{"id":177450,"date":"1970-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-05-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970"},"modified":"2017-12-18T17:05:39","modified_gmt":"2017-12-18T11:35:39","slug":"pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970","title":{"rendered":"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1781, \t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 626<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, A.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPIONEER PAPER BOX FACTORY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. THAKURDEVI SHRINIWAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/05\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1781\t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 626\n\n\nACT:\nBombay Rent Act (57 of 1947), s. 12(3) (b)--Scope of.\nPractice--Revision    and   review   dismissed\t  by\tHigh\nCourt--Allegation  of fact not brought to the notice of\t the\nHigh  Court--Whether can be permitted to be raised  in\tthis\nCourt.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn a suit for evicition on the ground of non-payment of rent\na  decree  was\tpassed\tdirecting  the\ttenant\tto  pay\t the\nlandlady's costs, as, by that time, the tenant had paid\t all\nthe arrears of rent as fixed; but the tenant did not pay  or\ntender\tthe costs.  Therefore, the court passed an order  of\neviction.  His appeal, -a revision to the High Court, and  a\nreview petition to the High Court were all dismissed.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : (1) The tenant would be entitled to  the  protection\nunder  s.  12(3)  (b) of the, Bombay Rent Act,\tonly  if  he\ncomplied with its provisions by paying or tendering not only\nthe  arrears of rent but also the costs of the suit.   Since\nthe  appellant\tadmitted his inability to, comply  with\t the\nprovision,  he could not claim protection against  eviction.\n[627 D, G]\n(2)  Assuming  that the costs were paid at a later  date  as\nalleged\t by the appellant, that fact was not brought to\t the\nnotice of the High Court, and therefore this Court will\t not\ninterfere with the exercise of discretion by the High  Court\nin the set of facts and circumstances presented to the\tHigh\nCourt.. [628 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1968.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nNovember 19, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. 167 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.  M. Tarkunde, P. C. Bhartari, O. C. Mathur  and  Ravinder<br \/>\nNarain, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>A. K. Sen, M. S. Gupta and S. L. Jain, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRay,  J. This appeal is by special leave from  the  judgment<br \/>\ndated 19 November, 1963 of the High Court of Bombay  dismis-<br \/>\nsing  the  appellant  defendant\t tenant&#8217;s  application\t for<br \/>\nrevision in a decree for eviction of the defendant.<br \/>\nThe  appellant was tenant of the respondent.  On  28  April,<br \/>\n1954 the appellant filed an application under section II  of<br \/>\nthe  Bombay Rent Act for fixation of standard rent.   During<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">627<\/span><br \/>\npendency of the application the respondent landlady served a<br \/>\nnotice\ton  the\t appellant  in\tthe  month  of\tMarch,\t1955<br \/>\nterminating the tenancy on the ground that the appellant had<br \/>\nfailed to pay rent from I March, 1954.\tOn 25 April, 1955  a<br \/>\nsuit was filed for eviction of the appellant.<br \/>\nDuring\tthe  pendency  of the suit on  29  June,  1956,\t the<br \/>\nstandard  rent was fixed at Rs.55\/7\/- p.m.  The\t contractual<br \/>\nrent was Rs. 85\/- p.m.<br \/>\nWhen  the  suit came up for hearing on 5 October,  1956,  it<br \/>\nappeared that the appellant paid all the arrears of rent  in<br \/>\naccordance with the standard rent but did not pay the  Costs<br \/>\nof  the\t suit.\tThe trial court passed an  ejectment  decree<br \/>\nagainst the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant preferred an appeal.  The appellate court took<br \/>\nthe  view  that the order of the trial court  was  justified<br \/>\nunder  section\t12(3)(b) of the Bombay\tRent  Act.   Section<br \/>\n12(3)(b)  of the Bombay Rent Act provides that no decree  in<br \/>\neviction shall be passed, if on the first day of the hearing<br \/>\nof the suit or on or before such other date as the court may<br \/>\nfix,  the tenant pays or tenders. in the court the  standard<br \/>\nrent  and  permitted increase in rent  due,  and  thereafter<br \/>\ncontinues to pay or tender in court regularly the said\trent<br \/>\nand permitted increase till the suit is finally decided\t and<br \/>\nalso pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court.<br \/>\nThe appellant then filed an application for revision in\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court.  The contention which was advanced in the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt and repeated here was that the courts were in error in<br \/>\ndecreeing  the\tsuit for non-payment of\t costs\tbecause\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court had not passed any order fixing the  amount  of<br \/>\ncosts.\tIt was said that only when an order determining\t the<br \/>\namount\tof costs had been made by the court that the  tenant<br \/>\ncould be said to be within the mischief of the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  statute for non-payment of costs so determined  by\t the<br \/>\ncourts.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High  Court  rightly rejected the\tcontention  for\t two<br \/>\nreasons.   First, though a formal order as to costs was\t not<br \/>\nmade,  yet the trial court had made an order  directing\t the<br \/>\nappellant  to pay the amount of costs and the appellant\t did<br \/>\nnot  pay the costs.  