{"id":148155,"date":"2008-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-25T22:10:46","modified_gmt":"2015-12-25T16:40:46","slug":"kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Barin Ghosh<\/div>\n
                   Letters Patent Appeal No.560 OF 2001\n\n                                *******\n\n               Against the Order dated 2.2.1999 passed in\n               CWJC no.1991 of 1998.\n\n                                *******\n\n               KANTI TIWARI----------------------Appellant\n                                     Versus\n               THE BIHAR ADVOCATE WELFARE FUND--Respondents\n\n                                *******\n\n               For the Appellant       :    Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary\n\n               For the Respondents     :    Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma\n\n                                *******\n\n                              P R E S E N T\n\n                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH\n                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD\n\n\nBarin Ghosh &\nC.M. Prasad, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                    On 02nd July, 2008, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
        appearing     on      behalf       of   the    respondent-Bihar<\/p>\n
        Advocates’         Welfare         Fund       Trust   Committee<\/p>\n
        submitted      that in two weeks’ time the case of<\/p>\n
        the appellant will be further considered and,<\/p>\n
        accordingly, a prayer was made for adjournment<\/p>\n
        of the hearing of the appeal for two weeks. In<\/p>\n
        view     of    such     submission        we     granted     such
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
adjournment.          Today          when the matter was called<\/p>\n
for    hearing         the          respondent-Bihar              Advocates<\/p>\n
Welfare      Fund      Trust         Committee           through       another<\/p>\n
Advocate      informed          us           that    he    is    unable        to<\/p>\n
inform      this      Court         whether        any    step     has       been<\/p>\n
taken to further consider                           the    case        of     the<\/p>\n
appellant        or    not.          In      the    circumstances,             we<\/p>\n
decided to decide the appeal on its merit. Heard.<\/p>\n
            2.     The     respondent-Committee                   has        been<\/p>\n
constituted by and under the Bihar Advocates’<\/p>\n
Welfare      Fund        Act,        1983,         whereby       and        under<\/p>\n
provisions have been made for creation of a Fund<\/p>\n
in order to facilitate payment of certain amount<\/p>\n
of money         to the family of a deceased Advocate<\/p>\n
member      of     the     Fund.              The     husband          of    the<\/p>\n
appellant was an Advocate and was also a member<\/p>\n
of    the    Fund      since         05 th    August,       1987.            Sub-<\/p>\n
sections (7) and (8) of section 16 of the Act<\/p>\n
are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “16.(7)- Any member who fails to remit
\nthe annual subscription for an year before the
\n                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
30th June of that year shall be removed from the
\nmembership of the Fund:\n<\/p>\n
         Provided that no order of removal from
\nmembership of a member shall be passed without
\nproviding an opportunity of hearing. Notice to
\nmembers shall be served by registered post and
\nthe expenses on it alongwith other expenses
\nshall be recoverable from member alongwith
\nsubscription.\n<\/p>\n
         (8) A person removed from the membership
\nof the Fund under sub-section (7) shall be re-
\nadmitted to the Fund on payment of the arrears
\nwith interest at twelve per cent per annum
\nwithin six months from the date of such
\nremoval.”\n<\/p>\n
           3. The husband of the appellant remitted<\/p>\n
annual      subscription for the year 1990 on or<\/p>\n
before     30th     June,       1990    but     did      not        remit<\/p>\n
subscription for the years 1991 and 1992.                            The<\/p>\n
appellant,        upon   death    of     her    husband        on    26th<\/p>\n
November,    1992,       applied       for     payment     from       the<\/p>\n
Fund in view of death of her husband.                               By a<\/p>\n
letter dated 13th February, 1996 the Committee<\/p>\n
informed    the      appellant         that    in   view       of     the<\/p>\n
decision taken by the Committee on 02nd May, 1993<\/p>\n
the membership of the husband of the appellant<\/p>\n
of the Fund was terminated with effect from 31 st
\n                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
July, 1992 and, accordingly, she is not entitled<\/p>\n
to receive anything from the Fund.                      The said<\/p>\n
stand taken by the respondent-Committee in its<\/p>\n
letter dated 13th February, 1996                  led to filing<\/p>\n
of   the    writ       petition,         which     having      been<\/p>\n
dismissed the appellant is before us.<\/p>\n
           4. In view of the provisions contained<\/p>\n
in sub-sections (7)            of section 16 of the Act,<\/p>\n
failure     of    the     husband    of    the    appellant     to<\/p>\n
remit annual subscription to the Fund for the<\/p>\n
year 1991 within 30 th June, 1991 entailed his<\/p>\n
removal    from    the    membership       of    the   Fund,    but<\/p>\n
then, in view of the proviso contained in sub-<\/p>\n
section    (7)    of     section    16    of     the   Act,    such<\/p>\n
removal was not ipso-facto, the same required an<\/p>\n
order   directing        removal    of     membership,        which<\/p>\n
could only be passed after giving an opportunity<\/p>\n
of hearing to the husband of the appellant and<\/p>\n
notice of such hearing was required to be served<\/p>\n
by registered post.            If there was            failure to
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
pay on time the annual subscription for the year<\/p>\n
1991, the question of removal of the husband of<\/p>\n
the appellant from              membership of the Fund from<\/p>\n
31st July, 1992 did not arise, even after giving<\/p>\n
an opportunity of hearing to the husband of the<\/p>\n
appellant.          Be that as it may, in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit      it    was   contended         that   by   a   notice<\/p>\n
dated   29th    October,         1991   the    husband       of   the<\/p>\n
