{"id":155302,"date":"1977-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977"},"modified":"2018-06-18T03:32:26","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T22:02:26","slug":"everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977","title":{"rendered":"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 2304, \t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 571<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nEVEREST COAL COMPANY (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/09\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 2304\t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 571\n 1978 SCC  (1)\t12\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1984 SC1471\t (25,50)\n\n\nACT:\nCivil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Order XL-Leave to\t sue\nthe  Receiver,\twhether a  must-Principle  behind  obtaining\nprior leave of the court which appointed the Receiver before\nsiting the Receiver, explained.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant-plaintiff  entered into a contract  with\t the\nReceiver  defendant State relating to a coal mine which\t had\ncome within his Receivership in an earlier suit.  While\t the\nappellant  was\tworking the mine under\tthe contract,  the\nReceiver-defendant  after  obtaining the permission  of\t the\ncourt  which  appointed\t him  but  without  notice  to\t the\nappellant,  cancelled the contract.  The appellant sued\t the\nReceiver in damages after giving notice u\/s. 80 C.P.C.,\t but\nwithout\t taking\t the  prior permission of  the\tcourt  which\nappointed  the\tReceiver.  Although he failed to  apply\t for\nleave of the court before suing the Receiver, he made up for\nit by applying to the said court for permission to  continue\nthe  litigation against the Receiver.  The  application\t was\nrejected  on the view that since the petitioner had  already\nfiled  a  suit without leave of the court, the\tquestion  of\ngrant  of  permission  to  continue it\tdid  not  arise.   A\nrevision to the High Court was dismissed in limine.\nAllowing  the appeal by special leave and granting leave  to\nthe  appellant\tto  prosecute  his  suit  against  Receiver-\nrespondent, the court,\nHELD : (1) The principle that prior leave of the court which\nappointed  the\tReceiver  is  necessary\t before\t suing\t the\nReceiver  is  based  on 'contempt' of court.   The  rule  is\nmerely\tto prevent contempt.  Leave obtained before the\t lis\nterminates is a solvent of contempt.  The infirmity does not\nbear upon the jurisdiction of the trying court or the  cause\nof  action.   It  is  peripheral.   The\t property  being  in\ncustodian  legible, the court's leave, liberally granted  is\nneeded.\t  It is the court appointing the Receiver that\tcan,\ngrant  leave.\tIf  a suit  prosecuted\twithout\t such  leave\nculminates  in a decree, it is liable to be set aside.\t[575\nB-E]\n(2)When a court puts a Receiver in possession of property,\nthe  property comes under court custody, the Receiver  being\nmerely an officer or agent of the court.  Any obstruction or\ninterference with the court's possession sounds in  contempt\nof that court.\tAny legal action in respect of that property\nis in a sense such an interference and invites the  contempt\npenalty\t of  likely  invalidation  of  the  suit  or   other\nproceedings.   But, if either be ore starting the action  or\nduring\tits  continuance, the party takes the leave  of\t the\ncourt,\tthe sin is absolved and the proceeding may  continue\nto  a conclusion on the merits.\t In the ordinary course,  no\ncourt is so prestige-conscious that it will stand in the way\nof  a  legitimate legal proceeding for redressal  or  relief\nagainst\t  its\treceiver  unless  the  action\tis   totally\nmeritocrat, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise vitiated  by\nany  sinister factor.  Grant of leave is the  rule,  refusal\nthe  exception.\t After all, the court is not, in  the  usual\nrun  of\t cases, affected by a litigation which\tsettles\t the\nrights of parties and the Receiver represents neither party,\nbeing an officer of the court.\tFor this reason,  ordinarily\nthe  court accords permission to sue, or to  continue.\t The\njurisdiction  to grant leave is undoubted and inherent,\t but\nnot based on black letter, law in the sense of enacted\tlaw.\nAny litigative disturbance of the court's possession without\nits permission amounts to contempt of its authority; and the\nwages of contempt of court in this jurisdiction may well  be\nvoidability of the whole proceeding.  Equally clearly, prior\npermission  of\tthe court appointing the Receiver is  not  a\ncondition  precedent  to  the enforcement of  the  cause  of\naction.\t  Nor is it so grave a vice that later leave  sought\nand got before the decree has been passed will not purge it.