{"id":127167,"date":"2007-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-10-02T02:12:11","modified_gmt":"2017-10-01T20:42:11","slug":"shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1844 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nShiv Kant Yadav\n\nRESPONDENT:\nIndian Oil Corporation and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.    1844\tOF 2007<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3938 of 2006)<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge in this appeal is the order passed by a Division<br \/>\nBench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ<br \/>\nPetition filed by Shiv Kant Yadav, the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIndian Oil Corporation (in short the &#8216;Corporation&#8217;) invited<br \/>\napplications from desirous persons by offering advertisements<br \/>\nthrough publication in newspapers to select suitable persons<br \/>\nand grant Letter of Intent (in short &#8216;LOI&#8217;) to award dealership of<br \/>\nSKO\/LDO at Jaleshar, Dist. Etah. Appellant and several<br \/>\nothers applied for the same. The Selection Board scrutinized<br \/>\nthe applications on 28th and 29th November, 2003. Names of<br \/>\nthe applicants in order of preference were indicated in the<br \/>\npanel of selected candidates, on the basis of which the<br \/>\nCorporation proposed to award dealership. They are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) appellant- Shiv Kant Yadav; (ii) respondent No.4- Smt. Usha<br \/>\nSharma and (iii) Hari Om Singh who was not impleaded in the<br \/>\nwrit petition.  Usha and Hari Om Singh filed complaints inter-<br \/>\nse between themselves against aforesaid selection contending<br \/>\nthat candidates did not disclose the correct information in<br \/>\ntheir applications and, therefore, were not qualified to get<br \/>\ndealership. The Corporation held an enquiry on the basis of<br \/>\nthe complaint made against the appellant and relying on the<br \/>\nreport received after enquiry passed the order cancelling the<br \/>\nselection of the appellant. Consequently, the Head Office of the<br \/>\nCorporation directed the concerned authority to cancel the<br \/>\nselection of the appellant and to issue LOI in favour of<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 after ensuring that there was no<br \/>\ncomplaint\/court case pending against the proposed allottee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppellant in the Writ Petition took the stand that as per<br \/>\nthe enquiry report the total income of the appellant had been<br \/>\nfixed at Rs.1,64,000\/- per annum vis-`-vis  Rs.84,000\/- as<br \/>\ndisclosed in his application form. The discrepancy has no<br \/>\nbearing as the eligibility criteria was that the income should<br \/>\nnot be above rupees two lakhs in the last financial year. The<br \/>\ncomplaint made by Hari Om Singh against Smt. Usha was<br \/>\npending and no LOI could be issued without holding an<br \/>\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Corporation took the stand that the Executive<br \/>\nSummary report discloses that incorrect information had been<br \/>\ngiven and it has been specifically made clear that any<br \/>\nconcealment of facts\/mis-information would result in rejection<br \/>\nof the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe decision not to allot the dealership to the appellant<br \/>\nwas on account of the fact that he did not correctly disclose<br \/>\nthe income and thus violated his own declaration in his<br \/>\nundertaking incorporated in the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith reference to the application form and the<br \/>\nundertaking the High Court held that it was obviously clear<br \/>\nthat the income was not fully disclosed. The plea that the<br \/>\nincome was less than rupees two lakhs, did not materially<br \/>\naffect the eligibility of the appellant was not accepted and<br \/>\naccordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn support of the appeal, it is submitted that there was<br \/>\nno mens rea and mere mistake and unintended omission<br \/>\ncannot be a ground for cancellation. The income of S.K.<br \/>\nFertilizers was not necessary to be disclosed. In the affidavit<br \/>\nbefore the Selection Board it was clearly stated that S.K.<br \/>\nConstructions may have come into existence in 2002-2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand<br \/>\nsupported the order saying that once there is suppression in<br \/>\nview of the undertaking the allotment was to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>The fact of making a wrong statement in the application<br \/>\nform and the effect of the undertaking though rendered in<br \/>\ndifferent context in <a href=\"\/doc\/75646\/\">Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v.<br \/>\nRam Ratan Yadav<\/a> (2003 (3) SCC 437), <a href=\"\/doc\/1602137\/\">State of A.P. and Anr. v.<br \/>\nT. Suryachandra Rao<\/a> (2005 (6) SCC 149) and <a href=\"\/doc\/1765871\/\">Bhaurao Dagdu<br \/>\nParalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.<\/a> (2005 (7) SCC 605)<br \/>\nneed to be noted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn Kendriya Vidyalaya&#8217;s case (supra) it was noted as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;11. It is not in dispute that a criminal case<br \/>\nregistered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-<br \/>\nB read with Section 34 IPC was pending on the<br \/>\ndate when the respondent filled the attestation<br \/>\nform. Hence, the information given by the<br \/>\nrespondent as against columns 12 and 13 as<br \/>\n&#8220;No&#8221; is plainly suppression of material<br \/>\ninformation and it is also a false statement.