{"id":165763,"date":"2011-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-15T08:40:15","modified_gmt":"2016-02-15T03:10:15","slug":"vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Harsha Devani, H.B.Antani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCAO\/110682\/0094\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11068 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nD\nD GANDHI, PLYWOOD TRADING CORPORATION\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA & OTHERS\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRAJENDRA KUMAR with MR. RITURAJ M MEENA for Petitioner. \nDELETED\nfor Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. \nMR\nYN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 01\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B. ANTANI)<\/p>\n
\tBy
\nfiling this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in
\nparagraphs 16 (a) and (b):\n<\/p>\n
(a).\tThat
\nthis Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ
\nin the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
\ndirection calling for the papers leading to the passing of the
\nimpugned decision dated 17.11.2008 (Exhibit “j” hereto)
\nunder and after examining the validity, legality and propriety
\nthereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
(b).\tThat
\nthe Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ
\nin the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order of
\nDirection, directing the Respondents<\/p>\n
i.\tTo
\nforthwith withdraw and\/or cancel the impugned decision dated
\n17.11.2008 (Exhibit ‘J’ hereto) and<\/p>\n
ii.\tTo
\nforthwith grant the balance reward of Rs.14,81,832\/- admissible in
\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tFacts
\nof the case, concisely stated, are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\npetitioner gave secret information about evasion of Central Excise
\nDuty by M\/s. Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad and Visnagar and
\nVisnagar Taluka Sahakari Mandali Limited, Visnagar, who were engaged
\nin the manufacturing of decorative laminated sheets. According to the
\ninformation, the evasion was done in an organized manner by under
\ninvoicing their products to the tune of 40 to 50% approximately of
\nthe turnover and collecting the difference in cash from Distributors
\nand their branches. The said secret information was lodged with Shri
\nM.D. Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner (Preventive) through Shri
\nY.N. Thakkar, the then Inspector along with Shri C.R. Desai, the then
\nSuperintendent (Preventive).  On the basis of the said information,
\noffence was registered against M\/s. Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd by the
\npreventive staff of the then Central Excise Commissionerate,
\nAhmedabad on 11.05.1993.  Various proceedings were initiated by the
\nCentral Excise Department as well as M\/s. Viral Laminates, [which
\nbeing not very relevant to decide the present petition are not
\ndiscussed in detail] which ultimately culminated in net recovery of
\nRs.84,09,162\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tAdvance
\nreward of Rs.2,00,000\/- was given to the petitioner on identification
\nmade by Shri Y.N. Thakkar, the then Inspector who has been throughout
\ninvolved in the case. However, in spite of writing as many as 16
\nletters\/reminders to the respondent, final reward was not granted. It
\nis the case of the petitioner that since recovery of Rs.84,09,162\/-
\nhave been made on the basis of information filed by the petitioner,
\nreward should have been processed and paid to him in terms of policy,
\nprocedures and guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of
\nFinance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise and Customs,
\nNew Delhi issued vide Circular No. F. No. R-13011\/6\/2001-Cus(AS)
\ndated 20.06.2001, Annexure ‘C’, within a reasonable time. According
\nto the petitioner, maximum reward of Rs.16,81,832\/- can be sanctioned
\nin the present case. However, vide letter No. F. No. II\/39 (CON)\/ 31\/
\nCCO\/2005 dated 17.11.2008, the petitioner has been informed that the
\nReward Committee, after careful consideration and perusal of evidence
\non record and parameters of Reward Policy, in force, has decided not
\nto sanction any reward to the informer”. The said decision is
\nchallenged in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
\nargued the matter at length. He submitted that the secret information
\ngiven by the petitioner has led to recovery of huge amount from the
\ndefaulting Company, M\/s. Viral Laminates. Since advance reward has
\nbeen given to him on proper identification, he should have been paid
\nthe remaining amount of the award. The order refusing the award is
\nnot a speaking order and the same has been passed in violation of the
