{"id":12147,"date":"2011-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-02T20:17:31","modified_gmt":"2016-07-02T14:47:31","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.K.Keshote,<\/div>\n<pre>M 4\n SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4352 OF 1982\n\n\n       Date of decision:   24-7-1996\n\n\n\n\nFor Approval and Signature\n\n\n\n\n       The Hon'ble Mr.   Justice S.    K.   KESHOTE\n\n\n\n\n       1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be\n       allowed to see the judgment?\n\n\n       2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n\n\n       3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the\n       fair copy of the judgment?\n\n\n       4. Whether this case involves a substantial\n       question of law as to the interpretation\n       of the Constitution of India,1950 or any\n       order made thereunder?\n\n\n       5. Whether it is to be circulated to the\n       Civil Judge?\n\n\n\n\n       Coram: S.K.    KESHOTE,J\n       (24-7-1996)\n\n\n       Miss. Nandini Joshi for the petitioner.\n       None present for the respondent.\n\n\n\n       ORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       This writ petition by the Gujarat State         Road<br \/>\n       Transport Corporation is directed against the award of the<br \/>\n       Labour Court, Ahmedabad, made in Reference (LCA) No.41 of<br \/>\n       1978 on 31st March, 1982 under which the respondent workman<\/p>\n<p>       was ordered to be reinstated in service on the original post<br \/>\n       with continuity of service, but without backwages. The<br \/>\n facts which are necessary for the disposal    of   this   writ<br \/>\npetition, briefly stated, are as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The respondent workman was working as driver under<br \/>\nthe Corporation. On 27-2-1976 he was on duty on Disa<br \/>\nPanthwada route.    He allowed three unauthorised persons to<br \/>\nsit in the cabin of the driver. The conductor of the bus<br \/>\nwent to those three persons for issuing tickets to them, but<br \/>\nthe respondent workman (driver) did not allow the conductor<br \/>\nto give tickets to those persons. Those persons had beaten<br \/>\nthe    conductor    and    abused    him,    but  still  the<br \/>\nrespondent-driver did not intervene in the matter and stop<br \/>\nthose persons from misbehaving with the conductor. Upon<br \/>\nthis conduct of the driver and those three unauthorised<br \/>\npersons, the conductor insisted that until those three<br \/>\npersons are given the tickets he will not allow the bus to<br \/>\nstart.   On this the respondent workman got excited, opened<br \/>\nthe bonnet of the bus and broke the flow pipe and removed<br \/>\nthe bolts and accelerator and declared that the bus had a<br \/>\nbreak down. He forced the conductor to go to Panthwada to<br \/>\ninform the Manager about the break down. This unauthorised<br \/>\nact of the driver has resulted in causing great difficulties<br \/>\nand inconvenience to the passengers.    The passengers were<br \/>\nforced to proceed on foot.        The driver has been charge<br \/>\nsheeted for the misconduct. In the inquiry, the charge was<br \/>\nfound proved against him.      The disciplinary authority,<br \/>\ntaking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct,<br \/>\ndismissed the workman from service.       The workman raised<br \/>\nindustrial dispute and the same has been referred to the<br \/>\nLabour Court for adjudication.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The papers of the domestic inquiry conducted against<br \/>\nthe workmen were produced before the Labour Court on behalf<br \/>\nof the Corporation. When the matter had come up for hearing<br \/>\nbefore the Labour Court the respondent workman filed pursis<br \/>\nExh.9 admitting the legality of the domestic inquiry held<br \/>\nagainst him and he stated that he did not wish to lead any<br \/>\noral evidence. On behalf of the Corporation pursis Exh.10<br \/>\nwas given stating that as the workman had admitted the<br \/>\nlegality and propriety of the inquiry conducted against him<br \/>\nby the Corporation, it did not desire to lead any oral<br \/>\nevidence and the same may be treated as closed.    The only<br \/>\npoint considered by the Labour Court for its decision was<br \/>\nabout punishment given to the workman.      Relying on the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in special civil application No.2740<br \/>\nof 1981 decided on 1-12-1981 the Labour Court has reached<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the penalty of dismissal was extreme.<br \/>\nThe Labour Court has given reasons for taking lenient view<br \/>\nin the matter of punishment that looking to the condition<br \/>\nprevailing in the country and the widespread unemployment<br \/>\nand absence of unemployment insurance schemes the punishment<br \/>\n of dismissal should be given only in rare cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the<br \/>\ndecision of the Supreme Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/704495\/\">State Bank of<br \/>\nIndia vs.   Samarendra Kishore Endow,<\/a> reported in 1994(1) SC<br \/>\n217, and in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1508554\/\">B. C. Chaturvedi vs.       Union of<br \/>\nIndia and others<\/a>, reported in JT 1995 (8) S.C.            65,<br \/>\ncontended that the Labour Court has very limited power of<br \/>\njudicial review in the matter of quantum of punishment to be<br \/>\nawarded to a delinquent for proved misconduct.         In the<br \/>\nmatter of punishment, interference could have been made only<br \/>\nwhere punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or<br \/>\nthe appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to<br \/>\nthe guilt.   Learned counsel for the petitioner further<br \/>\ncontended that the misconduct which was there against the<br \/>\nworkman was grave and serious.         He had allowed three<br \/>\nunauthorised persons to travel in the bus and allowed them<br \/>\nto sit in the driver&#8217;s cabin and did not allow the conductor<br \/>\nof the bus to issue tickets to those three persons.       Not<br \/>\nonly this, when the conductor insisted on issuing tickets to<br \/>\nthose three persons he had gone to the extent of damaging<br \/>\nthe property of the Corporation and the bus was deliberately<br \/>\nmade to break down.     Learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\ncontended   that    the    Corporation   provides  travelling<br \/>\nfacilities to the passengers and because of the conduct of<br \/>\nthe respondent-driver the travelling public had to go to<br \/>\ntheir respective destinations on foot.     The driver should<br \/>\nhave taken care of the passengers, leaving apart the dispute<br \/>\nin between him and the conductor. But he has not taken care<br \/>\nof the passengers and compelled them to go to their<br \/>\ndestinations on foot. This conduct of the workman certainly<br \/>\nlowered down the prestige and reputation of the Corporation<br \/>\namongst the travelling public and in such matters no lenient<br \/>\nview should have been taken and the minimum punishment<br \/>\nshould be dismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the<br \/>\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.<br \/>\nThe decision of the Division Bench of this court has not<br \/>\nbeen correctly read by the Labour Court. It is nowhere laid<br \/>\ndown that in no case penalty of dismissal could be given to<br \/>\nthe delinquent workman.    Apart from this, the Labour Court<br \/>\nhave not interfered with the punishment of dismissal given<br \/>\nto the workman only on the ground that there is wholesome<br \/>\nunemployment in the country and there is no unemployment<br \/>\ninsurance scheme.    If that position is allowed, then in no<br \/>\ncase penalty of dismissal, removal or termination can be<br \/>\ngiven.   The apex court in the aforesaid two cases held that<br \/>\nin the matter of punishment to be given to a delinquent on<br \/>\nproved misconduct the Court and Tribunal has very limited<br \/>\njurisdiction. But interference could be made in the matter<br \/>\n of penalty to be given where the penalty is considered to be<br \/>\nshocking the judicial conscience of the Court and not<br \/>\notherwise. In the present case, in the facts of the case<br \/>\nwhich have come on record, coupled with the fact that the<br \/>\ninquiry was not found defective and the charges framed<br \/>\nagainst the workman was found proved, can the interference<br \/>\nmade by the labour court with the punishment which has been<br \/>\ngiven to the workman be said to be justified? The reply to<br \/>\nthis question is obviously in negative.   The Labour Court<br \/>\nhas failed to take into consideration the important fact<br \/>\nthat the Corporation provided public utility service and it<br \/>\ncannot be compelled to continue an employee who deliberately<br \/>\ncaused damage to the bus and deliberately made the bus to<br \/>\nbreak down, which has resulted in causing inconvenience to<br \/>\nthe passengers travelling in the said bus. Because of the<br \/>\naforesaid deliberate Act of the workman, the passengers<br \/>\ntravelling in the said bus were compelled to go to their<br \/>\ndestinations on foot. This conduct of an employee of the<br \/>\nCorporation has resulted in damaging the reputation of the<br \/>\nCorporation. Deliberate causing of damage to the bus as<br \/>\nwell as allowing three unauthorised persons to travel in the<br \/>\ndriver&#8217;s cabin of the bus are serious misconducts. Above<br \/>\nall, the respondent workman had not allowed the conductor to<br \/>\nissue tickets to those three persons.        The respondent<br \/>\nworkman interfered with the discharge of duties by the<br \/>\nconductor and he forced him to put the Corporation to loss<br \/>\nof money which could have been collected from those three<br \/>\npersons. Such interference of the driver in the discharge<br \/>\nof duties by the conductor is a very serious misconduct and<br \/>\nthe minimum punishment for such persons should have been<br \/>\ndismissal from service.     The Labour Court has interfered<br \/>\nwith the punishment of dismissal without giving any cogent<br \/>\nand justifiable reasons. It is not a case where the matter<br \/>\nshould have been taken lightly. The considerations weighed<br \/>\nwith the Labour Court are not germane to the facts of the<br \/>\ncase. The punishment which has been given to the delinquent<br \/>\nin a given case has to be considered with reference to the<br \/>\ngravity of the misconduct alleged and proved and not with<br \/>\nreference to the employment of that person.         If   the<br \/>\nCorporation is compelled to continue such a driver in its<br \/>\nservice it will not only encourage indiscipline among other<br \/>\npersons, to the extent of putting the passengers travelling<br \/>\nin the Corporation&#8217;s bus to inconvenience, but also tarnish<br \/>\nthe reputation    of   the   Corporation.      Taking   into<br \/>\nconsideration the totality of the facts of the case and the<br \/>\nlaw laid down by the apex court, it is a case where<br \/>\ninterference with the award made by the Labour Court is<br \/>\ncalled for.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.In the result this special civil application is<br \/>\nallowed and the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in<br \/>\n Reference (LCA) No.41 of 1978 made on 31st March,1982 is<br \/>\nquashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid<br \/>\nterms. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>csm\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 Author: S.K.Keshote, M 4 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4352 OF 1982 Date of decision: 24-7-1996 For Approval and Signature The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S. K. KESHOTE 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-02T14:47:31+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T14:47:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1514,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T14:47:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-02T14:47:31+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T14:47:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011"},"wordCount":1514,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T14:47:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-samarendra-kishore-endow-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers &#8230; vs Samarendra Kishore Endow on 5 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/12147","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=12147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}