{"id":151758,"date":"2006-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006"},"modified":"2015-02-04T14:02:37","modified_gmt":"2015-02-04T08:32:37","slug":"ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B.Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3071 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHaridas & Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B.Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha,  J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant herein is a company incorporated and registered under
\nthe Companies Act, 1956.  It deals in production and supply of seeds to the
\nfarmers.  The respondent herein was appointed as an Assistant Field Officer.
\nWhile he was working at Nanded, misconducts committed by him came to
\nthe notice of his superior officer.  A preliminary enquiry was conducted
\nthereabout whereafter a charge sheet was issued to him.  A disciplinary
\nproceeding was thereafter initiated against him.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Enquiry Officer held:\n<\/p>\n
“(1) It is proved that Shri H.D. Jadhao AFO has
\nviolated the instructions of D.M. Nanded for
\ndistribution of F\/seeds on credit to the eligible seed
\ngrowers of Deglur and Mukhed He is also
\nresponsible for non recovery of outstanding
\namount of Rs. 19,938.50 from the seed growers
\ntowards cost of F\/seeds, Inspection fees &
\nApplication fees etc. out of this amont Shri
\nGorthekar is responsible for non deposition of Rs.
\n2675\/- as per his undertaking & hence Shri Jadhao
\nstands responsible for non recovery of net amount
\nof Rs. 17,263.59.\n<\/p>\n
For the amount of Rs. 2437\/- towards shortage of
\nF\/seed Shri Jadhao as well as Shri Gorthekar
\nstands responsible.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Shri Jadhao cannot be held responsible totally
\nfor late submission of record since the persons
\ninvolved in distribution of F\/seeds etc. was
\nabsconding & hence some time was required to
\ncollect the information from the seed growers.
\nAlso the charge of non recovery of outstanding
\namount of Rs. 35,190\/- from the seed growers in
\nabsence of the record cannot be proved.\n<\/p>\n
(3) It cannot be proved that the amount paid to Shri
\nJadhao by the seed growers or their representatives
\nhas not deposited by him.  However, it is
\nconcluded that the entire mesh has been created on
\naccount of negligence on the part of Shri Jadhao.\n<\/p>\n
(4) It is proved beyond doubt that an amount of Rs.
\n26104\/- collected from the seed growers have been
\nmisappropriated by Shri Jadhao.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Since the 22 bags of Hy. Cotton DCH-32 have
\nbeen traced out the charge of misappropriation of
\nthis stock by Shri Jadhao cannot be proved.\n<\/p>\n
(6) It is also concluded that Shri Jadhao proceeded
\non leave without prior permission of the superior
\nfrom time to time.  Similarly he has not attended
\nthe weekly meetings called by D.M. without
\nsatisfactory reasons.  As a result he was not aware
\nabout the instructions given by the D.M. from time
\nto time.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Enquiry Officer, in his report, thus, found him guilty of
\ncommission of the following misconducts :  (1) He violated the instructions
\nissued by the District Magistrate, Nanded. (2) He misappropriated a huge
\namount of the Corporation. (3) He remained on leave without prior approval
\nof leave and failed to attend the meetings.\n<\/p>\n
  It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer recommended
\npunishment of the Respondent for commission of the said misconducts in the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
“(1) An amount of Rs. 17,263.50 should be
\nrecovered from Shri Jadhao is suitable instalments
\nalong with interest.\n<\/p>\n
(2) It is also proposed to recover interest on an
\namount of Rs. 26,104\/- for the period from 18.6.91
\nto 17.9.91.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 50% cost of shortages in foundation seed i.e.
\nRs. 1219\/- should also be recovered from Shri
\nJadhao.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Two increments should be barred permanently.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Warning letter may be issued to Shri Jadhao to
\nbe punctual in attending corporation’s work in
\nfuture not to leave H.Q. without prior permission
\nof the superior and follow all the instructions
\nscrupulously henceforth failing which stern action
\nwill be taken against him.\n<\/p>\n
(6) It is further proposed that an amount of Rs.
\n2675\/- as well as Rs. 1218\/- towards 50% costs of
\nshortages in foundation seeds should be recovered
\nfrom Shri Gorthekar.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Managing Director of the appellant company on or about
\n27.1.1994 issued a show cause notice as to why two increments of pay from
\nhis salary should not be directed to be with held permanently.  The 1st
\nrespondent filed his show cause thereto.  However, another second show
\ncause notice in supercession of the earlier notice, was issued on 21.3.1994
\nby the Managing Director of the appellant company on the ground that the
\ncharges which were proved against the 1st respondent being serious in nature
\nand having regard to the gravity thereof, why the punishments specified
\ntherein should not be imposed, stating :\n<\/p>\n
“(4) – After scrutinising the documents again I
\nhave come to the conclusion that the punishment
\nof freezing two increments is very mild.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, I am cancelling previous Notice No.