\nIf, before the suit terminates, the relevant court is  moved\nand  permission to sue or to prosecute further\tis  granted,\nthe  requirement of law is fulfilled.  Of course failure  to\nsecure\tsuch leave till the end of the lis may prove  fatal.\n[573 E-H, 574 A]\n572\nPramatha Nath v. Ketra Nath (1905) 32 Cal. 270; Jamshedji v.\nHusseinbhai (1920) 44 Bom. 908, 58 I.C. 411, over-ruled.\nBanku Behari 15 Calcutta Weekly Notes 54, approved.\nOBSERVATION:\nWhen any proceeding comes before the court for\tadjudication\nit  is desirable to decide the point instead  of  mystifying\nthe  situation\tby avoiding a clear-cut disposal as  in\t the\npresent case.  A stitch in time saves nine. [573 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2224  of<br \/>\n1977.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated<br \/>\n15-2-77 of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) at Ranchi  in<br \/>\nCivil Revision Appeal No. 24 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n<p>H.   R. Gokhale, and B. P. Singh for the Appellant.<br \/>\nU.   P. Singh and S. N. Jha for the Respondent No. 1.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKRISHNA\t IYFR, J. This appeal, where we have granted  leave,<br \/>\ncan be disposed of right away, now that we have heard  brief<br \/>\nsubmissions  from both sides.  The facts are few, the  issue<br \/>\nis   single  and  the  solution\t simple;  but\tto   silence<br \/>\nconflicting voices from different High Courts and to clarify<br \/>\nthe law for the sake of certainty, we have chosen to make  a<br \/>\nshort  speaking\t order.\t The neat little  legal\t point\tthat<br \/>\narises is this : Can the court appointing a receiver to take<br \/>\ncharge of properties, grant leave to continue a suit against<br \/>\nhim  when  a  third. party wants to  prosecute\tsuch  action<br \/>\ninitiated  without  such permission ? If so,  what  are\t the<br \/>\nguidelines for grant of such leave ?\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant is the plaintiff in a suit instituted by\t him<br \/>\nagainst\t respondent  1\t(defendant in the  suit)  who  is  a<br \/>\nreceiver  appointed  by the court under O.40,, r.  1  C.P.C.<br \/>\nBriefly\t set out, the case of the plaintiff is that  he\t had<br \/>\nentered into a contract with the Receiver defendant relating<br \/>\nto  a  coal  mine which had come  within  his  Receivership.<br \/>\nWhile  he  was\tworking the mine  under\t the  contract,\t the<br \/>\nReceiver-defendant,  after obtaining the permission  of\t the<br \/>\ncourt  which  appointed\t him,  but  without  notice  to\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant, cancelled the contract  wrongfully-such<br \/>\nis his case.  Thereupon, the appellant sued the Receiver  in<br \/>\ndamages\t after giving notice under S. 80 CPC.\tHowever,  he<br \/>\nsomehow failed to move the court for cancelling the  earlier<br \/>\norder  passed  to his prejudice in which  case\tperhaps\t the<br \/>\ncourt\tmight  have  reconsidered  the\torder\tand   issued<br \/>\ndirections to his Receiver.  We are not concerned with\tthat<br \/>\naspect\tof  the\t case  and we do not  propose  to  make\t any<br \/>\nspeculative  observations thereon.  Although the  plaintiff-<br \/>\nappellant  omitted to get leave from the court before  suing<br \/>\nthe  Receiver,\the made up for it, on  second  thoughts,  by<br \/>\napplying  to  the  Court  for  permission  to  continue\t the<br \/>\nlitigation against the Receiver.  When that proceeding\tcame<br \/>\nup for hearing the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed it on<br \/>\nthe view that since the petitioner had already filed a\tsuit<br \/>\nwithout leave of the court, the question of grant of permis-<br \/>\nsion to continue it did not arise.  The court&#8217;s observations<br \/>\nwhich we<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">573<\/span><br \/>\nthink are both unhelpful and erroneous and keeps the parties<br \/>\nin suspense, are couched in these words :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;if the petitioner has already filed the\tsuit<br \/>\n\t      without  leave  of the court, he\thas  already<br \/>\n\t      taken  the risk and now the question does\t not<br \/>\n\t      arise  for  giving a fresh permission  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      matter of continuing the suit.  