{"id":132853,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-04T04:27:08","modified_gmt":"2015-07-03T22:57:08","slug":"shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                             1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n               WRIT PETITION NO.7724 OF 2009\n\n     Shakuntala  Jagdish  Ghengat,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     age 37 years, occup. service,\n     r\/of Jalgaon,Gurunanak Nagar,\n     Mamurabad  road,  ShaniPeth,\n     Jalgaon.                                          Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n               vs\n\n     Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,\n     through its Commssioner.                          Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                           \n          WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7725 of 2009\n               \n     Digambar s\/o Pitambar Sonwane,\n     age 40 years, occup. service,\n     r\/o Sujade, post Bholane, Tq.\n     and District Jalgaon.                    Petitioner\n              \n               vs\n\n     Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,\n     through its Commssioner.                          Respondent\n      \n\n\n          WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7726 of 2009\n   \n\n\n\n     Ishwar Yaswant Chaudhari,\n     age 40 years, occup. service,\n     r\/of Thorgavan, post Manwel,\n     Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.                      Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n               vs\n\n     Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,\n     through its Commssioner.                          Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n          WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8294  of 2009\n\n     Dagadu Narayan Patil,\n     age 55 years, occup. Nil.,\n     r\/of Old Asoda Road,\n     Gopal Pura, Jalgaon, \n     Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.                            Petitioner\n\n               vs\n\n     Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,\n     through its Commssioner.                          Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::\n                                        2\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------\n    Shri   L.V.   Sangeet,   Advocate   for   the   Petitioners.     Shri \n    P.R.Patil,   Advocate,   for   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   Nos. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n    7724, 7725 and 7726 of 2009. Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate, for \n    petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8294 of 2009.\n    -------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                                Coram :  Shrihari P.Davare, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                Date  :  15th September  2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    01.         Rule.   Rule   made   returnable   and   with   the <\/p>\n
    consent   of   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   petitions <\/p>\n
    are taken up for final hearing at admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
    02.         By the present petitions filed under Articles <\/p>\n
    226   and   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India,     the <\/p>\n
    Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 16.10.2009 <\/p>\n
    passed  by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,  Jalgaon <\/p>\n
    below applications dated 8.10.2009, at Exhs. U-19, U-19, <\/p>\n
    U-20   and   U-29   in   IDA   Reference   Nos.22\/1998,   21\/1998, <\/p>\n
    2\/1999 and 18\/1998 respectively filed by petitioners in <\/p>\n
    the   respective   writ   petitions,   thereby   rejecting   the <\/p>\n
    prayer   of   the   applicants-writ   petitioners   to   call   the <\/p>\n
    deponent   of   the   affidavit   dated   6.10.2009   filed   on <\/p>\n
    behalf of  the Respondent, for  cross examination.\n<\/p>\n
    03.         For the purpose of convenience, facts of Writ <\/p>\n
    Petition   No.7724   of   2009   are   being   referred   to.     The <\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner   claims   that   he   was   in   the   service   of   the <\/p>\n
    Respondents on the post of sweeper in Health Department <\/p>\n
    from 1982 and completed 240 days in every year. However, <\/p>\n
    the   Respondents   terminated   his   services   illegally   and <\/p>\n
    hence,   petitioner   approached   to   the   Labour   Court, <\/p>\n
    Jalgaon, and filed the reference against the Respondent, <\/p>\n
    seeking   continuation   of   service,   permanency   and   back <\/p>\n
    wages,   since   no   compensation   as   per   Sec.25-F   of   the <\/p>\n
    Industrial   Disputes   Act,1947,   was   given   to   him   and   as <\/p>\n
    the   Respondent   allegedly   committed   unfair   labour <\/p>\n
    practice.\n<\/p>\n
    04.         Respondents appeared in the said Reference and <\/p>\n
    filed written statement denying the entire claim of the <\/p>\n
    petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    05.         Thereafter,   the   petitioner   filed   an <\/p>\n