\nMahabeej\/Admn.,94\/10893 dated 2.2.94 and I
\nhave decided that Shri Hariprasad Drupadrao
\nJadhav, Asst. Area Officer is a person not worth
\nkeeping in the service.  And therefore, the
\nundersigned has imposed dismissal from service
\non him.  Similarly, due to your misappropriation
\nthe Corporation has a loss of Rs. 15234\/- which is
\nproposed to be recovered from you.  The
\nCorporation has reserved its right to recover the
\nsaid amount from you through civil suit.  Also the
\nCorporation has reserved its right to file criminal
\ncase against you for the misappropriation of
\nCorporation funds.\n<\/p>\n
(5) – Shri Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhav is given an
\nopportunity through this memorandum to formally
\nsubmit his reply to the proposal of disciplinary
\naction to be taken against him.   However, such
\nformal reply can be made based on the evidence
\nsubmitted by him during the departmental enquiry.
\nAny formal reply against the proposed disciplinary
\naction desired by him should be in writing which
\ncan be considered by the undersigned.  The formal
\nreply should reach the undersigned within fifteen
\ndays from receipt of this memorandum.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe respondent filed his show cause in furtherance of the said notice.
\nUpon consideration of the said show cause the services of the 1st respondent
\nwas terminated by an order dated 27.9.1994.  He questioned the legality of
\nthe said order by filing a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the
\nBombay High Court, which was marked as WP No. 1343\/95.
\n \tThe High Court in the impugned judgment noticed that he committed
\nthe following misconduct:\n<\/p>\n
“(i) The petitioner distributed seeds on credit to
\nthose who were not eligible.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The amount collected from seed growers
\ntowards cost of foundation seed names, whereas
\nthe same was deposited late i.e. 17.9.1989.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The petitioner prepared false documents for
\ndespatching of 21 bags and had misappropriated
\n22 bags of DCH 32 cotton seed.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The petitioner remained absent for weekly
\nmeeting.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The petitioner was negligent in writing
\nfoundation seed delivery register in time, whereas
\nshortages amounting to Rs. 2437\/- were noticed.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tBy reason of the impugned judgment although the High Court held
\nthat the disciplinary proceedings had been held in accordance with law,
\ninterfered with the quantum of punishment directing his reinstatement with
\ncontinuity in service and full back wages opined that ‘withholding of two
\nincrements of pay permanently’ should be imposed on him.   The Division
\nBench of the High Court assigned the following reasons in support of its
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tTwo show cause notices, on the quantum of punishment could not
\nhave been issued;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t The Managing Director of the appellant company should have
\nfollowed the rules and procedure laid down in the manual of
\nDepartmental Enquiries and in relation thereto relied on Rule 42 of
\nthe said manual which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“No order imposing on an employee
\nany of the penalties shall be passed by
\nthe competent authority without the
\ncharge or charges being
\ncommunicated to him in writing and
\nwithout his having been given
\nreasonable opportunity of defending
\nhimself against such charges or
\ncharges and\/or showing cause against
\nthe action proposed to be taken
\nagainst him.  Procedure laid down in
\nmanual of Departmental Enquiries of
\nGovt. of Maharashtra will be referred
\nand the same shall be made
\napplicable.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was observed that if the Disciplinary Authority intended to differ
\nwith the Enquiry Officer, it was incumbent upon him to assign specific
\nreasons therefore and the Disciplinary Authority could not thus change his
\nmind and to take different views at different times.\n<\/p>\n
It was held:\n<\/p>\n
“It has come on record that amount of defalcation
\nof Rs. 17,263.50 was to be recovered from the
\npetitioner by way of punishment.  It has also come
\non record that, in the meantime, respondents did
\nfile civil suit for recovery of the said amount from
\nthe petitioner.  The matter was amicably settled
\nbetween the parties and the respondents, thereafter,
\nand, to that extent, the matter was compromised
\nbetween the parties, out of the court.  Taking into
\nconsideration all the circumstances appearing in
\nthis case, in their sequence, it appears that, the
\npunishment of withholding two increments of pay,
\npermanently, as proposed in the show cause notice
\n(Exh E), is just and proper.  Therefore, we are of
\nthe opinion that, such punishment, which was
\nproposed by the enquiry officer, of withholding
