{"id":151240,"date":"2009-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-05T15:19:35","modified_gmt":"2017-12-05T09:49:35","slug":"ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2001\n\n\n    1]       The Union of India , through ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n             its Secretary, Ministry of   ]\n             Rural Development, National ]\n             Drinking Water Mission,      ]\n             9  Floor, Paryavaran Bhavan ]\n               th\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n             CGO Complex, \"B\" Block,      ]\n             Lodh Road, New Delhi-110003]\n                           \n    2]       The Superintending Engineer ]\n             Central Project Management ]\n                          \n             Cell for UNICEF Stores,      ]\n             Commerce House, 1  Floor ]\n                                   st\n\n             Ballard Estate               ]\n             Estate, Mumbai 400 001       ]... Petitioners.\n           \n\n                        Versus\n             Ganesh Armugam Naidu         ]\n        \n\n\n\n             10\/114\/, CPWD Colony         ]\n             Sahar Village, Mumbai 40009 ]... Respondent.<\/pre>\n
    Ms.S V Bharucha a\/w Mr. Y S Bhate for the Petitioners UOI
\n    None for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                 CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR &<\/p>\n
                                          R.M.SAVANT,  JJ
\n                                 DATED  : APRIL 27, 2009<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]<\/p>\n
    1.         By way of this Petition, the Petitioners-Union of India has<\/p>\n
    challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,<\/p>\n
    Mumbai Bench, Mumbai dated 17th October 2000 by which order the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal allowed the Original Application No.656 of 1996 preferred by<\/p>\n
    the Respondent herein. By the impugned order the Tribunal directed<\/p>\n
    the Petitioners herein to reinstate the Applicant i.e the Respondent<\/p>\n
    herein back in service though without back wages.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         The   Respondent   was   appointed   as   a   Driver   on   a   purely<\/p>\n
    temporary basis and accordingly the appointment order was issued to<\/p>\n
    him in that behalf.  The appointment order is produced at page 21 in<\/p>\n
    the compilation of the above Petition which is dated 14th March 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    The appointment order clearly states that the appointment is purely<\/p>\n
    temporary   and   is   liable   to   be   terminated   without   assigning   any<\/p>\n
    reasons on one month’
\n                        s notice.  Subsequently by an order dated 3rd<\/p>\n
    September  1993,  the  services of  the Respondent  were  terminated.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Prior   to   such   termination,   the   Respondent   was   served   with   one<\/p>\n
    month’
\n         s notice as required by rules and, accordingly on completion of<\/p>\n
    said one month  period, subsequently  after some time,  by an  order<\/p>\n
    dated   3rd  September   1993   the   services   of   the   Respondent   were<\/p>\n
    terminated.     The   Respondent,   thereafter   preferred   an   application<\/p>\n
    before the Central Administrative Tribunal being Original Application<\/p>\n
    No.656 of 1996 and by the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the<\/p>\n
    said termination order passed by the Petitioners without back wages.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioners   Ms.Bharucha<\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   appointment   of   the   Respondent   was   purely   of<\/p>\n
    temporary     nature   and   that   the   Respondent   was   appointed   on   a<\/p>\n
    temporarily   created   post   which   was   subsequently   abolished   and,<\/p>\n
    therefore, the Respondent has no right to continue on the said post.\n<\/p>\n
    She further submitted that even though the order of termination was<\/p>\n
    passed as back as on 26th April 1993, the Respondent preferred the<\/p>\n
    Original Application No.656 of 1996 on 6th June 1996.  It is therefore<\/p>\n
    submitted   by   her   that   the   said   Application   of   the   Respondent   was<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
    obviously time barred  and, therefore, the same was required to  be<\/p>\n
    dismissed even on the ground of delay, latches and limitation.   The<\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal<\/p>\n
    has decided the point which was not even in issue before it and has<\/p>\n
    accordingly committed an error of law in passing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          None appears for the Respondent, though served.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. We<\/p>\n
    have gone through the Petition as well as the impugned order passed<\/p>\n
    by the Tribunal and another documents which are annexed with the<\/p>\n
    Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          It is not in dispute that as per the appointment order of the<\/p>\n
    Respondent, the Respondent was appointed purely on a temporary<\/p>\n
    post in a temporary vacancy as the appointment order clearly speaks<\/p>\n
    in  this behalf.  It seems that in the mean while the Respondent was<\/p>\n
    involved   in   criminal   case   and   subsequently   after   his   acquittal   he<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    preferred   the   said   Application   before   the  Tribunal.    It   is   however<\/p>\n
    required to be noted that the order of termination is not founded on<\/p>\n
    the   basis   of   the   pendency   of   the   criminal   case   against   the<\/p>\n
    Respondent.  Under the circumstances, the Respondent was required<\/p>\n
    to approach the Tribunal within the period of limitation if he had any<\/p>\n
    grievance as regards the order of termination is concerned.   If in a<\/p>\n
    given case, the  termination\/removal order is passed on the basis of<\/p>\n
    conviction of a person, then naturally on acquittal of such person, he<\/p>\n
    is required to be reinstated in service. But this is not a factual aspect<\/p>\n
