{"id":170038,"date":"2007-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-03-17T11:12:06","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T05:42:06","slug":"m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: D Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4041-4042 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nM.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAHAN KHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4041-4042 OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14853-14854 of 2005)<\/p>\n
D.K. JAIN, J.:\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe M.P. State Agro Industries Development
\nCorporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’)
\nhas preferred these appeals, questioning the correctness
\nof the two orders dated 4th August, 2003 and 19th
\nJanuary, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, in a writ petition
\nfiled by one of its employees’ (the respondent herein), and
\nthe review application filed by the Corporation
\nrespectively.  By the former order, the High Court has set
\naside order dated 19th December, 1989 passed by the
\nManaging Director, in his capacity as the disciplinary
\nauthority of the Corporation, imposing a penalty on the
\nrespondent in the form of recovery of an amount
\nequivalent to the monetary loss suffered by the
\nCorporation and stoppage of three increments with
\ncumulative effect.  By the latter order, the High Court has
\ndismissed the application for review filed by the
\nCorporation.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA few material facts, giving rise to the appeals, are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
While working as the Branch Manager of the
\nCorporation at its Satna Branch, the respondent entered
\ninto an agreement for letting out some machinery
\nbelonging to the Corporation, to one M\/s. Universal
\nConstruction Company.  It was alleged that the
\nrespondent failed to recover the rent\/charges under the
\nsaid agreement and thereby caused loss to the
\nCorporation.  Consequently, a notice was issued to the
\nrespondent to show cause as to why the loss of
\nRs.16,903.41 caused to the Corporation due to
\ndereliction of duty on account of non-recovery of the
\nestimated amount of rent and the interest be not
\nrecovered from him and a penalty of stoppage of three
\nincrements with cumulative effect be not imposed.  In his
\nreply to the show cause notice, the respondent, inter alia,
\nstated that since he had been transferred from the said
\nBranch and his successor had not taken any steps to
\nrecover rent etc. from the said Company, he was not
\nresponsible for the loss caused to the Corporation.  The
\ndisciplinary authority, found the explanation to be
\nunsatisfactory.  He observed that the respondent had let
\nout the machinery contrary to the instructions from the
\nHeadquarters as a result whereof the Corporation had
\nsuffered financial loss of the aforesaid amount.
\nAccordingly, vide a composite order dated 19th December,
\n1989, he directed the recovery of Rs.16,903.41 from the
\nsalary of the respondent at 20%  per month and stoppage
\nof three increments with cumulative effect.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBeing aggrieved, the respondent challenged the
\norder by way of a writ petition filed under Articles
\n226\/227 of the Constitution mainly on the ground that
\nthe penalty of stoppage of three increments with
\ncumulative effect being a major penalty, it could not be
\nimposed without holding a regular departmental enquiry
\nas per the procedure laid down for imposition of a major
\npenalty.  The plea found favour with the High Court.  The
\nHigh Court was of the view that as per the
\nRules\/Regulations, the stoppage of three increments with
\ncumulative effect was a major penalty and, therefore,
\ncould not be imposed without holding a proper enquiry.
\nAccordingly, the order passed by the disciplinary
\nauthority was quashed.  Nevertheless, leave was granted
\nto the Corporation to proceed against the respondent, if
\nso advised.  Not being satisfied with the order, the
\nCorporation moved an application for review of the said
\norder but without any success.  As noted above, both the
\nsaid orders are under challenge in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned counsel for the Corporation has submitted
\nthat under M.P. State Agro Industries Development
\nCorporation Limited Service (Recruitment and Selection)
\nRegulations of 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations’),
\npunishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative
\neffect is a minor penalty and, therefore, no regular
\nenquiry is contemplated thereunder.  It is contended that
\nthe High Court, lost sight of the relevant Regulations and
\ngoing by the general notions, without referring to any
\nother statutory provision, has erred in holding that the
\npenalty imposed on the respondent was a major penalty.
