{"id":154771,"date":"2011-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-15T01:34:06","modified_gmt":"2016-05-14T20:04:06","slug":"shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.7806 of 2006\n\nShanmugam                        ... Petitioner\n\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The Presiding Officer,\n  Labour Court,\n  Trichirappalli.\n\n2.The Management,\n  Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation\n  (Kumbakonam Division-II) Limited,\n   Trichirappali\n  represented by its\n  Managing Director,\n  Trichirappalli.                  ... Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certitiorarified Mandamus,  calling for the\nrecords of the first respondent in I.D.No.14\/2001 and award, dated 16.06.2004\nand quash the same is illegal and directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the\npetitioner with continuity of service and full back-wages.\n\n!For Petitioner\t  ... Mr.S.Muthu Krishnan\n^For 2 Respondent ... Mr.D.Muruganandam\n                      Addl. Government Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a<br \/>\nwrit, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the award passed by the learned<br \/>\nLabour Court, Trichirappalli, in answering the reference against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The petitioner was working as &#8216;Conductor&#8217; with the Tamil Nadu State<br \/>\nTransport Corporation Ltd., since 1985. The petitioner was charged with<br \/>\nmisappropriation of fund, on 9.6.2000 and was placed under suspension, on<br \/>\n16.06.2000.  The domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner, in which, he<br \/>\nwas held guilty of the charge of misappropriation, and accordingly, 2nd show<br \/>\ncause notice was issued against the proposed punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Finding the explanation given by the petitioner to be not satisfactory,<br \/>\nhe was ordered to be dismissed from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the order of<br \/>\ndismissal, which was  referred to the learned Labour Court. The petition was<br \/>\ncontested wherein the stand of the Management was, that the petitioner was on<br \/>\nduty, in bus bearing registration No.TN45-N-1217, on 03.05.2000 on Karur to<br \/>\nTrichy route. The checking inspector checked the bus near Trichy Head office<br \/>\naround 3.10 p.m.  The fare mentioned in four tickets were illegible and the<br \/>\nchecking inspector accordingly wrote the fare as Rs.29\/- [Rupees Twenty nine<br \/>\nonly] in the invoice and concluded the checking.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The invoice was verified from 28.05.2000 to 02.6.2000, wherein<br \/>\ncorrection, in the fare, in 4 counter foils was detected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The checking inspector asked the passengers, to travel in the bus and<br \/>\nbring the tickets.  The bus passengers boarded the bus TN-45-N-1217 on 9.6.2000<br \/>\nat Pettavaithalai and travelled to Trichy.  The petitioner received a sum of<br \/>\nRs.36.25\/- [Rupees Thirty six and Twenty five paise only] as fare from 5<br \/>\npassengers and issued 4 tickets.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The statement of those passengers, was also recorded, but subsequently,<br \/>\nit was found that the fare in the ticket was altered and shown as Rs.2.25\/-<br \/>\n[Rupees Two and Twenty five paise only] instead of Rs.7.25\/- [Rupees Seven and<br \/>\nTwenty five paise only] for each ticket.  Thus, the petitioner misappropriated a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.15\/-[Rupees Fifteen only].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.On appreciation of evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that petitioner<br \/>\nguilty. The petitioner was also found to be guilty of misconduct, on seven<br \/>\noccasions earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not challenge the<br \/>\nfairness of the domestic enquiry and made an endorsement in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.In-spite of fact that, the endorsement was made by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the petitioner, before the learned Labour Court, not to<br \/>\nquestion the fairness of domestic enquiry, the learned Labour Court, still went<br \/>\ninto the merit of the allegations and recorded that the charges against the<br \/>\npetitioner stood proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The documentary evidence was looked into by the learned Labour Court,<br \/>\nto record petitioner guilty.  The learned Labour Court, held that the findings<br \/>\nof the Enquiry Officer could not be said to be perverse, or not based on<br \/>\nevidence. The learned Labour Court, thereafter considered the question, whether<br \/>\nthe punishment awarded was harsh and grossly disproportionate to the nature of<br \/>\nmisconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The learned Labour Court, by relying on the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Venkat Rao Vs. Depot Manager,<br \/>\nCharminar Depot APSRTC, Hyderabad and others, [2004 LLR 186] and that of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of B.Krishnappa Vs. The Managing<br \/>\nDirector, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore, [2003 LLR<br \/>\n411], held that the punishment for dismissal could not be said to be harsh or<br \/>\ndisproportionate in case of proved charge of misappropriation of funds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.The reliance was also placed on the judgment of this court, in the case<br \/>\nof <a href=\"\/doc\/614022\/\">The Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Ltd., vs.<br \/>\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court,<\/a> [2002 LLR 1096], to uphold the punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged<br \/>\nthe finding of the learned Labour Court, by contending that the charge of<br \/>\nmisappropriation against the petitioner was not proved, as none of the<br \/>\npassengers were examined by the Enquiry Officer during the domestic enquiry, and<br \/>\nthat the finding was recorded on the sole statement of the checking inspector,<br \/>\nwhich was merely on hearsay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the finding of the enquiry officer, as also the learned Labour Court are<br \/>\nbased on conjuncture and presumption, thus being perverse cannot be sustained,<br \/>\nin law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.The fairness of the enquiry was not challenged before the learned<br \/>\nLabour Court. In-spite of that, the learned Labour Court recorded an independent<br \/>\nfinding, holding that  the charges against the petitioner stood proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.It is now well settled that in the domestic enquiry, hearsay, evidence<br \/>\nis admissible. The evidence of the checking inspector was based on the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence of ticket&#8217;s counter foils.  The documentary evidence was<br \/>\nduly exhibited on record, therefore, it cannot be said that that finding is<br \/>\nbased on, no evidence or perverse, as contended by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.The punishment of dismissal also cannot be said to be too harsh or<br \/>\ndisproportionate to charge of misappropriation of fund, which is serious<br \/>\nmisconduct. The punishment of the dismissal from service, therefore, cannot be<br \/>\nsaid too harsh or disproportionate to proved charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.No merit. &#8220;Dismissed&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court,<br \/>\nTrichirappalli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.7806 of 2006 Shanmugam &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichirappalli. 2.The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-II) Limited, Trichirappali represented by its Managing [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 - 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\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-14T20:04:06+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\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T20:04:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":905,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T20:04:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 - 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\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-14T20:04:06+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\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T20:04:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011"},"wordCount":905,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011","name":"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T20:04:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanmugam-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-22-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shanmugam vs The Presiding Officer on 22 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/154771","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=154771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}