Because of the<br \/>\n\t      T.S. 74 of 1975 already instituted, the prayer<br \/>\n\t      fog  permission to continue the same does\t not<br \/>\n\t      arise as it is infructuous &#8230; Rejected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A revision to the High Court did not improve matters because<br \/>\nthe  application  was dismissed in limine, with\t the  rather<br \/>\ninnocuously wise statement :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The  law will have its own course and  if  in<br \/>\n\t      law  the\tpetitioner need not have  taken\t the<br \/>\n\t      permission of the court for continuance of the<br \/>\n\t      title suit, no observation made by the learned<br \/>\n\t      Subordinate Judge can arm the petitioner.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In our view, when any proceeding comes before the court\t for<br \/>\nadjudication it is desirable to decide the point instead  of<br \/>\nmystyfying  the situation by avoiding a clear-cut  disposal.<br \/>\nA stitch in time saves nine.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  laconic  affirmance  by the High  Court  of  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt&#8217;s order has necessitated the appellant&#8217;s challenge  of<br \/>\nits  propriety and legality.  Instead of leaving the  matter<br \/>\n&#8216;asfrologically&#8217;  vague and futuristically fluid,  we  shall<br \/>\nstate\tthe  legal  position  and  settle  the\t proposition<br \/>\ngoverning this and similar Situations.\tWhen a court puts  a<br \/>\nReceiver in possession of property, the property comes under<br \/>\ncourt custody, the Receiver being merely an officer or agent<br \/>\nof  the\t court.\t Any obstruction or  interference  with\t the<br \/>\ncourt&#8217;s possession sounds in  contempt\tof that\t court.\t Any<br \/>\nlegal action inrespect of that property\t     is\t in   a<br \/>\nsense such as interference and invitesthe contempt penalty<br \/>\nof   likely  invalidation of the suit or other\tproceedings,<br \/>\nBut  if either\t    before   starting  the  action   or<br \/>\nduring its continuance the party takes\t  the  leave   of<br \/>\nthe court, the sin is absolvedand  the\tproceeding  may<br \/>\ncontinue  to  a conclusion on the merits.  In  the  ordinary<br \/>\ncourt is so prestige-conscious that it will stand in the way<br \/>\nof  a  course, no legitimate legal proceeding for  redressal<br \/>\nor relief against its receiver unless the action is  totally<br \/>\nmeritless,  frivolous or vexatious or otherwise vitiated  by<br \/>\nany  sinister factor.  Grant of leave is the  rule,  refusal<br \/>\nthe  exception.\t After all, the court is not, in  the  usual<br \/>\nrun  of\t cases, affected by a litigation which\tsettles\t the<br \/>\nrights of parties and the Receiver represents neither party,<br \/>\nbeing an officer of the court.\tFor this reason,  ordinarily<br \/>\nthe  court accords permission to sue, or to  continue.\t The<br \/>\njurisdiction  to grant leave is undoubted and inherent,\t but<br \/>\nnot  based on blackletter law in the sense of  enacted\tlaw.<br \/>\nAny  litigative\t disturbance  of  the  court&#8217;s.\t  possession<br \/>\nwithout its permission amounts to contempt of its authority;<br \/>\nand the wages of contempt of court in this jurisdiction\t may<br \/>\nwell  be  voidability  of  the\twhole  proceeding.   Equally<br \/>\nclearly,  prior\t permission  of\t the  court  appointing\t the<br \/>\nReceiver is not a condition precedent to the enforcement  of<br \/>\nthe cause of action.  Nor is it<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">574<\/span><br \/>\nso  grave a vice that later leave sought and got before\t the<br \/>\ndecree\thas been passed will not purge it.  If,\t before\t the<br \/>\nsuit  terminates the relevant court is moved and  permission<br \/>\nto  sue or to prosecute further is granted, the\t requirement<br \/>\nof  law\t is fulfilled.\tOf course, failure  to\tsecure\tsuch<br \/>\nleave till the end of the lis may prove fatal.<br \/>\nThis,  in  short, is the law which has\tbeen  stabilised  by<br \/>\nIndian\tdecisions  although  inherited\tfrom  principles  of<br \/>\nEnglish\t law.  In a sense Indian, English and even  American<br \/>\njurisprudence lend support to this law.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  now\t proceed  to  some  citations,\ttext-book-wise\t and<br \/>\nprecedentwise and indicating the conflict to eliminate which<br \/>\nis the object of this  ruling.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mulla, with characteristic clarity, has condensed the  whole<br \/>\ncorrectly :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;A receiver cannot sue or be sued except\twith<br \/>\n\t      the  leave  of  the  Court  by  which  he\t was<br \/>\n\t      appointed receiver.  