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, the respondent is holder of BA,<br \/>\nBEd and MEd degrees. Assuming even his<br \/>\nmedium of instruction was Hindi throughout,<br \/>\nno prudent man can accept that he did not<br \/>\nstudy English language at all at any stage of<br \/>\nhis education. It is also not the case of the<br \/>\nrespondent that he did not study English at<br \/>\nall. If he could understand columns 1-11<br \/>\ncorrectly in the same attestation form, it is<br \/>\ndifficult to accept his version that he could not<br \/>\ncorrectly understand the contents of columns<br \/>\n12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not<br \/>\ncorrectly understand certain English words, in<br \/>\nthe ordinary course he could have certainly<br \/>\ntaken the help of somebody. This being the<br \/>\nposition, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the<br \/>\ncontention of the respondent and the High<br \/>\nCourt committed a manifest error in accepting<br \/>\nthe contention that because the medium of<br \/>\ninstruction of the respondent was Hindi, he<br \/>\ncould not understand the contents of columns<br \/>\n12 and 13. It is not the case that columns 12<br \/>\nand 13  are left blank. The respondent could<br \/>\nnot have said &#8220;No&#8221; as against columns 12 and<br \/>\n13 without understanding the contents.<br \/>\nSubsequent withdrawal of criminal case<br \/>\nregistered against the respondent or the<br \/>\nnature of offences, in our opinion, were not<br \/>\nmaterial. The requirement of filling columns 12<br \/>\nand 13 of the attestation form was for the<br \/>\npurpose of verification of character and<br \/>\nantecedents of the respondent as on the date<br \/>\nof filling and attestation of the form.<br \/>\nSuppression of material information and<br \/>\nmaking a false statement has a clear bearing<br \/>\non the character and antecedents of the<br \/>\nrespondent in relation to his continuance in<br \/>\nservice.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t The object of requiring information in<br \/>\ncolumns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and<br \/>\ncertification thereafter by the candidate was to<br \/>\nascertain and verify the character and<br \/>\nantecedents to judge his suitability to continue<br \/>\nin  service. A candidate having suppressed<br \/>\nmaterial information and\/or giving false<br \/>\ninformation cannot claim right to continue in<br \/>\nservice. The employer having regard to the<br \/>\nnature of the employment and all other<br \/>\naspects had the discretion to terminate his<br \/>\nservices, which is made expressly clear in para<br \/>\n9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of<br \/>\nseeking information as per columns 12 and 13<br \/>\nwas not to find out either the nature or gravity<br \/>\nof the offence or the result of a criminal case<br \/>\nultimately. The information in the said<br \/>\ncolumns was sought with a view to judge the<br \/>\ncharacter and antecedents of the respondent<br \/>\nto continue in service or not. The High Court,<br \/>\nin our view, has failed to see this aspect of the<br \/>\nmatter. It went wrong in saying that the<br \/>\ncriminal case had been subsequently<br \/>\nwithdrawn and that the offences, in which the<br \/>\nrespondent was alleged to have been involved,<br \/>\nwere also not of serious nature. In the present<br \/>\ncase the respondent was to serve as a Physical<br \/>\nEducation Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The<br \/>\ncharacter, conduct and antecedents of a<br \/>\nteacher will have some impact on the minds of<br \/>\nthe students of impressionable age. The<br \/>\nappellants having considered all the aspects<br \/>\npassed the order of dismissal of the<br \/>\nrespondent from service. The Tribunal after<br \/>\ndue consideration rightly recorded a finding of<br \/>\nfact in upholding the order of dismissal passed<br \/>\nby the appellants. The High Court was clearly<br \/>\nin error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal.<br \/>\nThe High Court was again not right in taking<br \/>\nnote of the withdrawal of the case by the State<br \/>\nGovernment and that the case was not of a<br \/>\nserious nature to set aside the order of the<br \/>\nTribunal on that ground as well. The<br \/>\nrespondent accepted the offer of appointment<br \/>\nsubject to the terms and conditions mentioned<br \/>\ntherein with his  eyes wide open. Para 9 of the<br \/>\nsaid memorandum extracted above in clear<br \/>\nterms kept the respondent informed that the<br \/>\nsuppression of any information may lead to<br \/>\ndismissal from service. In the attestation form,<br \/>\nthe respondent has certified that the<br \/>\ninformation given by him is correct and<br \/>\ncomplete to the best of his knowledge and<br \/>\nbelief; if he could not understand the contents<br \/>\nof columns 12 and 13, he could not certify so.