{"id":149809,"date":"2009-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-07T19:49:43","modified_gmt":"2019-03-07T14:19:43","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 7047 of 2001(L)\n\n\n\n1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.S.E.BOARD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :18\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n                 ---------------------------\n                      O.P.NO.7047 OF 2001\n                ----------------------------\n           DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>          Petitioner is the Managing Director of a tea factory at<\/p>\n<p>Mananthavady and is the consumer of electrical energy for the said<\/p>\n<p>factory. On 16\/9\/2000 the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted a<\/p>\n<p>site inspection and detected that the power meter is recording only<\/p>\n<p>1\/3rd of the actual power drawn from the mains due to wrong<\/p>\n<p>electrical connection of CT meters resulted in reverse running in<\/p>\n<p>one phase and the existence of unauthorised additional load of 44<\/p>\n<p>KW over and above the authorised load of 130 KW. On the basis<\/p>\n<p>of the inspection report, which is produced as Ext.P2, the consumer<\/p>\n<p>was re-assessed with effect from 12\/97 for partial recording and 3<\/p>\n<p>times rate on fixed charge and proportionate current charge was<\/p>\n<p>charged for unauthorised additional load (UAL). Ext.P3 is the bill<\/p>\n<p>in which the grand total shows Rs.8,04,741\/- out of that fixed<\/p>\n<p>charge is Rs.27,720\/-.     Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 bill in an<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -2-<\/span><br \/>\nO.P.No.7047\/2001<\/p>\n<p>appeal filed before the Appellate Authority.        The Appellate<\/p>\n<p>Authority by proceedings dated 8\/2\/2001 dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n<p>         2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised all the<\/p>\n<p>contentions placed before the Appellate Authority. According to<\/p>\n<p>the learned counsel, Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of<\/p>\n<p>Supply of Electrical Energy provides for re-assessment for six<\/p>\n<p>months and there is no reason for adopting the period from 12\/97,<\/p>\n<p>a total period of 32 months. The learned counsel also brought to<\/p>\n<p>this Court&#8217;s attention the decision of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n<p>Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board<\/p>\n<p>(AIR 1997 SC 2793), the unreported decision of the learned<\/p>\n<p>Single Judge of this Court dated 23\/11\/2005 in O.P.No.191\/98<\/p>\n<p>and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1271433\/\">Nirmala<\/p>\n<p>Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B.<\/a> (2006 (3) KLT 465).           Learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel submitted that re-assessment has to be done based on the<\/p>\n<p>aforesaid decisions and it has to be limited to six months.<\/p>\n<p>        3. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E. Board<\/p>\n<p>contended that CT connection in Y phase was reversed and there<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               -3-<\/span><br \/>\nO.P.No.7047\/2001<\/p>\n<p>was unauthorised additional load of 44 KW during inspection.<\/p>\n<p>The period of re-assessment is taken as 12\/97, as there was<\/p>\n<p>sudden drop in recorded consumption from the said date. The<\/p>\n<p>recorded consumption for 10\/97 was 21098 Kwh, 11\/97 was<\/p>\n<p>23020 KWh and 12\/97 was 8782 KWh, which is approximately<\/p>\n<p>1\/3 of earlier consumption. It is also brought to this Court&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>attention the recorded consumption subsequent to the site<\/p>\n<p>inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It shows<\/p>\n<p>that the recorded consumption for the month of November, 2000<\/p>\n<p>is 30,280 and for the month of December, 2000, is 36,962 kwh.<\/p>\n<p>The Appellate Authority did not accept the contention of the<\/p>\n<p>appellant that Section 26(6) is applicable and therefore the<\/p>\n<p>maximum amount that can be realised is only for a period of six<\/p>\n<p>months prior to the date of inspection. The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n<p>held that Section 26(6) is applicable only in case of faulty meters<\/p>\n<p>where the    reassessment is done based on approximation or<\/p>\n<p>overcharging. In such cases Section 26(6) will attract and the<\/p>\n<p>period has to be limited to six months. According to the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -4-<\/span><br \/>\nO.P.No.7047\/2001<\/p>\n<p>Appellate Authority, in the instant case, it is entirely different and<\/p>\n<p>that similar issue has been settled by the judgment of the Apex<\/p>\n<p>Court and the High Court. In the judgment in O.P.No.191\/98<\/p>\n<p>referred to above, it was stated that on inspection, it was found<\/p>\n<p>that there was some defect in the electric connections inside the<\/p>\n<p>meter consequent to which the meter was recording only 1\/3 of<\/p>\n<p>the actual energy consumed.        