appellant       was        asked        to     deposit       annual<\/p>\n
subscription for the said year by 21st November,<\/p>\n
1991 and since the same was not deposited, by<\/p>\n
the order dated 02nd May, 1993, the husband of<\/p>\n
the appellant was removed from the membership<\/p>\n
with effect from 31st July, 1992.<\/p>\n
          5. The one and the only thing that was<\/p>\n
required to be gone in, in the writ petition,was<\/p>\n
whether the alleged notice dated 29th October,<\/p>\n
1991 requiring the husband of the appellant to<\/p>\n
deposit the required fee by 21st November, 1991<\/p>\n
was sent by registered post and whether before
\n                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
the order dated          02 nd May, 1993 was passed, any<\/p>\n
notice    by     registered        post    was     sent   to     the<\/p>\n
husband     of     the     appellant        giving        him    an<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing or not.                   The respondent-<\/p>\n
Committee       failed        to   produce        any     evidence<\/p>\n
suggesting that the purported notice dated 29th<\/p>\n
October, 1991, was served by registered post and<\/p>\n
at the same time failed to even assert that any<\/p>\n
notice    was    sent    either     by    registered      post   or<\/p>\n
otherwise to the husband of the appellant before<\/p>\n
the     order    dated    02 nd    May,    1993     was    passed<\/p>\n
removing the husband of the appellant from the<\/p>\n
membership of the Fund with effect from 31 st July,<\/p>\n
1992.\n<\/p>\n
           6. As appears from the law quoted above<\/p>\n
that the same grants an opportunity to a member<\/p>\n
to know that by reason of his failure to remit<\/p>\n
subscription on time, he has exposed himself to<\/p>\n
the risk of removal from             membership, so that he<\/p>\n
can remove his default. Even after removal, the
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
law grants an opportunity to the removed member<\/p>\n
for    re-admission.               The    scheme        is    a    welfare<\/p>\n
scheme       and    aimed    at    providing          welfare      to   the<\/p>\n
members of the Fund.                     In the         instant case,<\/p>\n
before passing the order dated 02 nd May, 1993, no<\/p>\n
attempt       was    made     to    let     the     husband        of   the<\/p>\n
appellant          know,    who    by    that     time       had   already<\/p>\n
died, that there has been a default on his part.<\/p>\n
It is true that it was obligatory on the part of<\/p>\n
the    husband        of     the        appellant       to     keep     his<\/p>\n
membership            alive         by          remitting           annual<\/p>\n
subscription on time, but then the Act itself<\/p>\n
gave     a    protection           to     him    by      providing       an<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing before it is decided to<\/p>\n
pass an order of removal from membership for his<\/p>\n
failure       to     deposit       on    time     the     subscription<\/p>\n
payable by him to the Fund.\n<\/p>\n
             7. In the circumstances, the one and the<\/p>\n
only logical conclusion would be that the order<\/p>\n
dated 02nd May, 1993, which was passed against a
\n                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
dead person, is not only illegal, but the said<\/p>\n
order was passed without taking even the minimum<\/p>\n
of the steps required to be taken as provided<\/p>\n
for in the Act.\n<\/p>\n
          8. In absence of the said order, the<\/p>\n
husband       of    the   appellant          remained   a    member<\/p>\n
despite       having      had       failed     to    deposit    the<\/p>\n
required fees for the years 1991 and 1992.                       In<\/p>\n
the    circumstances,          we    allow     the   appeal,    set<\/p>\n
aside the judgment and order under appeal and,<\/p>\n
at the same time, allow the writ petition and<\/p>\n
quash the order of the Committee dated 02 nd May,<\/p>\n
1993    with a direction upon the Committee to pay<\/p>\n
to the appellant her dues due and payable from<\/p>\n
the    Fund    on   account     of     death    of   her    husband<\/p>\n
forthwith but not later than three months from<\/p>\n
today proceeding on the basis                  that the husband<\/p>\n
of the appellant was a member of the Fund at the<\/p>\n
time of his death together with interest at the
\n                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
rate of six per cent per annum from the date of<\/p>\n
the application.\n<\/p>\n
                             (Barin Ghosh, J.)<\/p>\n
                             (C.M. Prasad,J.)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court,
\nThe 22nd July, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
AAhmad\/ (NAFR).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008 Author: Barin Ghosh Letters Patent Appeal No.560 OF 2001 ******* Against the Order dated 2.2.1999 passed in CWJC no.1991 of 1998. ******* KANTI TIWARI———————-Appellant Versus THE BIHAR ADVOCATE WELFARE FUND–Respondents ******* For the Appellant : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary For […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 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\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-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=\"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-25T16:40:46+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-25T16:40:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1215,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-25T16:40:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 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":"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 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\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-25T16:40:46+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-25T16:40:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008"},"wordCount":1215,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008","name":"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-25T16:40:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanti-tiwari-vs-the-bihar-advocate-welfare-fun-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanti Tiwari vs The Bihar Advocate Welfare Fun on 22 July, 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\/148155","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=148155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}