Secondly, the appellant  stated  before<br \/>\nthe trial court that the appellant was not in a position  to<br \/>\ntender\twhat is described as &#8220;professional costs&#8221; and  court<br \/>\ncosts of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is indisputable that in the trial court the appellant not<br \/>\nonly  admitted\tfailure to pay costs but also  inability  to<br \/>\ntender\tthe  costs.  -The appellant  could  be\tentitled  to<br \/>\nprotection  against eviction only if the appellant  complied<br \/>\nwith  the  provisions  of the statute.\t The  appellant\t was<br \/>\nrequired  to tender not only the arrears of rent  but  .also<br \/>\nthe,  costs of the suit.  In the trial court  the  appellant<br \/>\nadmitted non-compliance with the provisions of the  statute.<br \/>\nTherefore, the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">628<\/span><br \/>\ntrial court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled<br \/>\nto any benefit or protection against eviction.<br \/>\nThe appellate court held that because the appellant filed an<br \/>\napplication  for  fixation of standard\trent  and  therefore<br \/>\nthere  being  a dispute between the  parties  regarding\t the<br \/>\nstandard  rent\tno order in eviction could be  passed  under<br \/>\nsection\t 12(3)\t(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.   The  appellate<br \/>\ncourt,\t however,  held\t that  the  case  fell\twithin\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of section 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rent  Act  by<br \/>\nreason\tof the failure of the appellant to pay costs of\t the<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Counsel\t for  the appellant contended that  the\t costs\twere<br \/>\ndeposited on 22 November, 1956 and therefore the High  Court<br \/>\nshould have exercised discretion in favour of the appellant.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court  stated that the decree  was  passed  on  5<br \/>\nOctober,  1956 and the appeal was filed on 18 October,\t1956<br \/>\nand the amount of costs was not deposited with the filing of<br \/>\nthe  memorandum\t of  appeal.  The High\tCourt  concluded  by<br \/>\nstating\t that &#8220;the decree of the trial court was made  on  5<br \/>\nOctober,  1956.\t  We  are in the year  1963.   The  attitude<br \/>\nadopted by the petitioner is not such in which a  discretion<br \/>\ncan  be\t exercised in favour of the petitioner&#8221;.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  heard the application on 19 November, 1963.   Counsel<br \/>\nfor  the appellant invited our attention to paragraph 13  of<br \/>\nthe application for review made in the High Court where\t the<br \/>\nappellant  alleged that on 7 December, 1956 the\t costs\twere<br \/>\npaid.  No portion of the judgment of the High Court is\topen<br \/>\nto  any\t criticism  for the obvious  reason  that  when\t the<br \/>\nmemorandum  of\tappeal\twas filed in the High  Court  on  18<br \/>\nOctober, 1956 the costs were not paid.\tThe application\t for<br \/>\nreview also indicates that when the matter was heard  before<br \/>\nthe High Court it was not brought to the notice of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  that  the  costs were paid on  7\t December,  1956  as<br \/>\nalleged.\n<\/p>\n<p> The  appeal  is from the judgment of the  High\t Court.\t  It<br \/>\nwould  be improper to interfere with exercise of  discretion<br \/>\npassed by the High Court when the matter was not brought  to<br \/>\nthe  notice of the High Court.\tDiscretion is  exercised  by<br \/>\nthe  court in the facts and circumstances of the case.\t Any<br \/>\ninterference with the exercise of discretion in the  present<br \/>\ncase would be substituting the discretion &#8216;of this Court  on<br \/>\na set of facts which were never presented to the High Court.<br \/>\nThe  appellant\twas  not entitled to any  relief  under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of the Bombay Rent Act.  The High Court  rightly<br \/>\nrejected the application for revision.\tThe appeal fails and<br \/>\nis dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">629<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1781, 1971 SCR (1) 626 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. PETITIONER: PIONEER PAPER BOX FACTORY Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. THAKURDEVI SHRINIWAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/05\/1970 BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D. CITATION: 1971 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 - 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\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-18T11:35:39+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\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T11:35:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\"},\"wordCount\":1080,\"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\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\",\"name\":\"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T11:35:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 - 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\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-18T11:35:39+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\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970","datePublished":"1970-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T11:35:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970"},"wordCount":1080,"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\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970","name":"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T11:35:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pioneer-paper-box-factory-vs-smt-thakurdevi-shriniwas-on-26-may-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pioneer Paper Box Factory vs Smt. Thakurdevi Shriniwas on 26 May, 1970"}]},{"@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\/177450","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=177450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}