In that case     a bill for short<\/p>\n<p>assessment for consumption of electrical energy for the period<\/p>\n<p>stated therein was issued demanding charges for the balance 2\/3<\/p>\n<p>energy as payable by the petitioner therein.<\/p>\n<p>        4. This Court relying on the decision reported in Belwal<\/p>\n<p>Spinning Mills&#8217;s case (1997 SC 2793) discussed the issue and<\/p>\n<p>observed that there is absolutely no allegation of fraud or mal-<\/p>\n<p>practice on the part of the consumer, that the reduced recording<\/p>\n<p>was caused due to the wrong connection inside the meter. The<\/p>\n<p>meter recorded on l\/3 of the actual consumption. The facts of the<\/p>\n<p>said case and the facts of the present case are more or less<\/p>\n<p>similar. In this case also the the consumer has not done any mal-<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -5-<\/span><br \/>\nO.P.No.7047\/2001<\/p>\n<p>practice or fraud for the purpose of showing reduced<\/p>\n<p>consumption of energy.        Since the Y phase connection is<\/p>\n<p>reversed, 1\/3 of the actual consumption was recorded. In the<\/p>\n<p>Supreme Court case also, there was a defective connection<\/p>\n<p>whereby the original meter was registering only 76.6% less than<\/p>\n<p>the actual use. The Court held that Section 26(6) of the Indian<\/p>\n<p>Electricity Act is attracted and therefore, the right of the K.S.E.<\/p>\n<p>Board to demand arrears is limited to a period of past six months.<\/p>\n<p>In this case also applying Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity<\/p>\n<p>Act, the matter has to be referred to the Chief Electrical<\/p>\n<p>Inspector, as in the said case. It was held that the K.S.E. Board is<\/p>\n<p>entitled to demand arrears only for a period of past six months for<\/p>\n<p>the reason that the recorded consumption is 1\/3 of the actual<\/p>\n<p>consumption.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5. Ext.P3 bill was issued for realisation of the amount for<\/p>\n<p>the loss caused to the Board for the reason that Y phase<\/p>\n<p>connection is reversed and for unauthorised additional load to the<\/p>\n<p>extent of 44 KWh under Regulation 42(d) of the Conditions of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -6-<\/span><br \/>\nO.P.No.7047\/2001<\/p>\n<p>Supply of Electrical Energy. The petitioner is liable to pay the<\/p>\n<p>amounts assessed by the Board for unauthorised additional load<\/p>\n<p>of 44 Kwh in addition to the demand for payment of arrears for<\/p>\n<p>the past six months from the date of detection. Respondents are<\/p>\n<p>entitled to demand only the amount as stated above.<\/p>\n<p>        6. In the result, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. There will<\/p>\n<p>be a direction to the respondents to re-work the arrears and issue<\/p>\n<p>a fresh bill to the petitioner within a period of two months from<\/p>\n<p>the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount<\/p>\n<p>already deposited in compliance of the interim order passed by<\/p>\n<p>this Court shall be adjusted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Original Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,<br \/>\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>kcv.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 7047 of 2001(L) 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. K.S.E.BOARD &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :18\/02\/2009 O R D [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 - 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\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-07T14:19:43+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T14:19:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1046,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T14:19:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 - 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\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-07T14:19:43+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T14:19:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009"},"wordCount":1046,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009","name":"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T14:19:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-k-s-e-board-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs K.S.E.Board on 18 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/149809","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=149809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}