{"id":161628,"date":"2002-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-20T22:47:53","modified_gmt":"2017-07-20T17:17:53","slug":"bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 ACJ 1216, 2002 (95) FLR 1145, ILR 2002 KAR 4480, 2002 (6) KarLJ 226<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M R Prasad<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M R Prasad<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.   <\/p>\n<p> 1. This miscellaneous first appeal by the Bharath Gold Mines<br \/>\nLimited, Oorgaum, K.G.F. filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act, 1923 is directed against the order dated 25-1-<br \/>\n2001 in W.C.A.F.C. 6 of 1999, on the file of Commissioner for<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation, Kolar District, K.G.F., on the ground that the<br \/>\nsubject-matter of appeal involves substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The Court has heard the arguments of the learned Counsels<br \/>\nappearing on both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. In view of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal<br \/>\nand at the time of arguments, the following points would arise for<br \/>\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n<pre> (1)    Whether the appeal involves any \nsubstantial question of\nlaw?  \n\n\n \n\n (2)    What order?   \n \n\n<\/pre>\n<p> 4. Sri A.S. Bopanna, learned Counsel for the appellant,<br \/>\nstrenuously contended that the material on record shows that the order<br \/>\nimpugned is unsustainable in law and the medical evidence could not<br \/>\nhave been brushed aside by the Commissioner and further could not have<br \/>\nobserved that there was no need for post-mortem as the deceased had died<br \/>\na natural death. The Commissioner had also erred in not placing reliance<br \/>\non the documentary evidence issued by the Competent Authorities. He has<br \/>\nalso contended that the subject-matter of the appeal involves a<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. On the contrary, Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondents strenuously contended that the order impugned<br \/>\nunder the appeal is legal and valid. The Commissioner had considered the<br \/>\nfacts in issue in the right perspective. The material on record also shows<br \/>\nthat the deceased had died only on account of occupational disease. The<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation Act has been a beneficial legislation to safe-<br \/>\nguard the interests of the workmen and his legal representatives. He has<br \/>\nrelied upon the following two decisions.\n<\/p>\n<p> Placing reliance on the ratio of the aforesaid decision, he has prayed<br \/>\nfor dismissal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Following few undisputed facts are necessary for disposal of<br \/>\nthe appeal on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p> The deceased Soku was working with the appellant-\n<\/p>\n<p>company which is a public sector undertaking engaged in extraction<br \/>\nof gold bearing ore and purification of gold. The respondent 1 is<br \/>\nthe wife and other respondents are the children of deceased<br \/>\nSoku, who died on 14-11-1998. The appellant-Corporation had<br \/>\nalso deposited a sum of Rs. 2,07,300\/- as compensation payable<br \/>\nto the respondents in pursuance of the order impugned.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. From the material on record, it is also seen that the<br \/>\nrespondents herein had submitted a claim petition on 29-11-1989<br \/>\nunder Section 22 of the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923 praying for<br \/>\ngrant of 100% compensation on account of death of Soku due to<br \/>\noccupational disease. The said petition had become contentious. It was<br \/>\ncontended that 1st respondent had submitted Form-B stating that the<br \/>\ndeceased had died due to alcoholic encephalopathy. The bone of contention<br \/>\nof the Corporation was to the effect that the Medical Board of<br \/>\nB.G.M.L., Oorgaum, K.G.F. had examined Soku and as per the Medical<br \/>\nReport, Soku was having 20% of pneumoconiosis PK Grade-II and<br \/>\naccordingly respondent 1 accepting the same she had also submitted<br \/>\nForm-B and the 1st respondent now can- not seek any enhancement in<br \/>\nthis regard. During the course of enquiry, the 1st respondent got herself<br \/>\nexamined as P.W. 1 and also relied upon the oral evidence of P.W. 2, the<br \/>\nbrother of the deceased Soku and had also relied upon two documents. On<br \/>\nthe contrary, the Corporation has examined the Doctor, Rajendra<br \/>\nKumar B. and had also relied upon Exs. R. 1 to R. 5.