{"id":185367,"date":"2008-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-28T21:42:43","modified_gmt":"2014-10-28T16:12:43","slug":"the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: B.S.Patil<\/div>\n
R?\n\n3\n6\nea\nx\n5-2\nx\n\u00a7\n\u00a7\n\u00a7\n\u00a7\n3\n\u00a7\n8\nx\nQ\nx\nE\nE\n3\nE\n3\n3\n2\n$2\n2\n\n \n\n \n\n..\u00a2,,...,W\u00a2..,....-m.m..m \"nan wwwma 54;\" mmgmngnmg 3-in-{pg-3 QQURI of KAQNQ \"\n\nMFA 9390\/2007\n\nIN THE HIGH coum' op' KARNA'1f;;:xA    *-\n\nCIRCUIT BENCH A'r,VQUL3ARG.\u20ac    =\n\nDATED THIS THE 1 111% DA\\??.1oF:'SEj?TEI_Q\u00a3'13E}'~2;\n\nB\u00a3spREV_\u00b0 V _ a__W\nTHE HON'BLE M\u00a7'.J.iiS1'ICE' a.$;PATr':,\n\n \n\nBETWEEX:\n\nThe Divisional Maizagei', '\nThe New I;t1dia'ASsiti;\u00a7anc:j;--..VL \nCompany Limitcgi, ' -. \" '\n[)ivisioua\u00a7--0\ufb01'ic6.\"*i:.--  \"\n\nsangamesnvvaracem\u00e9;    \n\nGulba\ufb01fga; 4 '\n\nBy the M\u00a7m;a gcr,VV' ._ 'V\nRegiozmal O\ufb01icc, ' ~ *\nT2123-\u00a2:Ne\\iz India \ufb01ssmnuce\n\n  Limited' ..... ..\n . '\ufb01o._2~B, 'U;:zity*._B1zil\u00a3ii\u00a3Lg Annexe,\n   \n #50 027.\n\nmy  \ufb01e;-ash 3.!-'until. Adv.)\n\n.5-.-uuuau--..\n\n'   Sri Mehboobsab,\n\nS\/0 late Sri Jameersab,\n25 years, Roza,\nGulbarga - 585 101.\n\n... AP!'ELLAN'l'8\n\n\n\nw a<-mmwxem mwwnrwmmmm 'lawn!\n\newmmewmnwmmwm mlsnmwwtm ww-ween WWW' mwmmuwmammm 3'"fl\\3l"l ha'J%JWB!'_f'\n\nMFA 9890\/ 2007\n\n2. Sri Khaja Farid Hasan,\nMajor, Owner of Lorry\nNo.KA-39:472,   \nResident of Darga Roza, I\nBasavakalyan,\n\nBidar District --- 585 327.\n\n(By Sr! Huleppa Hen-oar, Adv.  h V\n\nThis appeal is \ufb01led "am;der'--_S:rction.VL'30(~}.) of the WC Act\nagainst the judgment dated 30.06.2QG"-Ff in Case\nNO.WCA.NF.119]20Q4 OH     0&3 and\nCommissioner for,_ Woriimenfgi  Gufbarga,\nawarding a compense:iiQi1.of R13. 1,0_Q,'2 19,1 4' interest @ 12%\npa.       \n\n 'onfor atimission this day, the Court\ndelivered the  2  *\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
 This appe\u00e9u3._:is’p\u00a7:efer1e\u00a3i. by the Divisional Manager, New<\/p>\n
iridia  Limited, Gulbarga, against the order<\/p>\n
 2 4’V’\u00a3’er;1missioner for Workmezfs Compensa\ufb01on,<\/p>\n
‘ ”     impugned order passed on 30.06.2007, the
\n ,_C1:\u00a7mmissi0_r1er has awarded compensation in a sum of
\n  19\/- along with interest at 12% with elfect from the<\/p>\n
  of 30 days \ufb01mn the date of accident.<\/p>\n
A    The main. contemziea of the appellant in this case is that<\/p>\n
the proceedings  before the Commissioner for<\/p>\n
%_<\/p>\n