    application   before   the   Labour   Court,   on   8.10.2009, <\/p>\n
    praying for issuance of directions to the Respondent to <\/p>\n
    produce   the   record   and   give   details   of   the   relevant <\/p>\n
    record.  It is the contention of the petitioner that the <\/p>\n
    learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, <\/p>\n
    passed an order for production of the record.  Pursuant <\/p>\n
    to that, the Deputy Commissioner of the Respondent filed <\/p>\n
    one   line   affidavit   on   6.10.2009,   that   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
    never   worked   with   the   Respondent   and,   therefore,   no <\/p>\n
    record   was   available   with   the   respondent.     Thereupon, <\/p>\n
    the petitioner filed an application  on 8.10.2009 before <\/p>\n
    the learned Labour Court   and prayed that the deponent <\/p>\n
    of the said affidavit dated 6.10.2009 filed on behalf of <\/p>\n
    the   Respondent   be   called   for   the   purpose   of   cross <\/p>\n
    examination.   However,   the   learned   Presiding   Officer   of <\/p>\n
    the   Labour   Court,   Jalgaon,   rejected   the   said <\/p>\n
    application,   by   order   passed   on   16.10.2009.   Being <\/p>\n
    aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   by   the   said   order,   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner  has filed present  petition and impugned  the <\/p>\n
    said order and prayed for quashment thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    06.         Shri   L.V.   Sangeet,   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners, canvassed that the affidavit filed by  the <\/p>\n
    deponent on 6.10.2009 on behalf of the Respondent, was <\/p>\n
    as per the provisions of Order 19 Rule 1 of the Code of <\/p>\n
    Civil Procedure, 1908 and, therefore, the opportunity is <\/p>\n
    required to be given to the petitioners to cross examine <\/p>\n
    the deponent of the said affidavit, in accordance with <\/p>\n
    Rule 2 of Order 19  of the C.P.C.  Learned Counsel  Shri <\/p>\n
    Sangeet,   also   canvassed   that   the   affidavit   filed   on <\/p>\n
    6.10.2009 on  behalf of the  Respondent    may be read in <\/p>\n
    evidence, at the time of deciding the references and if <\/p>\n
    no   opportunity   is   given     to   the   petitioners   herein   to <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    cross examine the said deponent, it may cause and lead <\/p>\n
    to  injustice  to the petitioners herein and, therefore, <\/p>\n
    it   is   necessary   to   call   the   said   deponent   of   the <\/p>\n
    affidavit for the purpose of cross examination.  Learned <\/p>\n
    Counsel   Shri   Sangeet   also   posed   apprehension   that,   if <\/p>\n
    the Respondent chooses not to adduce any evidence, the <\/p>\n
    petitioners would not get opportunity to  cross  examine <\/p>\n
    the   witnesses   or   the   deponent   and   in   that   case,   the <\/p>\n
    affidavit   filed   by   the   deponent   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent  on 6.10.2009 would go uncontroverted in  the <\/p>\n
    evidence   and,   hence,   learned   counsel   urged   that   said <\/p>\n
    deponent is required to be called for cross examination.\n<\/p>\n
    07.         Shri   P.R.   Patil,   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent-Corporation   in   first   three   petitions, <\/p>\n
    countered   the   said   argument   vehemently   and   submitted <\/p>\n
    that   the affidavit filed by the deponent on behalf of <\/p>\n
    the Respondent on 6.10.2009 is not at all the affidavit <\/p>\n
    filed under Order 19 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., since there <\/p>\n
    is   no   order   of   the   court   in   that   respect.   It   is   also <\/p>\n
    submitted that there is no application preferred by the <\/p>\n
    Respondent-Corporation   for   adducing   evidence,   and   the <\/p>\n
    affidavit   in   question     dated   6.10.2009   has   not   been <\/p>\n
    filed   by   the   deponent   on   behalf   of   the   Respondent   in <\/p>\n
    pursuance of any application preferred by the Respondent <\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    and   order   passed   thereon   by   the   court   and   hence,   the <\/p>\n
    said   deponent   cannot   be   called   for   any   cross <\/p>\n
    examination, even under the provisions of Order 19 Rule <\/p>\n
    2 of the C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    08.         Shri   P.R.Patil,   learned   counsel   for <\/p>\n
    Respondent, also  canvassed  that the deponent  who filed <\/p>\n
    affidavit on behalf of Respondent cannot be construed as <\/p>\n
    “witness”   and     said   affidavit,   therefore,   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    treated as affidavit in evidence.   Since it is not the <\/p>\n
    affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief,   petitioners <\/p>\n
    have no right to cross examine the said deponent of the <\/p>\n
    affidavit dated 6.10.2009, in view of the provisions of <\/p>\n
    Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
