\tby the High Court was that the said  Part  I
\nAward,\tsubject to any appeal to this Court, was not  liable
\nto  be\tquestioned  on\tthe grounds  alleged  in  that\twrit
\npetition and the appellant-company would be bound to pay  to
\nits workmen dearness allowance at the rates provided in that
\naward.\t The  controversy between the parties  on  questions
\nraised\tin  the\t writ petition was  finally  determined\t and
\nbrought to an end as a result of the order of dismissal.  In
\nview of the decision in Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal<\/a>(2) the\tHigh
\nCourt must be said to be in error in holding that its  order
\ndismissing  the writ petition was not a final  order  within
\nthe  meaning of Art. 133(1) and that no\t appeal,  therefore,
\nlay therefrom to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      The  appeal  succeeds.  The High Court’s\torder  dated
\nNovember 25, 1968 is set aside and the case is sent back  to
\nthe High Court for disposal in accordance with law.  In\t the
\ncircumstances  of  the\tcase there will be no  order  as  to
\ncosts.\t The  Special Leave Petition No. 148 of\t 1969  filed
\nagainst the High Court’s judgment and order dated April\t 10,
\n1968  dismissing  the said writ petition is  allowed  to  be
\nwithdrawn.  Stay granted by this Court will continue for ten
\ndays from today.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1968] 2. S.C.R. 685.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198.\n<\/p>\n
757<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 100, 1970 SCR (3) 752 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: ASBESTOS CEMENT LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: P.D. SAWARKAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/02\/1970 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. MITTER, G.K. CITATION: 1971 AIR […]<\/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-1178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAsbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 - 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\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-15T00:04:18+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\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T00:04:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\"},\"wordCount\":1504,\"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\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\",\"name\":\"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T00:04:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 - 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\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-15T00:04:18+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\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970","datePublished":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T00:04:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970"},"wordCount":1504,"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\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970","name":"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T00:04:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asbestos-cement-ltd-vs-p-d-sawarkar-ors-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asbestos Cement Ltd vs P.D. Sawarkar & Ors on 23 February, 1970"}]},{"@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\/1178","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=1178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}