\nRules, Policy, Procedures and Guidelines issued by the Government of
\nIndia. The reward committee has not considered all the material facts
\nand documents on records and the decision has been taken in violation
\nof the principles of natural justice. The decision to reject the
\nfinal award is perverse and suffers from obvious and patent error on
\nthe face of record.  Apart from quoting full text of few judgments in
\nthe memo of petition itself, learned advocate for the petitioner has
\nalso relied on the following judgments while arguing the matter
\nbefore us:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tCommissioner
\nof Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Sri Kumar Agencies<\/a> reported in 2008
\n(232) ELT 577 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSambhaji
\nvs. Gangabhai reported in 2009 (240) ELT 161 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
3.\tUnion
\nof India vs. C. Krishna Reddy<\/a> reported in 2000 (123) ELR 499 (Mad).\n<\/p>\n
4.\tUnion
\nof India vs. C. Krishna Reddy<\/a> reported in 2004 (163) ELT 4 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
5.\tUnion
\nof India vs. C. Krishna Reddy<\/a> reported in 2004 (167) ELT A65 (SC)<\/p>\n
6.\tAmritlal
\nMehta vs. D.G. Revenue Intelligence & Investigation reported in
\n2004 (178) ELT 99 (Del).\n<\/p>\n
7.\tD.G.\n<\/p>\n
Revenue Intelligence & Investigation vs. Amrit Lal Mehta reported
\nin 2007 (220) ELT 9 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
8.\tUnion
\nof India v\/s R.K. Raghunathan reported in 2009 (242) ELT A.85 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAsst.\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner Tax Department Vs. Shukla & Brothers reported in
\n2010 (254) ELT 6 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
10.\tJoint
\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Surat vs. Saheli Leasing & Industries
\nLtd.,<\/a> reported in 2010 (253) ELT 705 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
11.\tDwarka
\nNath vs. Income Tax Officer<\/a> reported in AIR 1996 SC 81.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tEssen
\nDeinki vs. Rajiv Kumar<\/a> reported in (2002) 8 SCC 400.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondents submitted at the
\noutset that though this petition is styled as one under Article 226
\nand 227, in effect it is a petition under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India. He submitted that neither is there any
\nviolation of fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner nor was
\nthe respondents performing any statutory duty in the present case,
\nand, therefore, petition under Article 227 is not maintainable. He
\nsubmitted that so far as reward scheme is concerned, there is no
\nvested right in any person to claim reward, and at the most, the
\nreward can be said to be an ex-gratia payment.  On facts he submitted
\nthat at the relevant time, information was recorded by one C.R.
\nDesai, Superintendent who has expired. The original file is not
\navailable. M.D. Singh, who was posted as Deputy Commissioner
\n[Preventive] at the relevant time is unable to identify the
\ninformant. Mr. Y.N. Thakkar, who earlier identified the petitioner,
\nwas not posted at preventive section of Ahmedabad Commissionerate at
\nthe relevant time and his name has also not figured in AE-II report
\ndated 21.05.1993. In these circumstances, the committee consisting of
\nhigh ranking officers, based on valuation of the committee and after
\nconsidering various aspects, decided that it is not possible to
\ndisburse any more amount to the petitioner. He further submitted that
\nthe respondents are not under any obligation to grant\/sanction the
\nmaximum admissible reward upto 20% of the net sale proceeds of the
\nseized\/confiscated goods and\/or the amount of additional duty \/
\npenalty \/ redemption fine recovered.   In the circumstances, Mr.
\nRavani submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the
\npetition requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Kumar for the petitioner and
\nMr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent at length and in
\ngreat detail. We have also perused the entire set of documents
\nannexed with the petition.  We have also considered the judgments
\ncited by the learned advocates.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough
\nlearned advocates have argued the matter at length, we propose to
\ndecide this petition on certain relevant issues such as, (i). whether
\nthere is any failure on the part of the officer to discharge any
\nstatutory obligation, and (ii). Whether grant of reward is ex-gratia,\n<\/p>\n
(iii). whether there is any vested right on the informant to claim
\nreward, and (iv). Whether a writ petition would lie in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nApex Court in the case of D.G, REVENUE INTELLIGENCE & INVEST.