    09.     Shri   Patil,   learned   Counsel   for   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
    also relied upon the provisions of Section 11(3) of the <\/p>\n
    Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
                “11(3).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          Procedure
\n                                      and   power   of   cociliation<\/p>\n
                offices, Boards, courts and Tribunals.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (1)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
                (2)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\n                (3)Every Board, Court, [Labour Court, Tribunal
\n                and   National   Tribunal]   shall   have   the   same
\n                powers   as   are   vested   in   a   Civil   Court   under
\n                the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908     (5   of
\n                1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the
\n                following matters, namely,’<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     (a) enforcing   the   attendance   of   any
\n                     person and examining him on oath;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (b) compelling   the   production   of <\/p>\n
                     documents and material objects;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (c) issuing   commission                    for          the
\n                     examination of witnesses;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (d) in respect of such other matters as
\n                     may be prescribed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Shri   P.R.Patil,   learned   Counsel   for   the   respondents, <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   provisions   of   the   C.P.C.   are <\/p>\n
    applicable to the forums mentioned therein in respect of <\/p>\n
    the instances as specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        Shri   P.R.   Patil,   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    Respondents   also   relied   upon   Section   1   of   the   Indian <\/p>\n
    Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               “Section (1). It extends to the whole of India
\n               [except   the   State   of   Jammu   and   Kashmir]   and
\n               applies   to   all   judicial   proceedings   in   or
\n               before   any   Court,   including   Courts-martial
\n               [other than Courts-martial convened under the
\n               Army   Act   (44   &   45   Vict.,   c.58)],   [the   Naval <\/p>\n
               Discipline Act (29 & 30 Vict., c.109) or [***]
\n               the   Indian   Navy   (Discipline   Act,   1934   (34   of
\n               1934) [or the Air Force Act (7 Geo.5, c.51],
\n               but   not   to   affidavits   presented   to   any   Court
\n               or   Officer,   nor   to   proceedings   before   an
\n               arbitrator;   and   it   shall   come   into   force   on
\n               the first day of September 1872.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
    11.         After   referring   to   Section   1   of   the   Indian <\/p>\n
    Evidence Act, 1872, Shri Patil, learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
    Respondent,   submitted   that   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n
    Evidence Act   do not apply to the affidavits presented <\/p>\n
    to any court or officer, nor to the proceedings before <\/p>\n
    an arbitrator. He further submitted that Order 19 of the <\/p>\n
    C.P.C. is in respect of the power of the court to order <\/p>\n
    to prove any particular fact or facts by affidavit, or <\/p>\n
    that   the   affidavit   of   any   witness   may   be   read   at   the <\/p>\n
    hearing   and   further     submitted   that   the   provision   of <\/p>\n
    Order 19 of the power of the Court to order to prove any <\/p>\n
    point   by   affidavit   is   carved   out   of   Section   1   of   the <\/p>\n
    Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           Accordingly learned Counsel Shri Patil urged <\/p>\n
    that the impugned order has been passed by the learned <\/p>\n
    Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Jalgaon, rightly and <\/p>\n
    there   is   no   perversity   therein   and   therefore,   no <\/p>\n
    interference   is   warranted   in   the   same,   under   writ <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         Shri   A.V.Patil,   learned   Counsel   for <\/p>\n
    Respondent   in   Writ   Petition   No.8294\/2009,   adopted   the <\/p>\n
    arguments   advanced   by   Adv.   Shri   P.R.Patil,   for <\/p>\n
    Respondent in other  petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
    14.         I have perused the contents of the petitions, <\/p>\n
    annexures thereto, as well as perused the impugned order <\/p>\n
    and considered the  submissions advanced by the  learned <\/p>\n
    counsel   for   the   parties.     It   is   apparent   from   the <\/p>\n
    impugned order itself that the  petitioners herein have <\/p>\n
    adduced   oral   evidence   by   way   of   affidavit   and   the <\/p>\n
    learned Counsel for the Respondent  cross  examined them <\/p>\n