A party feeling aggrieved<br \/>\n\t      by the conduct of a receiver may seek  redress<br \/>\n\t      against  him in the very suit in which he\t was<br \/>\n\t      appointed receiver, or he may bring a separate<br \/>\n\t      suit  against  the receiver in which  case  he<br \/>\n\t      must obtain the leave of the court&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\t      x\t\t     x\t\t    x\t\t   x\n\t      x\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;There   is  no  statutory   provision   which<br \/>\n\t      requires\ta  party to take the  leave  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Court  to sue a receiver.\t The rule  has\tcome<br \/>\n\t      down  to us as a part of the rules of  equity,<br \/>\n\t      binding  upon  all courts of Justice  in\tthis<br \/>\n\t      country.\t It  is\t a rule\t based\tupon  public<br \/>\n\t      policy which requires that when the Court\t has<br \/>\n\t      assumed  possession  of  a  property  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      interest\tof  the\t litigants  before  it,\t the<br \/>\n\t      authority of the Court is not to be obstructed<br \/>\n\t      by suits designed to disturb the possession of<br \/>\n\t      the  Court.  The institution of such suits  is<br \/>\n\t      in  the  eye  of the law\ta  contempt  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      authority\t of  the Court, and  therefore,\t the<br \/>\n\t      party contemplating such a suit is required to<br \/>\n\t      take  the leave of the Court so as to  absolve<br \/>\n\t      himself  from that charge.  The grant of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      leave  is\t made not in exercise of  any  power<br \/>\n\t      conferred\t by statute, but in the exercise  of<br \/>\n\t      the inherent power which every Court possesses<br \/>\n\t      to  prevent acts which constitute or are\takin<br \/>\n\t      to an abuse of its authority.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\t      x\t\t     x\t\t   x\t\t   x\n\t      x\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In Pramatha Nath v. Katra Nath (1905) 32 Cal.<br \/>\n\t      270  Bodilly  J. held that the  leave  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Court  to\t sue  a\t receiver  was\ta  condition<br \/>\n\t      precedent\t to  right to sue, and that  if\t the<br \/>\n\t      leave  was not obtained before suit, it  could<br \/>\n\t      not  be granted subsequent to the\t institution<br \/>\n\t      of the suit and the suit should be  dismissed.<br \/>\n\t      This decision was dissented from in subsequent<br \/>\n\t      Calcutta\tcases  where it was  held  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      leave   may   be\tgranted\t  even\t after\t the<br \/>\n\t      institution of the suit.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      x\t\t     x<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      575<\/span><br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Leave  subsequently obtained at the  time  of<br \/>\n\t      realising rents directly from the tenants will<br \/>\n\t      suffice.\t In  a\tBombay\tease  (Jamshedji  v.<br \/>\n\t      Hussainbhai,  1920 44 Bom. 908, 58  I.C.\t411)<br \/>\n\t      Pratt,  J., after an exhaustive review of\t the<br \/>\n\t      case-law\ton  the subject, came  to  the\tsame<br \/>\n\t      conclusion;   the\t learned  judge\t held\tthat<br \/>\n\t      failure\tto   obtain  leave  prior   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      institution   of\t the  suit  was\t  cured\t  by<br \/>\n\t      subsequent leave.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (Mulla, Vol. 11, pp. 1533-34, 13th Edn.  CPC)<br \/>\n\t      Since  the principle is based on\tcontempt  of<br \/>\n\t      court, statutory follow up. actions are carved<br \/>\n\t      out  as exceptions (suits under  0.21,  0.63).<br \/>\n\t      Likewise,\t where no relief is claimed  against<br \/>\n\t      the receiver.  Similarly, whether the receiver<br \/>\n\t      was  appointed  in  a collusive  suit  or\t the<br \/>\n\t      order,  itself was unjustified are beside\t the<br \/>\n\t      point.  The property being in custodian legis,<br \/>\n\t      the   court&#8217;s  leave,  liberally\tgranted\t  is<br \/>\n\t      needed.\tIt  is\tthe  court  appointing\t the<br \/>\n\t      receiver\tthat  can grant leave.\t If  a\tsuit<br \/>\n\t      prosecuted without such leave culminates in  a<br \/>\n\t      decree it is liable to be set aside.<br \/>\n\t      Once  the jurisprudential root of the  law  is<br \/>\n\t      grasped,\tthat the rule is merely\t to  prevent<br \/>\n\t      contempt, the many problems proliferating from<br \/>\n\t      the  appointment\tof  a  receiver\t and   legal<br \/>\n\t      proceedings against him without the appointing<br \/>\n\t      court&#8217;s  permission can be sorted out  without<br \/>\n\t      converting the failure to get sanction  before<br \/>\n\t      institution  into a major, even  fussy  issue.