\nVersus AMRIT LAL MEHTA reported in 2007 (220) ELT 9 (SC) has held as
\nunder in paragraph 7 of the judgment:\n<\/p>\n
“7.\tHowever,
\nconsidering the fact that it has been held by this Court in the cases
\nof Union of India & Ors. v. C. Krishna Redy<\/a> reported in [(2003)
\n10 SCALE 1050] as well as in Union of India v. R. Padmanabham<\/a>
\nreported in [(2003) 7 SCC 270] and in the Reward Scheme that there is
\nno vested right in the person to claim a reward and that the payment
\ncan, at the highest, be an ex gratia payment, there is
\nabsolutely no justification to grant interest on such ex gratia
\npayment.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThat
\napart, the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered
\nin the decision of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. C.
\nKRISHNA REDDY<\/a> reported in 2004 (163) ELT 4 (SC).  In paragraphs 13
\nand 14 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“13.\tIt
\nis well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of
\nMandamus can be granted only in case where there is a statutory duty
\nimposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part
\nof the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief
\nfunction of the writ is to compel performance of public duties
\nprescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers
\nexercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.
\nTherefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the
\nauthorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute
\nwhich imposed a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right
\nunder the statute to enforce its performance. (See Bihar Eastern
\nGangetic Fisherman Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh<\/a> –
\nAIR 977 SC 2149 para 15, Lekhraj Satram Dass Lalvani v. Deputy
\nCustodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Umakant Saran
\nv. State of Bihar<\/a> – AIR 1973 SC 964).\n<\/p>\n
14.\tBy
\nthe very nature of things, no one has a legal right to claim a
\nreward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex-gratia
\npayment subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute
\ndiscretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone
\nas a matter of right. xxx  xxx ”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe facts of the present case, the respondents were not performing
\nany statutory duty imposed upon them and therefore it cannot be said
\nthat there is failure on the part of the officer to discharge the
\nstatutory obligation. A writ of mandamus, therefore, cannot be issued
\nin the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid settled position of law, we do not intend to
\nundertake the futile exercise of dealing with each and every judgment
\ncited before us by learned advocate for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and well settled
\nposition of law, grant of reward is an an ex gratia payment
\nand there is no vested right in any person to claim a reward as a
\nmatter of right.  The respondents in the instant case were not
\nperforming any statutory duty imposed upon them and, therefore, it
\ncannot be said that there is failure on their part to discharge any
\nstatutory obligation warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction to
\ncompel performance of such duties prescribed by any statute. The
\npolicy of reward is only a ‘scheme’ and not a ‘statute’.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\nparting with this order, we may also record that in the secret
\ninformation filed by the petitioner, he has categorically stated as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“If
\ndeem fit, I may be rewarded suitably, but I shall not claim as a
\nmatter of right and shall not enter into correspondence to assert my
\nclaim of reward.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe circumstances, even otherwise than the aforesaid legal position,
\nthe petitioner is estopped from raising the claim as a matter or
\nright, much less a petition under the writ jurisdiction compelling
\nthe respondents to satisfy the claim.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nlight of the aforesaid discussion, this petition deserves to be
\ndismissed, and is hereby dismissed.  Notice is discharged. No order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J]<\/p>\n
[H.B.\n<\/p>\n
ANTANI, J.]<\/p>\n
mathew<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court ========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani, H.B.Antani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCAO\/110682\/0094 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11068 of 2009 ========================================================= D D GANDHI, PLYWOOD TRADING CORPORATION Versus UNION OF […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In ... on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In ... on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-15T03:10:15+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T03:10:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\",\"name\":\"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In ... on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T03:10:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In ... on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In ... on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-15T03:10:15+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T03:10:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011"},"wordCount":1979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011","name":"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In ... on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T03:10:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-sri-kumar-agencies-reported-in-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"========================================================= vs Sri Kumar Agencies Reported In … on 26 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165763","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=165763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}