{"id":124063,"date":"2008-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-29T23:58:22","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T18:28:22","slug":"the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\nDATED :   17.12.2008\nCORAM\nTHE  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN \nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN\nWrit Appeal No.1973 of 2004\nand W.P.No.9175 of 2004\n&\nW.A.M.P.No.3676 of 2004 and\nW.P.M.P.No. 10710 of 2004\n\n\nThe Management of \nBinny Limited\n(Formerly known as\nBuckingham & Carnatic Mills Ltd.)\nPerambur Barracks Road,\nChennai 600012.\nrep. by its Company Secretary\n\n... Appellant in  W.A.No.1973 of 2004 &\nPetitioner in W.P.No.9175 of 2004\n \n\t\t    Vs.\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Principal Labour Court,\n   Chennai.\n\n2. J.Nandakumar\n3. K.Gajapathy\n4. P.Venkateswaralu\n5. S.Kothandan\n6. A.Sankar\n7. E.Kumaresan\n8. G.Arul Xavier\n9. D.V.Perumal\n10.M.P.Jothi Lingam\n11.R.Raju\n12.G.Ravikumar\n13.M.Sridharan\n14.K.Selvaraj\n15.K.Munusamy\n16.S.Vijayarangam\n17.P.Rajamanickam\n18.M.Kothandam\n19.A.Dakshinamurthy\n20.S.Chandrasekaran\n\n... Respondents in W.A.No1973 of 2004 and\nrespondents in W.P.No.9175 of 2004\n\n\tWrit Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the Order dated 06.04.2004 made in W.P.M.P.No. 10710 of 2004 in W.P.No. 9175 of 2004\n\n\tWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in C.P.No.66 to 84 of 2000 and quash its order dated 15.12.2003. \n\n\n\tFor Appellant in Writ \t: Mr.s.Ravindran for\n\tAppeal and Petitioner  \t  M\/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co\n\tin  Writ Petition\n\n\tFor Respondents in Writ\t: Mr.Prakash Gokhalaney\n\tAppeal and Respondents\n        in Writ Petition\n\n\n\nJUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by
\nD.MURUGESAN, J.)<\/p>\n
\tHeard Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of repeated adjournment, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks only time.  Hence, we are left with no option except to deal with the matter on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The respondents filed application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act  (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), claiming compensation of certain monetary benefits due to the respondents from the appellant.  That was based on the ground that the mill was closed due to various reasons and the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act was entered on 26.03.1992 and 16.07.1996 and that the appellant mill had not complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement. By common order dated 01.12.2003, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai had computed and ordered payment of various sums to each of the respondents calculating the interest at 6% p.a.  The said order was questioned by the appellant in the writ petition and pending writ petition, the learned Judge by order dated 06.04.2004  in W.P.M.P.No.10710 of 2004 directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount as directed by the labour Court within four weeks from the said order. Though the writ appeal was filed against the interim order, considering the limited question involved in the writ petition and by consent of either side, this Court had directed W.P.No.9175 of 2004 itself to be called for disposal by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The only question that has to be considered in the writ petition is, as to whether the Principal Labour Court would be justified in computing the monetary benefits in the absence of any pre-existing  right on each of the respondents for filing such application under Section 33C(2) of the Act.  The Apex Court had considered a similar issue in many cases and we may usefully refer to few of  the judgements.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In the judgment in Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Company, Ltd. v. Baliram Ukandaji AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 616, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that S.33C(2) does not provide for an issue not predetermined. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Company Ltd., v. Rameshwar (AIR 1968 SC 219) has held that the proceedings under S.33C (2) are analogous  to execution proceedings and the Labour Court is called upon to compute, in terms of money, the benefits claimed by the workmen and in such cases, the Labour Court in a position of executing Court and as such a right must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for an must arise in the case of and in relation to the relationship between an individual workman and his employer.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.Ganesh Razak [1995 (1)L.L.N. 402], the Supreme Court has held that while entertaining an application under S.33C(2), the Labour Court cannot adjudicate upon the dispute of entitlement or basis of claim of workman. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based as its jurisdiction is like that of an executing Court. The Supreme Court in Fabril Gasosa v. Labour Commissioner<\/a> [1997 (2) L.L.N. 55], has also observed that S.33C deals with the pre-adjudicated claim or the application should be  based on some award\/settlement  or such right should have been recognised right the employer\/management. In Union  of India v. Gurubachan Singh<\/a> [1997 (2) L.L.N. 457], the Supreme Court has held that application under S.33(2) is not maintainable if it requires the adjudication of a fresh claim. Likewise, in Chief Superintendent , Government Livestock  Farm v. Ramesh Kumar [1998 (5) L.L.N. 457], the Supreme Court has held that the remedy under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is available only when there is no dispute about entitlement of the workman. The provisions cannot be invoked in a case where the entitlement itself is in dispute. In State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey<\/a> [2001 (1) L.L.N. 58], the Supreme Court while considering  its earlier  judgements in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak<\/a> [1995 (1) L.L.N. 405], and in Central Bank of India v. P.S.Rajagopalan<\/a> [AIR 1964 SC 743] has finally concluded as follows, in para 8, at page 61:\n<\/p>\n
 “Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit, can approach Labour Court under S. 33C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under S.33C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing  right. The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered, just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court exercising powers under S.33C(2) of the Act while the latter does not.  ….”\n<\/p>\n
\t6. An analysis of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court would lead to the following settled positions of Law, viz.:\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) there must be a pre-existing  right on the workman  to file an application under S.33C(2) of the Act;\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) while dealing with an application under S.33C(2) of the Act, the Labour Court is in position of an executing Court;\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) the Labour Court is called upon to compute  and calculate the monetary benefit only on the basis of pre-existing right of the workman;\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) the Labour Court cannot entertain and adjudicate upon a petition under S.33C(2) when the entitlement  itself is in dispute; and
\n(5) an application under S.33C(2) is not maintainable,if the petition is filed on disputed facts which require adjudication by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. In view of the above settled position, in the absence of any pre-existing right to file application under Section 33C(2) of the Act, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the petition and computed the monetary benefits. A perusal of the award  also does not indicate as to how the Principal Labour Court arrived at or determined the quantum. Hence, for the above reasons, the award of the Principal Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. We however, make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the respondents to workout their remedy under the provisions of the Act in regard to their right. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the writ appeals stand closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index\t: yes   \t\t(D.M.,J.)     (M.S.N.,J.)\nInternet: yes     \t\t        17.12.2008\n\nkmk\n\nTo\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Principal Labour Court,\n   Chennai.\n\n\n\nD.MURUGESAN, J.\nAND\nM.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.\n\nkmk\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWrit Appeal   \n No.1973 of 2004 \nand       \nWrit Petition \n No. 9175 of 2004\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n17.12.2008\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Writ Appeal No.1973 of 2004 and W.P.No.9175 of 2004 & W.A.M.P.No.3676 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No. 10710 of 2004 […]<\/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-124063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 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\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-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=\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-29T18:28:22+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\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T18:28:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1117,\"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\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008\",\"name\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T18:28:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 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":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 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\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-29T18:28:22+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\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T18:28:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008"},"wordCount":1117,"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\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008","name":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T18:28:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-of-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 17 December, 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\/124063","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=124063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124063\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}