    and,   thereafter,   applications   were   preferred   by   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners   for   issuance   of   witness   summonses     which <\/p>\n
    were   allowed,   and   accordingly,   witness   summonses   were <\/p>\n
    issued to the witness of the Petitioner as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
    At   that   juncture,   an   affidavit   was   filed   by   one <\/p>\n
    Mr.M.A.Pathan on 6.10.2009, on behalf of the Respondent-\n<\/p>\n
    Corporation   in   pursuance   of   the   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    learned Labour Court, Jalgaon, to produce the documents <\/p>\n
    and   thereafter   the   petitioners   herein   preferred <\/p>\n
    application   dated   8.10.2009   to   call   the   said   deponent <\/p>\n
    for   the   cross   examination.   Hence,   it   is   apparent   that <\/p>\n
    even   the   evidence   of   the   petitioner   has   not   been <\/p>\n
    completed so far, and, therefore, the learned Judge of <\/p>\n
    the Labour Court rightly observed that the question does <\/p>\n
    not   arise   to   call   the   deponent   of   the   affidavit   dated <\/p>\n
    6.10.2009   for   cross   examination   as   prayed   for   by   the <\/p>\n
    present petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
    15.         Moreover,   it   is   explicitly   clear   from   the <\/p>\n
    affidavit   dated   6.10.2009   filed   by   the   deponent   on <\/p>\n
    behalf of the Respondent that it is not the affidavit of <\/p>\n
    evidence   filed   in   lieu   of   examination-in-chief   and   as <\/p>\n
    per   Section   139   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872,   a <\/p>\n
    person summoned to produce the documents does not become <\/p>\n
    a witness and cannot be cross examined, unless and until <\/p>\n
    he is called as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
    16.<\/p>\n
                Besides that, the provisions of Order 19 Rule <\/p>\n
    1   of   the   C.P.C.   do   not   come   into   picture,   since   the <\/p>\n
    Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon, has not passed <\/p>\n
    any order to prove any fact by affidavit. Similarly, the <\/p>\n
    provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. also cannot <\/p>\n
    be attracted, since the respondent has not preferred any <\/p>\n
    application   to   lead   the   evidence   and   the   affidavit   in <\/p>\n
    question dated 6.10.2009 has not been filed in pursuance <\/p>\n
    of   such     application   and,   therefore,   there   is   no <\/p>\n
    question of grant of any opportunity to the petitioners <\/p>\n
    to   cross   examine   the   deponent   who   has   filed   the <\/p>\n
    affidavit   on   behalf   of     the   respondents   in   such <\/p>\n
    scenario.\n<\/p>\n
    17.         In the circumstances, I am inclined to accept <\/p>\n
    the   submissions   advanced   by   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Respondent and I am of the considered view that there is <\/p>\n
    no   perversity   in   the   impugned   order   dated   16.10.2009 <\/p>\n
    passed  by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,  Jalgaon <\/p>\n
    and this is not the fit case to interfere therein, under <\/p>\n
    the   extra-ordinary   writ   jurisdiction   and,   therefore, <\/p>\n
    present petitions deserve to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    18.   In the result, present petitions being sans merits, <\/p>\n
    stand dismissed. Rule stands discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)<\/p>\n
    pnd\/wp7724.09<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:25:57 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 Bench: Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7724 OF 2009 Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat, age 37 years, occup. service, r\/of Jalgaon,Gurunanak Nagar, Mamurabad road, ShaniPeth, Jalgaon. Petitioner vs Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, through […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 - 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\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-03T22:57:08+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\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T22:57:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1752,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T22:57:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 - 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\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-03T22:57:08+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\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T22:57:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":1752,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010","name":"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T22:57:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-jagdish-ghengat-vs-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shakuntala Jagdish Ghengat vs Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/132853","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=132853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}