<br \/>\n\t      Leave obtained before the lis terminates is  a<br \/>\n\t      solvent  of the contempt.\t The infirmity\tdoes<br \/>\n\t      not  bear upon the jurisdiction of the  trying<br \/>\n\t      court   or  the  cause  of  action.    It\t  is<br \/>\n\t      perepheral.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      The  extreme view taken in Pramatha Nath\t(ILR<br \/>\n\t      32  Calcutta  270)  is not  good\tlaw.   Banku<br \/>\n\t      Behari (15 CWN 54) a later ruling of the\tsame<br \/>\n\t      High Court, has struck the correct note :<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;But  we\tare unable to appreciate  upon\twhat<br \/>\n\t      intelligible  principle  the position  can  be<br \/>\n\t      defended\tthat  because  the  suit  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      instituted  without leave Previously  obtained<br \/>\n\t      it must necessarily be dismissed, and that  it<br \/>\n\t      is  not open to the Court to stay\t proceedings<br \/>\n\t      in  the  suit  with  a  view  of\tenable\t the<br \/>\n\t      Plaintiff\t to  obtain leave of  the  Court  to<br \/>\n\t      proceed with the suit against the Receiver.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Bombay and Madras, Kerala and Mysore, have claimed in,\tsome<br \/>\ngoing  into  long  erudition, others  readily  granting\t the<br \/>\nposition.  The standard commentaries on the C.P.C. (Mulla as<br \/>\nwell as A.I.R.) concur in this view, footnoting the flow  of<br \/>\npan-Indian case-law.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  law  in  this branch, though  based  on  Anglo-American<br \/>\nthought,  has  a legitimacy when viewed as contempt  of\t the<br \/>\ncourt&#8217;s\t authority.   Once amends are made  by\tlater  leave<br \/>\nbeing  obtained,  the  gravamen is gone\t and  the  suit\t can<br \/>\nproceed.   The pity is that sometimes even such\t points\t are<br \/>\nexpanded  into\timportant questions calculated\tto  protract<br \/>\nIndian\t litigation   already\tsuffering   from   unhealthy<br \/>\nlongevity.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">576<\/span><\/p>\n<p>A  pragmatic  view,  not  theoretical  perfection,  is\t the<br \/>\ncorrective.  The leave should have been given.<br \/>\nWe  allow the appeal-in the hope that such an objection\t may<br \/>\nnot  become  a dilatory chapter in  other  litigations.\t  We<br \/>\ngrant  leave to the appellant to prosecute his suit  against<br \/>\nthe  Receiver-respondent.   The\t parties  will\tbear   their<br \/>\nrespective  costs  in  this  avoidable\tadventure,  but\t the<br \/>\nrespondent will be free to urge all his other contentions to<br \/>\nmeet the plaintiff&#8217;s claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">577<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 2304, 1978 SCR (1) 571 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: EVEREST COAL COMPANY (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/09\/1977 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 - 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\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\" \/>\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=\"1977-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-17T22:02:26+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T22:02:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\"},\"wordCount\":1973,\"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\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\",\"name\":\"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T22:02:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977\"}]},{\"@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":"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 - 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\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-17T22:02:26+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977","datePublished":"1977-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T22:02:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977"},"wordCount":1973,"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\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977","name":"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T22:02:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/everest-coal-company-p-ltd-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-29-september-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 29 September, 1977"}]},{"@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\/155302","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=155302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155302\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}