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the<br \/>\nCommissioner came to the conclusion that the respondents-claimants are<br \/>\nentitled for 100% compensation in this regard. Feeling aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsaid order, the appellant-Company has come up with the instant appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. In view of the statutory provisions of the Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act, now this Court will have to see whether any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of is involved in this appeal. As per the definite say<br \/>\nof the appellant, the Commissioner could not have ignored the medical<br \/>\nevidence placed on record by the Company and further he could not have<br \/>\nrelied upon the oral evidence let in by the respondents. From the material<br \/>\non record, it is seen that the deceased Soku died on 14-11-1998 and as<br \/>\nper Ex. R. 1, the Company had arrived at a conclusion that the deceased<br \/>\nemployee was suffering from the said occupational disease and disablement<br \/>\nwas assessed at 20%. This document is dated 17-11-1998. In<br \/>\nother words, this document came into existence after the death of Soku.<br \/>\nEx. R. 2 also makes a mention that the disablement was assessed at 20%<br \/>\non 14-11-1998. This also makes a mention that Soku had died on 14-<br \/>\n11-1998. The provisions of Karnataka Workmen&#8217;s Compensation (Oc-<br \/>\ncupational Diseases) Rules, 1968 and in particular, as per Rule 3 of the<br \/>\nsaid Rules pneumoconiosis disease had been recognised as an occupational<br \/>\ndisease and the same provided six stages so far as earning capacity. The<br \/>\nother rules framed under the Statute provides for examination of the<br \/>\nemployee and examination of the medical records pertaining to the said<br \/>\nemployee to arrive at particular stage of loss of earning capacity. The bone<br \/>\nof the contention of the Company is that the occupational disease of the<br \/>\nemployee had reached stage-II and as such the respondents were entitled<br \/>\nfor 20% of the compensation. It is needless to say that it was incumbent<br \/>\non the Company to place convincing material to show as to when<br \/>\nexactly the employee had been examined for the last time and what had<br \/>\nbeen the stage of occupational disease. It is pertinent to mention that the<br \/>\nCompany has not placed any material to show the tests conducted, when<br \/>\nsuch tests had been conducted and what had been the report of the<br \/>\nRadiologist in this regard. In other words, the Company has not placed<br \/>\nany acceptable material to show the basis on which it had arrived at such<br \/>\na figure of 20%. The case sheet of the employee maintained by the<br \/>\nCompany has also not been placed on record. Admittedly, the employee<br \/>\nhad been suffering from pneumoconiosis, a recognised occupational<br \/>\ndisease. From the material on record, it is seen that Exs. R. 1 and R. 2 had<br \/>\nbeen prepared subsequent to the death of the employee. Possibly, if the<br \/>\nCompany had placed all the available medical records in this case, the<br \/>\ncase put forth by the Company could have been appreciated in a better<br \/>\nmanner. For the reasons best known, to Company it has not placed any<br \/>\nsuch material.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. It is seen from the said decision of the Apex Court, the<br \/>\nApex Court has held that the assessment of earning capacity of an<br \/>\nemployee is only a question of fact and in such a case, no substantial<br \/>\nquestion of law is involved. In the case on hand also, it is the bone of<br \/>\ncontention of the appellant-Company that the Commissioner could not<br \/>\nhave assessed the percentage of occupational disease at 100%, whereas,<br \/>\nthe document placed by the Company shows that the occupational<br \/>\ndisease had reached Grade-II and accordingly the respondents are entitled<br \/>\nonly to 20% as compensation. This finding, in view of ratio laid down in<br \/>\nthe said decision, involves only a question of fact and not any substantial<br \/>\nquestion of law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this<br \/>\nCourt cannot go into the question of fact and hold that the subject-<br \/>\nmatter of appeal involves substantial question of law. It would suffice it<br \/>\nis held that the subject-matter of the appeal does not involve any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Before parting with the case, it is felt necessary to mention<br \/>\nthat this Court on 18-4-2001 had passed the interim order to the<br \/>\nfollowing effect.\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Admit.\n<\/p>\n<p> Send for the Commissioner&#8217;s record and post the hearing<br \/>\nafter vacation.