\nLearned counsel has also urged that an efficacious
\nalternative remedy by way of an appeal being available to
\nthe respondent, the High Court should not have
\nentertained the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIt is trite that the power of punishment to an
\nemployee is within the discretion of the employer and
\nordinarily the courts do not interfere, unless it is found
\nthat either the enquiry, proceedings or punishment is
\nvitiated because of non-observance of the relevant Rules
\nand Regulations or principles of natural justice or denial
\nof reasonable opportunity to defend etc. or that the
\npunishment is totally disproportionate to the proved
\nmisconduct of an employee.  All these principles have
\nbeen highlighted in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
\nVs. Ashok Kumar Arora  and Lalit Popli Vs. Canara
\nBank & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThus, the short question that arises for
\nconsideration is whether in the context of the Regulations
\ngoverning the service conditions of the respondent, the
\nrecovery of the aforementioned amount and stoppage of
\nthree increments with cumulative effect is a major
\npenalty and if so, the order of punishment is vitiated on
\nany of the grounds noted above, warranting interference
\nby the Court?\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe Regulations relevant for the purpose of the
\ninstant case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
“If the Managing Director is satisfied
\nabout the charges levied, he shall grant a
\npersonal hearing to the employee
\nconcerned, and if necessary, take oral
\nexamination of the witnesses named by
\nthe employee in his reply before taking a
\nfinal decision.\n<\/p>\n
An appeal shall<\/p>\n
(a)\tAgainst orders of the Managing
\nDirector to the Chairman.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tAgainst the order of the Chairman to
\nthe Board.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tAn aggrieved employee shall have a
\nright to appeal provided it is
\npreferred within 30 days of the
\nreceipt of the order against which
\nthe appeal is preferred.  The
\nappellate authority (except Board)
\nshall decide the case within, 2
\nmonths from the date of the receipt
\nof the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The following punishments may be
\nawarded for good and sufficient reasons,
\nincluding breaches of any rules of
\nconduct or for committing any of the
\noffences mentioned in the Schedule
\naccording to gravity of each case:-\n<\/p>\n
“Class of
\n misconduct<\/p>\n
Punishment
\nAppealable or
\nNon-appealable
\nMinor Lapses
\nand
\ndelinquencies\n<\/p>\n
(a) Warning\n<\/p>\n
(b) Reprimand\n<\/p>\n
(c) Fine upto
\n    1\/10th of pay<\/p>\n
(d) Recovery from
\npay of whole or
\npart of pecuniary
\nloss caused to
\nthe corporation
\nby negligence or
\nbreach of orders
\nif within Rs.50\/-\n<\/p>\n
Non-Appealable
\nNon-appealable
\nif the amount is
\nnot more than
\nRs.5\/-\n<\/p>\n
Non-Appealable<\/p>\n
Acts of
\nmisconduct\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tRecovery
\nfrom pay of whole
\nor part of
\npecuniary loss
\ncaused to the
\ncorporation by
\nnegligence or
\nbreach of orders
\nif within
\nRs.50\/-\n<\/p>\n
(b)withholding
\nincrement for
\nspecific period\n<\/p>\n
(c) stoppage of
\npromotion\n<\/p>\n
(d) reduction to a
\nlower post or
\nlower level pay\n<\/p>\n
(e) termination of
\nservice\n<\/p>\n
(f) removal\n<\/p>\n
(g) discharge\n<\/p>\n
(h) dismissal\n<\/p>\n
(i) disqualifying
\nthe incumbent
\nfrom any
\nemployment in
\nthe Agro Ind.\n<\/p>\n
Corpn.\n<\/p>\n
Appealable <\/p>\n
Appealable <\/p>\n
Appealable
\nAppealable<\/p>\n
Appealable<\/p>\n
Appealable
\nAppealable
\nAppealable
\nAppealable”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tA bare reading of the scheme of the afore-extracted
\nRegulations would show that there is a clear demarcation
\nof quantum of punishment between the minor lapses,
\ndelinquencies and acts of misconduct.  It is evident that
\nhaving regard to the nature of acts of omission and
\ncommission, the punishment prescribed for minor lapses,
\nand delinquencies, ostensibly not having perpetual effect,
\nhave been made non-appealable in comparison to the
\npunishments for acts of misconduct, which include
\nrecovery of whole or a part of pecuniary loss, exceeding
\nRs.50\/-, caused to the Corporation, withholding of
\nincrements for a specific period, termination of services,
\nremoval etc., which can all be characterized as major
\npunishments.  Precisely for this reason, all punishments
\nfalling in the latter category have been made appealable.