wum WP K\ufb02;\ufb01’NA%”AKA I-EEG?!  KARNATAKA. H365-*1 CGURT 0? K\ufb01RN\ufb02?AKh H36?-E CQURT OF l(ARNA’i’M(A ‘E-HG-H COURT OF KARNATAKA H!Gi*i COURT<\/p>\n
M FA 9890\/ 2007<\/p>\n
Work:rncn’s Compensation were incompetent  <\/p>\n
claimant had already \ufb01bd a Claim  ”   ~ L4 <\/p>\n
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1933. :;to.=.-=}’ \u00bbthis::bao\u00a7.%{“g7oi:nd<\/p>\n
that the entire controversy   1:ox he  ii:  ”<\/p>\n
C886.\n<\/p>\n
3. The facts that are  the claimant
\nwas employed o,n~.s~”mi*u5″”fa 6mz:\u00e9m\u00bb;Vi:’;\u20ac w*<ww::ws MW" %"%\u00ab;\u00a7"~;\u00a5\u00a7\u00bbM\u00a7\u00e9'*V;E:'?-<\\%?'k#"2g \u00bb'2""i\u00a7M.3:?'\u00a5'""\u00a7 Qmu\ufb01.-3'W\u00a7??N @433?" KMMNMERKA  <\/p>\n
MFA 9890\/2007<\/p>\n
No.457[2()O3 for the injuries caused in the sa\ufb02  "
\nthat the Tribunal by its juriment and award   AV<\/p>\n
awarded compensation in a sum of  :7:<\/p>\n
interest at 6% pa. and that the
\nhad deposited the said amount in  on 14\u00ab. it
\ncontended that the claiman\ufb02  i4:i11. "tAt: 1'Tc: \u00abgame cause of<\/p>\n
action maintain another claimeehefcinev 'thee' <\/p>\n
4. The   the question raised
\nregazdiag the.   befoxe him has held
\nthat the cleimant ;  compensation before
\neither of the    before both and hence the
\nmount fag\u00a7\u00a7a1d,ed i;y\u00bb:1\u00a7eM\u00a7inr Accident Claims’ Tribunal in a
\n  with interest was ordered to be<\/p>\n
 n'(ie.–:”a1nount detenmn’ ed as compensation<\/p>\n
  ” payable “-by  per the provisions of the Workmerfs
\n.. 1 Act. In arriving at this decision, the
\n  has drawn support: from the judgment reported
\n%  AG! 1759 in the case of GITJARAT sum new
\n zzeansmxr comroxarmx vs. mmmnu menu:
\n ‘:’uRUPPURA & 0%.\n<\/p>\n
?”””””‘” W mm\ufb01i\ufb02m WWW W’W?m_= KARNATAKA mow COURT o? MMMAKA mow cotmr or MRNAYAM HIGH
\n~  com? or :<AmAm<A HIGH comm"\n<\/p>\n
MFA 9890 \/ 2007<\/p>\n
5. On fhcts, the Commissioner found
\nciaimant was aged 21 years and was
\nmonth as a. cleaner. Taking note of the V\u00e9evioience   ‘V<\/p>\n
and the permanent physical    fhe
\nCommissioner found that    ”\n<\/p>\n
capacity to an extent of  VA   the relevant
\nfactor namely 222.r?1′.L%l:~4fdeterroined as<\/p>\n
oompcnsation ~  4′ -Z  V.\n<\/p>\n
6.   appellant-Insurance
\nCompany  that as per Section 167 of
\nthe Motor,   Section 3(5) of the Wo\ufb01cmcn’s
\n   proceedings instituted before the<\/p>\n
..::Workmen’s Compensation were iilegal and<\/p>\n
  and the Commissioner could not have<\/p>\n
  to pass the awaxvd under challenge.<\/p>\n
_ V_    on the judgment rendered by the Division
\n   _Beno1 1;  Court in the case of rm mmanm mnscmx.