\ntwo increments of pay, permanently, should be
\naccepted and confirmed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Uday Kumar Sagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant in assailing the judgment of the High Court submitted that the
\nHigh Court was not justified in setting aside the second show cause notice
\non the ground that the same was not provided for under the rules although no
\nembargo in this behalf was to be found.  In any event, it was urged, the High
\nCourt was not correct in directing back wages without appreciating the
\ntotality of the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Uday B. Dube, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, contended that the issuance of second show
\ncause was illegal.   The learned counsel further submitted that the Enquiry
\nOfficer committed an error in holding the respondent guilty of the charge of
\ndefalcation.  It was furthermore brought to our notice that pursuant to the
\ninterim order of this Court dated 6.5.2004, 1\/4th of the salary had already
\nbeen paid to the 1st respondent and, thus, the same may not be directed to be
\nrecovered.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court in its impugned judgment opined that the correctness
\nof the report could not be doubted.   Having held so, as noticed hereinbefore,
\nit proceeded to interfere with the quantum of punishment on the premise that
\nthe second show cause notice was illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt has not been shown to us, despite repeated query made in this behalf
\nas to whether under the statutory rules, the Enquiry Officer was empowered
\nto make any recommendation to the Disciplinary Authority as regard
\nquantum of punishment to be imposed upon a delinquent employee.   The
\nHigh Court has noticed that the disciplinary proceedings are governed by the
\nManual of Departmental Enquiries.  However, no provision therein has been
\npointed out to show that the Enquiry Officer was statutorily or otherwise
\nempowered to make recommendations as regards quantum of punishment.
\nReference to Rule 42 of the said manual by the High court was wholly
\nirrelevant as indisputably the procedures laid down therein for holding
\ndepartmental enquiry had been complied with.  It is not the case of the 1st
\nrespondent either before the High Court or before us that no charge was
\nframed and communicated to him and he has not been given an opportunity
\nto show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.  He
\nadmittedly participated in the departmental enquiry.  It is also not his case
\nthat in the said departmental proceedings principles of natural justice had not
\nbeen complied with.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe charges levelled against the 1st respondent were serious in nature.
\nHe has been found guilty of grave misconduct including defalcation of huge
\namount, preparation of false documents as also misappropriation of 22 bags
\nof DCH 32 cotton seeds.  It has also been proved that he has violated
\ninstructions for distribution of seeds apart from remaining absent from work.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not a case, with respect to the High Court, where the disciplinary
\nauthority had differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.  The question
\nof differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary
\nauthority would arise only when the delinquent officer is exonerated either
\nwholly or in part of the charges levelled against him whereas the disciplinary
\nauthority forms a different opinion.  Most of the charges have been found
\nproved and the Disciplinary Authority to that extent did not differ with the
\nreport of the Enquiry Officer.  So far as the quantum of punishment
\nproposed by the Enquiry Officer is concerned, if in terms of the rules, he had
\nno authority to do so, the Managing Director was entitled to apply his own
\nmind and could come to a conclusion as regard the quantum of punishment
\nwhich should be imposed on the delinquent officer.  He in that view of the
\nmatter was not obligated to assign any far less sufficient and cogent reason
\nas it was not the requirement of law.  In any view of the matter, from the
\nsecond notice dated 22.3.1994 issued by the Managing Director of the
\nCorporation it is evident that sufficient and cogent reasons have been
\nassigned therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tA departmental proceeding stricto sensu is not a judicial proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is nothing in the rules to show that the disciplinary authority
\ncannot consider the materials on record with a view to form an independent
\nopinion as regard quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent
\nemployee.  He might have committed a mistake in issuing the first show
\ncause notice but by reason thereof he cannot be held to be wholly precluded
\nfrom issuing the second show cause notice as thereby he intended to rectify
\nthe mistake committed by him.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another v. T.K.