\nThe perceptive distinction in two sets of penalties, in our
\nview, makes it abundantly clear that the Corporation has
\ntreated the punishments\/penalties falling in the first
\ncategory as minor punishments\/penalties and the acts of
\nmisconduct, falling in the second category as major
\npenalties.  We may, however, hasten to add that it cannot
\nbe laid as a hard and fast rule that stoppage of
\nincrements, with or without hedge over it, is always to be
\ntreated as a major penalty, necessitating regular enquiry.
\nIt would depend on the Rules and Regulations governing
\nthe service conditions of the employee, though ordinarily,
\nin the absence of specific Regulations, withholding of
\nincrements with cumulative effect is treated as a major
\npenalty because it has a perpetual effect on the entire
\ntenure of service of the employee.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tBe that as it may, we are of the opinion that in the
\nlight of our interpretation of the aforenoted Regulations,
\nthe imposition of penalty vide composite order dated
\n19th December, 1989, directing recovery of loss of
\nRs.16903.41 and stoppage of three increments with
\ncumulative effect, is a major penalty, clearly envisaging a
\nregular enquiry before punishing the respondent.  Since
\nadmittedly this procedure was not followed, the High
\nCourt was justified in coming to the conclusion that
\nimposition of the impugned penalty without holding
\nenquiry was illegal and without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tBefore parting with the case, we may also deal with
\nthe submission of learned counsel for the appellants that
\na remedy by way of an appeal being available to the
\nrespondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained
\nhis petition filed under Articles 226\/227 of the
\nConstitution.  There is no gainsaying that in a given case,
\nthe High Court may not entertain a writ petition under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution on the ground of
\navailability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule
\ncannot be said to be of universal application.  The rule of
\nexclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an
\nalternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
\ncompulsion.  In an appropriate case, in spite of the
\navailability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may
\nstill exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial
\nreview, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where
\nthe writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
\nfundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles
\nof natural justice or (iii) where the orders or proceedings
\nare wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
\nchallenged. In these circumstances, an alternative
\nremedy does not operate as a bar. (See: Whirpool
\nCorporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks ,
\nHarbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
\nLtd. & Ors. , State of H.P. Vs. Gujarat Ambuja
\nCement Ltd.  and Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan
\nPetroleum Corporation Ltd.  ).\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn the instant case, though it is true that the
\npenalty order impugned in the writ petition was
\nappealable in terms of the aforenoted Regulations but
\nhaving coming to the conclusion that the order was per
\nse illegal being violative of the principles of natural
\njustice, it cannot be said that the High Court fell into an
\nerror in entertaining the writ petition filed by the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tFor the foregoing reasons, the appeals are devoid of
\nany merit and consequently the same deserve to be
\ndismissed, which we hereby do, leaving the parties to
\nbear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 Author: D Jain Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4041-4042 of 2007 PETITIONER: M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR RESPONDENT: JAHAN KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/09\/2007 BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. […]<\/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-170038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.P. State Agro Industries ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 - 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\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.P. State Agro Industries ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-17T05:42:06+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\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T05:42:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1879,\"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\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\",\"name\":\"M.P. State Agro Industries ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T05:42:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 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":"M.P. State Agro Industries ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 - 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\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.P. State Agro Industries ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-17T05:42:06+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\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T05:42:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007"},"wordCount":1879,"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\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007","name":"M.P. State Agro Industries ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T05:42:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-state-agro-industries-vs-jahan-khan-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.P. State Agro Industries … vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 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\/170038","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=170038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}