{"id":169072,"date":"2011-05-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-11T18:27:39","modified_gmt":"2017-12-11T12:57:39","slug":"surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw<\/div>\n
            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                             Date of decision: 31st May, 2011\n+                                  W.P.(C) 3836\/2011\n\n         SURYA NARAIN TIWARI                            ..... Petitioner\n                      Through:            Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\n         M\/S SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI MATA LEELAWATI\n         BALIKA VIDHYA MANDIR              ..... Respondent\n                      Through: None\n\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\n1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                    No\n         be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No\n\n3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No\n         in the Digest?\n\nRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.       The petitioner workman claims to have been employed as a School<\/p>\n
Bus Driver with the respondent School. An industrial dispute was raised<\/p>\n
by him and on which the following reference under Section 10 of the I.D.<\/p>\n
Act was made:\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                       Page 1 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
          “Whether Sh. Surya Narain Tiwari S\/o Sh. Ram Sunder Tiwari
\n         left his job after receiving his full and final dues from the
\n         management and if not, whether his services have been
\n         terminated illegally and \/or unjustifiably by the management
\n         and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with
\n         other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws\/Govt.
\n         notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what
\n         directions are necessary in this respect?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.       The Industrial Adjudicator has vide award dated 1st July, 2010 held<\/p>\n
the petitioner workman to have left the services of the respondent<\/p>\n
employer on his own after taking full and final settlement and<\/p>\n
axiomatically disbelieved that the services of the petitioner workman were<\/p>\n
illegally terminated. Aggrieved therefrom the present writ petition has<\/p>\n
been filed.\n<\/p>\n
3.       It was inter alia the case of the respondent School that there were<\/p>\n
repeated complaints against the petitioner workman of rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving while ferrying School children and the petitioner workman was<\/p>\n
also found in a drowsy state while driving the bus; that upon the petitioner<\/p>\n
workman being confronted with the same, he stated that he could not<\/p>\n
perform his job better than what he was performing and opted to leave the<\/p>\n
employment and in which regard a document was prepared and signed by<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                     Page 2 of 8<\/span>
\n the petitioner workman.\n<\/p>\n
4.       The case of the petitioner workman was that the respondent<\/p>\n
employer had been obtaining his signatures on blank papers and had<\/p>\n
misused such blank papers for preparing the document aforesaid.<\/p>\n
5.       The Industrial Adjudicator on appreciation of evidence and other<\/p>\n
material before him has reached the conclusion aforesaid.         The said<\/p>\n
conclusion is a finding of fact not ordinarily interferable in exercise of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless shown to<\/p>\n
be not based on any material on record or perverse or unreasonable<\/p>\n
considering the entire material on record. (see Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs.<\/p>\n
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ILR (1976) 1 Del 565,<\/p>\n
DTC Vs. Delhi Administration ILR (1973) 1 Del 838, Jawahar Singh Vs.<\/p>\n
Financial Commissioner MANU\/DE\/8396\/2007 &                 Kishan Chand<\/p>\n
Bhatia Vs. UOI MANU\/DE\/0265\/2005). This Court cannot re-appreciate<\/p>\n
evidence as an Appellate Court. (see Union of India Vs. M\/s Mustafa and<\/p>\n
Najibai Trading Co. (1998) 6 SCC 79, Poorna Singh Kain Vs. UOI<\/p>\n
MANU\/DE\/1292\/2008,           Suresh Kumar Vs. the Management of<\/p>\n
Monsanto Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. MANU\/DE\/8303\/2007, Ram Narain Jha
\nW.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                   Page 3 of 8<\/span>
\n Vs. T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (99) DRJ 724 and MCD Vs. Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar (2005) 81 DRJ 344 (DB))<\/p>\n
As such it has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner workman<\/p>\n
as to how the said finding of fact of the Industrial Adjudicator is<\/p>\n
impugned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.       Though in the writ petition a number of grounds have been taken but<\/p>\n
the counsel for the petitioner workman has only urged that the finding of<\/p>\n
the petitioner workman of his own having left the employment on 16 th<\/p>\n
December, 2005 is not believable since the petitioner workman continued<\/p>\n
to perform his duties till 24th December, 2005.        It is contended that<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the said assertion by the petitioner workman in his<\/p>\n
evidence, the petitioner workman was not cross-examined with respect<\/p>\n
thereto.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.       However, a perusal of the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief<\/p>\n
of the petitioner workman and the cross-examination shows all that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                    Page 4 of 8<\/span>
\n petitioner deposed was that his services were terminated in December,<\/p>\n
2005 and he had not been paid emoluments of the last month of<\/p>\n
employment also.       The authorized representative of the respondent<\/p>\n
employer in cross-examination recorded on 16th January, 2009 (at page 56<\/p>\n
of the paper book) put to the petitioner workman as to whether the<\/p>\n
petitioner workman had any evidence to show that he worked with the<\/p>\n
management of the respondent employer even after 16th December, 2005.<\/p>\n
The reply of the petitioner workman was in the negative. It is thus not as if<\/p>\n
the respondent employer did not challenge at all the statement in the<\/p>\n