\n  in 11.12 (19877 1 ms 142. He has also relied on the<\/p>\n
%\/W<\/p>\n
W-“””45>’\\>’3*””tr\ufb01'<M'"'\ufb01 nwwyma\u00e9 <'m<-%,\u00bbw'w*:m.:\u00e9 mews" mmrmmmwmnm\ufb01 \u00a7\u00a7""HW.;W"i R Wm?" W?' \u00a7"\\:..M%{NME
\n" "' ~ \ufb01\ufb01\ufb01\ufb02 WMQW QQUR?\n<\/p>\n
MFA 9390\/200′?\n<\/p>\n
judgment reported in AIR 2008 (NBC) 1428 of the  V.<\/p>\n
of Chattishgarh.   ‘<\/p>\n
7. Learned counsel appearing , fr   ” <\/p>\n
Sri.Hulcppa Hcroor stmngly  th\ufb01t
\nthe purpose behind the
\nAct, which is a welfare   the award
\npassed by the     He
\nsubmits that    ;_1:>’tWpe1’n:3itted to avail
\nthe   and so long as he is
\nmade to  ‘  as determined by the<\/p>\n
Commissione1;”f9 r W6’1*l;ii1\u00a2n*s:_”..’Compcnsa5iaon by dcducting the<\/p>\n
 was  by the Claims’ Tribunal under the<\/p>\n
  Vehicles Act, there is no justi%tion for<\/p>\n
  V mmemm   order passed by the Commissioner. He
\n VV has   on the decision Itmdcmd by the High Court
\n 5\u00a7w,i’V:r.\u00bb:sar;11;ya;”\u00e9radesh in the case of u.p.m.ma mnmmax
\n:1  & otrmms vs. %r.mA1& oamns (1990
\n  _'(3~-?:’.A.C. 269). Reliance is also piaced on the judgment<\/p>\n
LL 3 “‘if:ndered by the High Court of Punjab and Haxyana in the case<\/p>\n
of PAWAN KUHAR VS.  , WDRKHEIPS<\/p>\n
513%\/.\n<\/p>\n
MFA 9890 \/200′?’<\/p>\n
T..A.C. 41 (rang).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. Having heard the learned    <\/p>\n
upon consideration of the an    ” L’<\/p>\n
question that arises for  \u00bb.,_<\/p>\n
“Whether the   jusiz\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
in holding ma: the (A3lo_it.r_c:*V.PetiAtim1 ji’Iec”i’V-.1;’:-efore him<\/p>\n
was    the\n<\/p>\n
9. Secttiton H-V(v\u00a7V<V')vn1pcnsation Act pmvnd' es
\nfor the cmglpyc\ufb01s' '~ jiaying compensation. If any<\/p>\n
persona}  Wofkl\ufb02ag. by an aoc1d' ant arising<\/p>\n
I-'\ufb02u: OfV':f.!\u00a3id3\u00ab.iIt thg  his employment, ifs empioycr shall<\/p>\n
  in accordance with the pmviasions<\/p>\n
— VV      Section 305) of the Act reads as under.<\/p>\n
V ‘No\ufb02iing herein contained shall be deemed ta corgfer
\n., A’ ‘arpy fight to compensation on a workman in rmpect
\n ‘gang irgfury ifhe has instituted in (I aim”: Court a
\n suitfor damages in respect ofthe injury against the
\nemployer or any other person; and no suit for
\ndamagesshalibemaintainablebyaworkmanin
\nany court of law in respect of any injury, –<\/p>\n
55<\/span><\/p>\n
:L’UUR”I’ UK” KIWKNATAKA Hi\ufb01ii CGXERI mmmmm. Hi\ufb01\ufb01 COURT OF K\ufb02i?NATAl(A Hi\ufb01\ufb02 CGIJRT OF KARNATAKA WGH COURT OF KKRNATAKA HIGH COURT<\/p>\n
MFA 9890\/2007<\/p>\n
fa) ffhe has instituted \u00a31 cfaim to   <\/p>\n
respect ofthe injury before a Cmrnrrtissionerjor  .A  ”  <\/p>\n
10. It is thus clear from the  ions  ” L’<\/p>\n
that if the workman had  no soit forxio\ufb01nagcs in
\na Civil Court in respect of   the employer
\nor any other P\ufb01m\ufb02\ufb01’  file Workmcn’s
\nCompensation    right on such
\nworkman to    the provisions of
\nthe Act.    of the Workmcn’s
\nCompcnsatiog Act  a claim is made before the<\/p>\n
Competozzt   fh.o \u00a7.vorm1aa, no suit \ufb01r damages is<\/p>\n
   b”y._a wofkmanv’ “””  in any Court of Law in respect of<\/p>\n
  :foz:Aw3iic:1\u00a7_jhe has already instituted a claim before the<\/p>\n
   mmggmnq; \ufb02ffiic object behind the provision is amply clear,
\n   o particuiar Forum is chosen by the workman
\n  Civil Law or under the Special Legislation namely
\n .._Wor\u00a7\u00a7meo’s Compensation Act, it will not be open for him to opt<\/p>\n
‘\u00e9foruthc other Forum. The legislative intent is clear and<\/p>\n
. muui\ufb02\ufb02 In<\/p>\n
W… Ww…;__.,_r mmnmm rum-1 cow? 9? MRNATAM men COURT or mnmmm Hm” comm or xAmAm<A i-HGH calm<\/p>\n
MFA 9390\/2007
\n1 1<\/p>\n
nor is permitted as per the provisions referred to .,
\nOn the other hand, this is precisely what is 4. "
\nprevented by enacting the provisions under.Sec\ufb0126V\ufb01 i3
\nWorkmen's Compensation Act and
\nVehicles Act. Reliance placed by* the   <\/p>\n
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh   (2f}T.A.C.
