{"id":155457,"date":"2007-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007"},"modified":"2015-04-20T10:48:40","modified_gmt":"2015-04-20T05:18:40","slug":"marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4454-4466 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nMarathwada Agricultural University &amp; Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMarathwada Krishi Vidyapith,M.S.K.S. &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4454-4466 OF 2000<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe present appeals are directed against the judgment of<br \/>\na Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.  Several Writ<br \/>\nPetitions were disposed of by the High Court.  These writ<br \/>\npetitions were filed either by the Unions of the workers of the<br \/>\nMarathwada Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\nthe &#8216;University&#8217;) or by the employees of the University against<br \/>\nthe State of Maharashtra and against the University.  The<br \/>\nprimary grievance was that qualification, nature of work,<br \/>\nduties and responsibilities of the work of labourers who were<br \/>\ndaily rated labourers are same as that of permanent labourers<br \/>\nemployed by the University.  Even then the daily rated workers<br \/>\nwere getting far less wages than the emoluments which were<br \/>\nbeing paid to permanent labourers.  It was also submitted that<br \/>\nthe Maharashtra Mumbai Wages Commission constituted<br \/>\nunder the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had fixed the rate of<br \/>\nwages depending upon the zones in the Marathwada region.<br \/>\nBut the University paid these daily rated workers far less.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe High Court held that denial of the appropriate wages<br \/>\nto the daily-rated workers amounted to exploitation of labour.<br \/>\nThe Government cannot take advantage of its dominant<br \/>\nposition by forcing them to work as casual labourers on<br \/>\nstarvation wages. Therefore, it was directed that the daily<br \/>\nrated workers were to be paid wages with effect from 1st May,<br \/>\n1988 at the rate of basic pay i.e. at the minimum of the pay<br \/>\nscale plus dearness allowance divided by 26.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe directions in essence were as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Therefore it is being directed that if the daily<br \/>\nrated workers are being given paid weekly off,<br \/>\nthen they be paid the wages at the rate of basic<br \/>\npay (at the minimum of the pay scale) plus<br \/>\ndearness allowance divided by 30; and if paid<br \/>\nweekly off is not being given to the daily rated<br \/>\nworkers, then they be paid wages at the rate of<br \/>\nbasic pay (at the minimum of the pay scale)<br \/>\nplus dearness allowance divided by 26.  Such<br \/>\npayment should be on the basis of the<br \/>\ncategories of the daily rated workers, such as,<br \/>\nskilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, as the case<br \/>\nmay be.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\nworkers were seasonal workers and the question of<br \/>\nregularization does not arise in view of what has been stated<br \/>\nby this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka &amp; Ors. v. Uma<br \/>\nDevi and Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1).\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tLearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand<br \/>\nsubmitted that there is no question of regularization but of<br \/>\nparity of pay.  A dispute has been raised by the appellant that<br \/>\nthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the &#8216;ID Act&#8217;) was<br \/>\nnot applicable because the University was not an industry.  It<br \/>\nwas also submitted that the High Court&#8217;s direction is to work<br \/>\nout applicable norms.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tConsidering the peculiar nature of the controversy, we<br \/>\nfeel that a committee should be constituted for the purpose of<br \/>\nrationalization of the wages to be paid to the concerned<br \/>\nworkers. In Uma Devi&#8217;s case (supra) in paras 20 &amp; 21 it was<br \/>\nnoted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The decision in Dharwad Distt. PWD<br \/>\nLiterate Daily Wage Employees  Assn. v. State<br \/>\nof Karnataka (1990(2)SCC 396) dealt with a<br \/>\nscheme framed by the State of Karnataka,<br \/>\nthough at the instance of the Court. The<br \/>\nscheme was essentially relating to the<br \/>\napplication of the concept of equal pay for<br \/>\nequal work hut it also provided for making<br \/>\npermanent, or what it called regularization,<br \/>\nwithout keeping the distinction in mind, of<br \/>\nemployees who had been appointed ad hoc,<br \/>\ncasually, temporarily or on daily-wage basis.<br \/>\nIn other words, employees who had been<br \/>\nappointed without following the procedure<br \/>\nestablished by law for such appointments.<br \/>\nThis Court, at the threshold, stated that it<br \/>\nshould individualise justice to suit a given<br \/>\nsituation. With respect it is not possible to<br \/>\naccept the statement, unqualified as it<br \/>\nappears to be. This Court is not only the<br \/>\nconstitutional court, it is also the highest<br \/>\ncourt in the country, the final court of appeal.<br \/>\nBy virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution,<br \/>\nwhat this Court lays down is the law of the<br \/>\nland. Its decisions are binding on all the<br \/>\ncourts. Its main role is to interpret the<br \/>\nconstitutional and other statutory provisions<br \/>\nbearing in mind the fundamental philosophy<br \/>\nof the Constitution. We have given unto<br \/>\nourselves a system of governance by rule of<br \/>\nlaw. The role of the Supreme Court is to<br \/>\nrender justice according to law. As one jurist<br \/>\nput it, the Supreme Court is expected to<br \/>\ndecide questions of law for the country and<br \/>\nnot to decide individual cases without<br \/>\nreference to such principles of law.<br \/>\nConsistency is a virtue. Passing orders not<br \/>\nconsistent with its own decisions on law, is<br \/>\nhound to send out confusing signals and<br \/>\nusher in judicial chaos. Its role, therefore, is<br \/>\nreally to interpret the law and decide cases<br \/>\ncoming before it, according to law. Orders<br \/>\nwhich are inconsistent with the legal<br \/>\nconclusions arrived at by the court in the<br \/>\nselfsame judgment not only create confusion<br \/>\nbut also tend to usher in arbitrariness<br \/>\nhighlighting the statement, that equity tends<br \/>\nto vary with the Chancellor&#8217;s foot.