examination-in-chief of the petitioner workman of his services terminated<\/p>\n
in December, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
8.       The counsel for the petitioner workman has also urged that the<\/p>\n
witnesses of the respondent employer in his examination-in-chief nowhere<\/p>\n
stated that the petitioner workman had not worked after 16th December,<\/p>\n
2005. However, the said argument is also not borne out from the record.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dev Narain Tiwari office superintendent of the respondent employer<\/p>\n
in para 13 of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief deposes that after<\/p>\n
16th December, 2005, the petitioner had never worked with the respondent
\nW.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                     Page 5 of 8<\/span>
\n School.\n<\/p>\n
9.       It was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner workman as to<\/p>\n
whether the petitioner workman in the cross-examination of the witnesses<\/p>\n
of the respondent employer had put to the said witnesses that the petitioner<\/p>\n
workman had continued to work after 16th December, 2005 also. The<\/p>\n
counsel had contended that since the witnesses had not deposed anything<\/p>\n
in examination-in-chief, there was no need for the petitioner to cross-<\/p>\n
examine on the same. However as aforesaid, the witnesses in examination-<\/p>\n
in-chief did so depose and the petitioner workman did not challenge the<\/p>\n
said part of the testimony of the witnesses of the respondent employer.<\/p>\n
10.      The counsel for the petitioner workman has also contended that<\/p>\n
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted and the<\/p>\n
proof\/documents of the continuance in employment of the petitioner<\/p>\n
workman with the respondent employer even after 16th December, 2005<\/p>\n
was in exclusive possession of the respondent employer only.              It is<\/p>\n
contended that the attendance register, salary register etc. of the respondent<\/p>\n
employer would have shown that the petitioner workman was in<\/p>\n
employment after 16th December, 2005 also but all of which have not been
\nW.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                      Page 6 of 8<\/span>
\n produced.\n<\/p>\n
11.      It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner workman<\/p>\n
whether the petitioner workman at any time called upon the respondent<\/p>\n
employer to produce the said records. The answer is in the negative.<\/p>\n
Section 106 would not be attracted in the aforesaid state of evidence; while<\/p>\n
the respondent employer had cross-examined the petitioner workman on<\/p>\n
the said aspect, the petitioner workman did not even choose to cross-<\/p>\n
examine the witnesses of the respondent employer on the aforesaid aspect.<\/p>\n
Had the respondent employer inspite of being called upon, not produced<\/p>\n
the records, an adverse inference could have been drawn. Reference in this<\/p>\n
regard may be made to the recent dicta in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam<\/p>\n
Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Rafi (2009) 11 SCC 522 reiterating that the initial<\/p>\n
onus is on the workman.\n<\/p>\n
12.      I may also notice that the Industrial Adjudicator has also referred to<\/p>\n
yet another document also showing the petitioner to have left the<\/p>\n
employment of his own and on which also the petitioner workman had<\/p>\n
taken the same stand that his signatures have been taken in blank papers.<\/p>\n
Rather, the Industrial Adjudicator has observed that the petitioner in his
\nW.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                       Page 7 of 8<\/span>
\n cross-examination was in denial mode even qua the admitted signatures.<\/p>\n
13.      No case for interference with finding of fact arrived at by the<\/p>\n
Industrial Adjudicator is made out.\n<\/p>\n
         The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                               RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
\n                                                      (JUDGE)
\nMAY 31, 2011
\nbs<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)3836\/2011                                                 Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 2011 Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 31st May, 2011 + W.P.(C) 3836\/2011 SURYA NARAIN TIWARI ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Versus M\/S SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI MATA […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata ... on 31 May, 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\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata ... on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-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=\"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-11T12:57:39+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\\\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-11T12:57:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1241,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\\\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata ... on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-11T12:57:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\\\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 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":"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata ... on 31 May, 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\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata ... on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-11T12:57:39+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-11T12:57:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011"},"wordCount":1241,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011","name":"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata ... on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-11T12:57:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surya-narain-tiwari-vs-ms-samarth-shiksha-samiti-mata-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surya Narain Tiwari vs M\/S Samarth Shiksha Samiti Mata … on 31 May, 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\/169072","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=169072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169072\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}