\n269 is not apt to the case 011:  ease  claim
\nfor compensation was   the Motor<\/p>\n
Accident Claims'  gtvhenythe  under the<\/p>\n
Worlcxnenfs   It is therefore
\nobserved  the   before the Commissioner for
\nWork1nen's   V\ufb01not have been maintained
\nwhen the   the Motor Vehicles Act was
\n   &'V1'ribunal. In paragraph-12 of the
\n   Court has however observed that there<\/p>\n
_ *was  Before the Court to disclose how the
\n  to be  before the Commissioner for
\n Compensation. Keeping in mind, the fact that the<\/p>\n
  was an illiterate lady and her ch\ufb01dzen were minors<\/p>\n
  she was \ufb01ghting for compensation ibr the death of her<\/p>\n
wwwmi wr mmmwimmmm Hmi\ufb01 COFJRTf5.{3_\u00a7 K\ufb02gwh-{AKA R36" COMM. F
\n   0 KARNATAKA H\ufb02\ufb01\ufb01\u00bb-3 COURYOF KMNNKKA HIGH COUR? OF KAM*fATAKA HIGH CGUXT<\/p>\n
MFA 93%\/2007
\n12<\/span><\/p>\n
husband, the High Court held that the amount  <\/p>\n
claimants under the Work1:m=:n’s Compcfggusa\ufb01oxz ‘4 ” = ‘V<\/p>\n
deducted from the amount of the   ‘V  s<\/p>\n
Accident Claims’ Tribunal. Thcmfong, tbs    tiie  ,<\/p>\n
said decision does not in any  cams   of the
\n(ftimhis . \\’  <\/p>\n
14. with regard ta-the    ACJ 1759
\nin the case    nwvspom’
\n s-smriamsnax xvrwm &
\no1mRs, on =whi\u00a21\u00a7~:\u00a7:ej–ms:jsisg:oner has placed reliance, it is<\/p>\n
necessary tcf  o1′.u1t’_  the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
.v.i.:;:;voIvc::1iA:.i\ufb011 “the  were totally di\ufb01emnt inasmuch as the<\/p>\n
 of the deceased had not instituted any<\/p>\n
‘Vibe Worlmcxfs Compensa\ufb01on Act, but the<\/p>\n
 V cmpldjfcr  dsposiwd the amounf which was liable to be paid’
\nH H ”  _’thc pfovisi<Ins of the Work:mcn's Compensation Act. The<\/p>\n
'  'na\ufb01resentatives had received the said amount but had<\/p>\n
V?  proceedings only under the pmvisions of the Motor<\/p>\n
 "  'Vehicies Act. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
the Gujarat High Court held that it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
Sn\ufb01\ufb02\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01<\/p>\n
vr zwmwmmo\ufb02 mun  \u00a7(&RMA"3"\ufb01K\ufb01t MG" CQUW' 0? WARNAYAKA H36?! COURT OF K\ufb01RNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA mew EOUW<\/p>\n
MFA 9390\/2007
\n14 '<\/p>\n
stipulated time. In depositing the said
\npurported to discharge his stamto1y.:ob}\u00e9.g:atioh"tt\ufb01iieg-'.th\u00a7?f.laiV.'\u00ab
\nIf that amount were to be paid to 15\u00a2<\/p>\n
said was that such payment    the V L'<\/p>\n
compensation awaniable tinder T. under
\nthe Motor vehicles Act.  . Sec\ufb01mn I IOAA
\nof the Motor Vehicles   because the
\nclaimants   Sec\ufb01on IIOAA of<\/p>\n
the Motor ' <\/p>\n
15.   are cii\ufb01ezent. The im1ued’<\/p>\n
c1ann’ ant h.-35  the remedy under the provisions<\/p>\n
 of the\ufb02tlotor  1988. Hence, the hm’ oontained<\/p>\n
  of the Motor Vehicles Act is applicable.<\/p>\n
Hemgoinetgeo the law Laid ciown by this Court as refenecl<\/p>\n
 to  and in the wake of the provisions contained
\nH H  3(5) of the Workmcds Compensation Act, 1923
\nK   provisions contained under Section 167 of the Motor
\n  Veizticlcs Act, 1933 it is to be ma that the award passed by the<\/p>\n
  ” Commissioner in the instant case is vi\ufb01ated m the ciaimt<\/p>\n