<br \/>\nHaving certified that the information given by<br \/>\nhim is correct and complete, his version<br \/>\ncannot be accepted. The order of termination<br \/>\nof services clearly shows that there has been<br \/>\ndue consideration of various aspects. In this<br \/>\nview, the argument of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent that as per para 9 of the<br \/>\nmemorandum, the termination of service was<br \/>\nnot automatic, cannot be accepted.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is to be noted that the enquiry report relates to S.K.<br \/>\nFertilizers whereas the affidavit alleged to have been filed<br \/>\nwhere reference was made to S.K. Construction has no<br \/>\nrelevance. It is not in dispute that in the affidavit the appellant<br \/>\nhad stated about the inheritance of income yielding property.<br \/>\nIn the report after taking note of the appellant&#8217;s stand it was<br \/>\nconcluded as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Comments: Sh. Shiv Kant Yadav has admitted<br \/>\nthrough affidavit that he has inherited two<br \/>\nhouses from his father, which is being used for<br \/>\npersonal use only and as such there is no<br \/>\nincome in the year 1999-2000 on this account<br \/>\n(Annex-c). He has also admitted to be the<br \/>\nowner of two shops which are currently not in<br \/>\nuse and lying vacant. With regard to three<br \/>\nvacant shops, I do not agree since  all the nine<br \/>\nshops, which he has shown me at  the time of<br \/>\nmy visit comes under the joint property and<br \/>\nsince six shops have been given on rent,<br \/>\nautomatically Sh Shiv Kant Yadav gets one<br \/>\nthird share of the joint property. However,<br \/>\ncomplainant has produced a letter issued by<br \/>\nNagar Panchayat Jaithra dated 26-03-04<br \/>\n(Annex-H) stating that Sh Shiv Kant Yadav,<br \/>\ns\/o Veri Singh Yadav has Rs.14,000\/- per<br \/>\nmonth towards rental from shops and<br \/>\nRs.3,000\/- per month towards rental from<br \/>\nhouse. Thus, the income for the year 1999-<br \/>\n2000  works out to be approximately<br \/>\nRs.68,000\/- towards his share from the joint<br \/>\nproperty. Enclosed annexures. The allegation<br \/>\nstands proved and the incomes from house<br \/>\nand shops have not been shown in the<br \/>\napplication.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere was a requirement to disclose the true and correct<br \/>\nfact which does not appear to have been done.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe undertaking reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;That I am fully aware that Indian Oil<br \/>\nCorporation (name of the Oil Company) under<br \/>\nits policy will not appoint me as their<br \/>\ndealer\/distributor, if I am employed. I shall<br \/>\nhave to resign from the service and produce<br \/>\nproof of acceptance of my resignation by my<br \/>\nemployer to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Name<br \/>\nof the Oil Company) before issuance of Letter<br \/>\nof Appointment for the<br \/>\ndealership\/distributorship.\n<\/p>\n<p>That if any information\/declaration given by<br \/>\nme in my application or in any document<br \/>\nsubmitted by me in support of my application<br \/>\nfor the award of SKO\/LDO<br \/>\ndealership\/distributorship or in this<br \/>\nundertaking shall be found to be untrue or<br \/>\nincorrect or false Indian Oil Corporation (name<br \/>\nof the Oil Company) would be within its rights<br \/>\nto withdraw the letter of intent\/terminate the<br \/>\ndealership\/distributorship (if already<br \/>\nappointed) and that, I would have no claim,<br \/>\nwhatsoever, against Indian Oil Corporation<br \/>\n(name of the Oil Company) for such<br \/>\nwithdrawal\/termination.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the undertaking that if any factual mis-<br \/>\nstatement or declaration is made that permits cancellation of<br \/>\nthe allotment. The order of the High Court does not suffer from<br \/>\nany infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed<br \/>\nwith no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1844 of 2007 PETITIONER: Shiv Kant Yadav RESPONDENT: Indian Oil Corporation and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/04\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; LOKESHWAR [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-127167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 - 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\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-01T20:42:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-01T20:42:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1999,\"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\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-01T20:42:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 - 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\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-01T20:42:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-01T20:42:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007"},"wordCount":1999,"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\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007","name":"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-01T20:42:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-kant-yadav-vs-indian-oil-corporation-and-ors-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiv Kant Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors on 9 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/127167","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=127167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}