    of this case. Looking to the termination order, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
    the   services   of   the   Respondent   were   terminated   on   the   ground   of<\/p>\n
    pendency of the criminal case.  If, according to the Respondent, the<\/p>\n
    termination order was passed on some extraneous ground then he<\/p>\n
    was required to challenge the same immediately and there was no<\/p>\n
    reason for him to wait till the order of acquittal was passed. It is not in<\/p>\n
    dispute that the Respondent had not taken any steps to challenge the<\/p>\n
    order of termination within a reasonable time from the date when it<\/p>\n
    was passed.  After going through the order of termination, it appears<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    that, it is a simplicitor termination order. The Respondent still could<\/p>\n
    have approached the  Tribunal  in stead of waiting for a considerable<\/p>\n
    time of three years.   The termination of the Petitioner has nothing to<\/p>\n
    do with the pendency of the criminal case nor it has any relevance<\/p>\n
    with   the   acquittal   of   the   Petitioner   in   the   said   criminal   case.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering the said aspect, in our view, the Tribunal has committed<\/p>\n
    an error, in passing the impugned order on the ground that in view of<\/p>\n
    acquittal   of   the   Respondent,   he   was   required   to   be   reinstated   in<\/p>\n
    service and that after acquittal he made certain representations and,<\/p>\n
    therefore, the  said  Application being O.A No.656 of  1996  could be<\/p>\n
    said to be within limitation.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Even   if,   the   Respondent   had   any   grievance   against   the<\/p>\n
    termination  order,   he   was   required  to   approach  the  Tribunal  within<\/p>\n
    limitation, in stead, he continued to wait till the verdict of the criminal<\/p>\n
    case   and   after   he   was   acquitted,   he   started   making   demand   of<\/p>\n
    reinstatement in service.  Since the termination order was not based<\/p>\n
    on pendency of the criminal case and, since the Respondent did not<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    approach   the  Tribunal  for   a  considerable    time   since   passing   of<\/p>\n
    termination order, the  Tribunal  could not have passed the impugned<\/p>\n
    order   and   directed   the   Petitioners   to   reinstate   the   Respondent   in<\/p>\n
    service.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           It   is   required   to   be   noted   here   that   while   admitting   the<\/p>\n
    above Petition,   the impugned order has been stayed.   The learned<\/p>\n
    counsel  for   the   Petitioners  pointed  out   that   the   appointment   of   the<\/p>\n
    Respondent was purely on temporary basis in a temporary vacancy,<\/p>\n
    the   Respondent,   therefore,   had   no   right   to   hold   the   said   post.     It<\/p>\n
    cannot be said that the impugned order is passed by way of penalty<\/p>\n
    or that it is a stigmatic order.   It cannot be said that the impugned<\/p>\n
    order   is   a   penal   order.     The  Tribunal  has   committed   an   error   in<\/p>\n
    passing   the   impugned   order.   In   our   view,   therefore,   on   both   the<\/p>\n
    grounds i.e on the ground of limitation as well as on merits also, no<\/p>\n
    order could have been passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the<\/p>\n
    Respondent in service.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.         Considering   the   aforesaid   aspect,   the   impugned   order   of<\/p>\n
    the Tribunal is required to be set aside and the Application preferred<\/p>\n
    by the Respondent i.e. Original Application No.656 of 1996 is required<\/p>\n
    to   be   dismissed.   Hence   the   impugned   order   is   set   aside.   The<\/p>\n
    Application  of the  Respondent being Original Application No.656  of<\/p>\n
    1996   stands   dismissed.     Rule   is   accordingly   made  absolute  in<\/p>\n
    aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    [R.M.SAVANT,J]                                           [P.B.MAJMUDAR,J]\n           \n        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:33:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2001 1] The Union of India , through ] its Secretary, Ministry of ] Rural Development, National ] Drinking Water […]<\/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-151240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBallard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009 - 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\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-05T09:49:35+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\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ballard Estate vs \\\/114\\\/ on 27 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T09:49:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1180,\"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\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Ballard Estate vs \\\/114\\\/ on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T09:49:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ballard Estate vs \\\/114\\\/ on 27 April, 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":"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009 - 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\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-05T09:49:35+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\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T09:49:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009"},"wordCount":1180,"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\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009","name":"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T09:49:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ballard-estate-vs-114-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ballard Estate vs \/114\/ on 27 April, 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\/151240","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=151240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}