was not entitled to initiate parallel proceedings by involdng the<\/p>\n
%\/<\/p>\n
 W…”..m W Wmmmmw newt”! Mmm w- twa\ufb01wm\ufb01\ufb02\ufb01\ufb01 WWW agmmzf m\ufb01 m\ufb01mmm Mm\u00e9t mm’2\u00a7*”‘”<\/p>\n
MFA 9890\/2200’?\n<\/p>\n
15 <\/span><\/p>\n
Pmvisions of the Workzttnexfs Comp\ufb01nsahion Act\u00bb  N  %\ufb01t4Y .
\nelected to initiate proceedings undf-.r””ti1ct 2 ‘<\/p>\n
Hence, I have no hesitation to hold <\/p>\n
the Commissioner is illegal    <\/p>\n
15. It is unfortunatcv  11% who has
\nsu\ufb01etved injury in a scnsi\ufb01\ufb01te in his vertebra
\nand is found    his claim made
\nheron-. the  in dctcxmina\ufb01on of
\ncompensation. “a  R”\u00a7.’2\u00a7,000\/–. It is not \ufb01n’ this
\nCourt  or otherwise of the award<\/p>\n
passed by  Claims’ ‘I’ribu;na1. It is open to<\/p>\n
_.._thc  ton’ challgngc the award passed by the Motor<\/p>\n
  bcfom the proper Appellate Forum by<\/p>\n
 5  of delay in presenting the appwl in<\/p>\n
 .accoItianc\u00e9: law, particularly having Began?! to the pcndency<\/p>\n
W  t112′:__1\u00a7c  ‘ s in this appeal. This observation is<\/p>\n
 having regard to the unfortunate situation in<\/p>\n
V   the claimant \ufb01nds himself due to the wmng advise given
\n   “to him.\n<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
mgr KARWATAKA W63-E CGURY 0? amammm WGW COURT OF K\ufb01RNATAKA HIGH CGKSRT OF KARNAT\ufb02KA<\/p>\n
HWH CORR’?\n<\/p>\n
n-cur-war-umw”\u20ace il”l’W~2FiE’1 Vat?’-5&3<\/p>\n
MFA 9890\/2002?\n<\/p>\n
16 <\/span><\/p>\n
17. In the result and for the foregoing, this a;3\u00a7\u00e9ai ‘i:\u00e9
\nThe: onier passed by the    WV:0rkm\u00e911’s’ j  AV
\nCompensation is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
costs. Amount in deposit      <\/p>\n
the appellant– Insurance A” ” V . _ ‘ ” \u00ab .. _<\/p>\n
    sd\/..\n<\/p>\n
       Judge<\/p>\n
XX<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 Author: B.S.Patil R? 3 6 ea x 5-2 x \u00a7 \u00a7 \u00a7 \u00a7 3 \u00a7 8 x Q x E E 3 E 3 3 2 $2 2 ..\u00a2,,…,W\u00a2..,….-m.m..m “nan wwwma 54;” mmgmngnmg 3-in-{pg-3 QQURI of KAQNQ ” MFA 9390\/2007 IN THE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 - 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\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-28T16:12:43+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\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-28T16:12:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1787,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-28T16:12:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 - 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\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-28T16:12:43+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\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-28T16:12:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008"},"wordCount":1787,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008","name":"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-28T16:12:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-shri-mehboobsab-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/185367","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=185367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}