\n<\/p>\n<p> In Dharwad case (supra) this Court was<br \/>\nactually dealing with the question of &#8220;equal<br \/>\npay for equal work&#8221; and had directed the<br \/>\nState of Karnataka to frame a scheme in that<br \/>\nbehalf. In para 17 of the judgment (in SCC),<br \/>\nthis Court stated that the precedents obliged<br \/>\nthe State of Karnataka to regularise the<br \/>\nservices of the casual or daily\/monthly-rated<br \/>\nemployees and to make them the same<br \/>\npayment as regular employees were getting.<br \/>\nActually, this Court took note of the argument<br \/>\nof counsel for the State that in reality and as<br \/>\na matter of statecraft, implementation of such<br \/>\na direction was an economic impossibility and<br \/>\nat best only a scheme could be framed. Thus<br \/>\na scheme for absorption of casual\/daily-rated<br \/>\nemployees appointed on or before 1-7-1984<br \/>\nwas framed and accepted. The economic<br \/>\nconsequences of its direction were taken note<br \/>\nof by this Court in the following words: (SCC<br \/>\npp. 408-09, para 24)<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;24. We are alive to the position that<br \/>\nthe scheme which we have finalised is<br \/>\nnot the ideal one but as we have<br \/>\nalready stated, it is the obligation of<br \/>\nthe court to individualise justice to<br \/>\nsuit a given situation in a set of facts<br \/>\nthat are placed before it. Under the<br \/>\nscheme of the Constitution the purse<br \/>\nremains in the hands of the<br \/>\nexecutive. The legislature of the State<br \/>\ncontrols the Consolidated Fund out of<br \/>\nwhich the expenditure to be incurred,<br \/>\nin giving effect to the scheme, will<br \/>\nhave to be met. The flow into the<br \/>\nConsolidated Fund depends upon the<br \/>\npolicy of taxation depending perhaps<br \/>\non the capacity of the payer.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, unduly burdening the<br \/>\nState for implementing the<br \/>\nconstitutional obligation forthwith<br \/>\nwould create problems which the<br \/>\nState may not be able to stand. We<br \/>\nhave, therefore, made our directions<br \/>\nwith judicious restraint with the hope<br \/>\nand trust that both parties would<br \/>\nappreciate and understand the<br \/>\nsituation. The instrumentality of the<br \/>\nState must realize that it is charged<br \/>\nwith a big trust. The money that flows<br \/>\ninto the Consolidated Fund and<br \/>\nconstitutes the resources of the State<br \/>\ncomes from the people and the<br \/>\nwelfare expenditure that is meted out<br \/>\ngoes from the same Fund back to the<br \/>\npeople. May be that in every situation<br \/>\nthe same taxpayer is not the<br \/>\nbeneficiary. That is an incident of<br \/>\ntaxation and a necessary concomitant<br \/>\nof living within a welfare society.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tBut the question really is not of regularization.  The more<br \/>\nimportant factor is that the committee should hear the view of<br \/>\nthe parties and formulate a scheme relating to the amount to<br \/>\nbe paid to the workman without them being regularized.  It<br \/>\nshall also examine whether there is any necessity for parity of<br \/>\nthe wages, taking into account the norms relating to the<br \/>\nmethod of requirement, the seasonal nature of the<br \/>\nemployment, if any.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe committee shall consist of Smt. M.H. Pandit, Joint<br \/>\nSecretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as a<br \/>\nrepresentative for the State Government and Shri Udhav,<br \/>\nJoint Secretary of the Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Karamchari<br \/>\nUnion and the University shall nominate two persons who<br \/>\nhave expertise in financial matters.  The committee in essence<br \/>\nwould be an equivalance committee.  The report shall be given<br \/>\nto the State Government within a period of four months from<br \/>\ndate of constitution of the committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe State Government then shall take necessary action<br \/>\non the basis of the recommendation, after obtaining the view<br \/>\nof the University and after giving all concerned parties an<br \/>\nopportunity of stating their views. The order of the High Court<br \/>\nshall not be given effect to in view of the directions as<br \/>\ncontained above.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe appeals are allowed. There will be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4454-4466 of 2000 PETITIONER: Marathwada Agricultural University &amp; Ors RESPONDENT: Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith,M.S.K.S. &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA [&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-155457","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>Marathwada Agricultural ... vs Marathwada Krishi ... on 29 August, 2007 - 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\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marathwada Agricultural ... vs Marathwada Krishi ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-20T05:18:40+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-20T05:18:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1498,\"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\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Marathwada Agricultural ... vs Marathwada Krishi ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-20T05:18:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Marathwada Agricultural ... vs Marathwada Krishi ... on 29 August, 2007 - 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\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marathwada Agricultural ... vs Marathwada Krishi ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-20T05:18:40+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-20T05:18:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007"},"wordCount":1498,"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\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007","name":"Marathwada Agricultural ... vs Marathwada Krishi ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-20T05:18:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marathwada-agricultural-vs-marathwada-krishi-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marathwada Agricultural &#8230; vs Marathwada Krishi &#8230; on 29 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/155457","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=155457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}