\n<\/p>\n<p> In the meantime, a sum of Rs. 70,000\/- inclusive of the<br \/>\namount deposited by the appellant-Company on 28-12-1998<br \/>\nshall be released in favour of the respondents from out of the<br \/>\namount deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner. The<br \/>\nremaining amount available with the Commissioner shall be<br \/>\ninvested by him in a fixed term deposit initially for a period of<br \/>\none year in a Scheduled Bank. The interest earned by the deposit<br \/>\nshall enure for the benefit of the successful party&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> The said order had been communicated to the Commissioner and as<br \/>\nseen from the order sheet maintained by the Commissioner, the<br \/>\nCommissioner had passed an order releasing a sum of Rs. 70,000\/-<br \/>\nwhich had been in terms of interim order. This Court had further<br \/>\nordered for keeping the remaining amount with the Commissioner only<br \/>\nand the said amount to be invested in a Fixed Term Deposit initially for a<br \/>\nperiod of one year in a Scheduled Bank. The interest earned by the deposit<br \/>\nshall enure for the benefit of the successful parties. But the<br \/>\nCommissioner, in total disregard and wilful disobedience to the interim<br \/>\norder passed by this Court, had deposited a sum of Rs. 45,767\/- each in<br \/>\nthe names of respondents 2 to 4 in a Fixed Deposit and had further<br \/>\nordered that respondent 1 being the natural guardian, is entitled to<br \/>\nwithdraw the interest that may accrue on the said deposits. There has been<br \/>\na glaring disobedience of interim order of this Court and in the opinion<br \/>\nof this Court, the Commissioner has committed contempt of this Court by<br \/>\nviolating the said interim order of this Court. It is needless to emphasize<br \/>\nthat an order of any Court established under law, whether interim or<br \/>\nfinal, has to be totally complied with and the intention of the Court<br \/>\nshould be carried out in its strict sense and there cannot be any vari-\n<\/p>\n<p>ation or violation by any Subordinate Court, Tribunal or an individual. If<br \/>\nnot, such person will expose himself for action under the provisions of<br \/>\nthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under these circumstances, in the<br \/>\nopinion of this Court, it would be in the ends of justice if the copy of the<br \/>\norder is placed before the Hon&#8217;ble Chief Justice, for initiating the con-<br \/>\ntempt proceedings against the Commissioner for gross violation of the<br \/>\norders of this Court after the Registry ascertains the name of the officer<br \/>\nand the place of working now, for violating the order of this Court dated<br \/>\n18-4-2001, by passing the order dated 18-5-2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>  12. Under these circumstances, it would be desirable that if a copy<br \/>\nof this order is sent to all the Commissioners for Workmen&#8217;s Compensation<br \/>\nin the State for their future guidance and to avoid any unpleasant situation.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the Registry is directed to comply with the said direction.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. In the result, the Court passes the following:\n<\/p>\n<p>ORDER  <\/p>\n<p> The appeal is dismissed. The order impugned under the<br \/>\nappeal is confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 ACJ 1216, 2002 (95) FLR 1145, ILR 2002 KAR 4480, 2002 (6) KarLJ 226 Author: M R Prasad Bench: M R Prasad JUDGMENT M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J. 1. This miscellaneous first appeal by the Bharath Gold [&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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 - 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\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-20T17:17:53+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-20T17:17:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1828,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-20T17:17:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 - 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\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-20T17:17:53+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-20T17:17:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002"},"wordCount":1828,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002","name":"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-20T17:17:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-gold-mines-limited-vs-smt-manimala-and-ors-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharath Gold Mines Limited vs Smt. Manimala And Ors. on 19 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/161628","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=161628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161628\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}