\nSuryanarayan and Others [(1997) 6 SCC 766] a promotion granted by a
\nmistake in ignorance of the service rules was held to be capable of being
\nrectified stating:\n<\/p>\n
“Incorrect promotion either given erroneously
\nby the Department by misreading the said Service
\nRules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial
\norders contrary to Service Rules cannot be a
\nground to claim erroneous promotion by
\nperpetrating infringement of statutory service
\nrules. In a court of law, employees cannot be
\npermitted to contend that the Service Rules made
\neffective on 1-10-1975 should not be adhered to
\nbecause in some cases erroneous promotions had
\nbeen given”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Poothundu Plantations Pvt. Ltd. v. Agricultural Income Tax
\nOfficer, Chittoor, Kerala State and others<\/a> [(1996) 9 SCC 499], it was stated:\n<\/p>\n
“4. There can be no doubt that only an apparent
\nerror of fact or law can be rectified by an officer. If
\nthe mistake of law has to be established by
\nconstruing the words of a section to find its proper
\nmeaning, then such an error cannot normally be a
\nrectifiable error under Section 36. If two views are
\npossible, then obviously the error will not be an
\nerror apparent from the record.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs the Enquiry Officer had no jurisdiction to recommend any
\npunishment to be imposed on the respondent by the disciplinary authority,
\nhe although acted thereupon at the first instance, could have corrected his
\nmistake as the same was apparent on the face of the record.  He, therefore,
\ndid not commit any illegality in issuing the second show cause notice as
\nEnquiry Officer had no jurisdiction in that behalf.  See M.Ahammedkutty
\nHaji V. Tahsildar, Kozhikode, Kerala & Ors.<\/a> [(2005) 3 SCC 351].  Mistake
\nfurthermore, may either be of law or fact.  By reason of mistake on the part
\nof the Enquiry Officer, the respondent could not have been inflicted with a
\nminor penalty although he deserved a major penalty.  If in law the quantum
\nof punishment to be imposed upon a delinquent officer is within the
\nexclusive domain of the disciplinary authority, unless otherwise delegated to
\nany other authority, he alone could exercise the said jurisdiction and
\ndetermine the same having regard the nature and guilty of the misconduct on
\nthe part of the delinquent officer as the Enquiry Officer or any other
\nauthority had no jurisdiction in relation thereto. The matter might have been
\ndifferent if prior to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service
\nagainst the 1st respondent, no opportunity of hearing had been given to him.
\nAdmittedly the second show cause notice was issued to him and he showed
\ncause.  It is also not contended that the order passed by the disciplinary
\nauthority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.  The principles of
\nnatural justice admittedly have been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court proceeded on the basis that in absence of the specific
\nprovision the second show cause notice was impermissible.  It failed to
\nconsider that there was no statutory interdict in this behalf.  An
\nadministrative order can be recalled.  A mistake can be rectified.  The
\nManaging Director of the Corporation as a disciplinary authority, it has not
\nbeen shown to us, lacked inherent jurisdiction in relation thereto.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe 1st respondent held an office of trust.  He  distributed seeds to the
\nfarmers.  He collected a huge amount from them.  He not only defalcated a
\nhuge amount but also misappropriated some bags of seeds.  It was in the
\naforementioned situation improper for the High Court to interfere with the
\nquantum of punishment.  It is now well settled that in a matter of
\ndisciplinary proceedings the High Court exercises a limited power.  [See
\nGovt. of A.P. & Ors. V. Mohad. Nasrullah Khan<\/a> [ JT 2006 (2) SC 82], L. K.
\nVerma V. H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr.<\/a> [JT 2006 (2) SC 99],  Karnataka Bank Ltd. V.
\nA.L. Mohan Rao [(2006) 1 SCC 63] and Hombe Gowda Educational Trust
\n& Anr. V. Sate of Karnataka & Ors.<\/a> [(2006) 1 SCC 430].
\n \tThe grounds for judicial review are limited. In Damoh Panna Sagar
\nRural Regional Bank & anr. V. Munna Lal Jain [(2005) 10 SCC 84]  this
\nCourt held that when the High Court intends to interfere with the quantum of
\npunishment  on the ground that the same is shockingly disproportionate, it
\nmust record reasons for coming to such a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
\nsustained which is set aside accordingly.  The Appeal is allowed. However,
\nany amount paid to the 1st respondent pursuant to the order of this  Court
\nmay not be recovered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B.Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3071 of 2004 PETITIONER: M\/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd RESPONDENT: Haridas & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006 BENCH: S.B.Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds ... vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 - 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\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds ... vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-04T08:32:37+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-04T08:32:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3016,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds ... vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-04T08:32:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds ... vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 - 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\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds ... vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-04T08:32:37+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-04T08:32:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006"},"wordCount":3016,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006","name":"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds ... vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-04T08:32:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maharashtra-state-seeds-vs-haridas-anr-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Maharashtra State Seeds … vs Haridas & Anr on 24 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/151758","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=151758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}