{"id":186876,"date":"2004-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004"},"modified":"2016-04-15T06:16:51","modified_gmt":"2016-04-15T00:46:51","slug":"u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Dharmadhikari, P. P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  357-358 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nU.P. State Sugar Corporation and another\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s Mahalchand M. Kothari and others\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nM. Dharmadhikari & P. P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dharmadhikari J.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance,
\n1971 which later became an Act No. 23 of the same name [hereinafter
\nreferred to shortly as the ‘Ordinance\/Act’], M\/s Maheshwari Khetan
\nSugar Mill Pvt. Ltd., [Respondent No. 2 herein] at Ramkola, District
\nDeoria in the State of Uttar Pradesh, was acquired by the appellant
\nU.P. State Sugar Corporation [shortly referred to as ‘the Corporation’].\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the date of coming into force of the Ordinance,  the Sugar
\nMill was under management of Receiver appointed on 04.3.1970 by
\nthe Collector for recovery of dues of cane-growers as arrears of land
\nrevenue in accordance with section 279(1)(g) read with Section 286A
\nof the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [shortly
\nreferred to as ‘the Act of 1950’].\n<\/p>\n
M\/s Mahalchand M. Kothari which is a partnership firm carrying
\non trade in Guwahati in the State of Assam filed two suits in the Court
\nof Assistatnt District Judge, Guwahati for recovery of damages caused
\nto it as a result of non-supply of sugar under the contract entered into
\nby the plaintiff firm with the Receiver who was managing the Sugar
\nMill.  The orders were placed by the plaintiff for supply of different
\nquantities of sugar in the year 1979 and advance money was paid to
\nthe Receiver for timely supply.   The prices of sugar having gone up in
\nthe period of supply under the contract, the Receiver neither sent the
\nquantity of sugar nor returned the advance price paid by the plaintiff.
\nBoth the suits Nos. 11 & 27 were filed in the year 1982.  The erstwhile
\nMill owner and the appellant Corporation were made defendants to the
\nsuits because by that time, Sugar Mill already stood transferred to,
\nvested in and been in actual possession of the Corporation in
\naccordance with section 3 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Corporation repudiated the claims made in the two suits
\npleading inter alia  that there was no privity of contract between the
\nplaintiff and the Corporation; the Receiver was managing the Sugar
\nMill on the date of alleged non-supply of quantity of sugar; the
\nerstwhile owner of the Sugar Mill had filed writ petition in the High
\nCourt of  Allahabad challenging the constitutional validity of the Uttar
\nPradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1971 in which
\noperation of the Ordinance was stayed and the possession of the
\nSugar Mill was restored to the erstwhile owner on specified terms and
\nconditions of the order of stay.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Assistant District Judge, Guwahati by two separate
\njudgements, decreed both the suits holding  inter alia that the
\nCorporation cannot avoid its liability towards the claims of the plaintiff
\nas the Sugar Mill stood transferred to and vested in it from the
\n‘appointed day’  i.e. 3.7.1971 under Section 3 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Corporation had preferred two appeals to the High Court of
\nGuwahati which were allowed on 26.6.1996 solely on the ground that
\nthe suits were not maintainable as the plaintiff was not a registered
\npartnership firm and was, therefore, incompetent to sue as a firm. The
\nplaintiff then had approached this Court by Civil Appeal Nos. 3057 and
\n3058 of 1997 which were allowed on 25.7.1997 as it was pointed out
\nthat original certificate showing registration of the firm had been
\nproduced before the trial court. This Court, therefore, remitted the
\nappeals to the High Court for their decision on merits.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment
\ndated 16.7.1998 dismissed both the appeals of the Corporation and
\nconfirmed the decrees granted by the trial court in the two suits in
\nfavour of the respondent\/plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Corporation, therefore, after seeking leave is before this
\nCourt in these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel appearing for the Corporation has taken us
\nthrough the relevant dates and proceedings of the Allahabad High
\nCourt in the writ petition which was filed challenging the
\nOrdinance\/Act. It is strenuously urged that there was no privity of
\ncontract between plaintiff and the Corporation.  The Corporation,
\ntherefore, could not be held liable towards the losses and damages
\ncaused to the plaintiff by alleged breach of contract committed by the
\nReceiver in not supplying the sugar for which orders had been placed
\nby the plaintiff.  It is submitted that for transferring and vesting of
\nSugar Mill in the Corporation,  the ‘appointed day’ fixed under Section
\n3 of the Ordinance\/Act was 3.7.1971 but the erstwhile owner of the
\nSugar Mill challenged the validity of the Ordinance in the Allahabad
\nHigh Court and obtained a stay order on 09.7.1971 whereunder the
\nReceiver, who was already managing the Sugar Mill as a nominee of
\nthe Collector under section 279(1)(g) read with Section 286A of the
\nAct of 1950, continued in the management of the Sugar Mill for and on
\nbehalf of the erstwhile owner. It is contended by the counsel on behalf
\nof the Corporation that when two orders for supply of sugar were
\nalleged to have been placed on 02.2.1979 and 09.2.1979 by the
\nplaintiff, the Receiver was in possession and management of the sugar
\nmill.  He was acting not for the Corporation but for and on behalf of
\nthe erstwhile owner of the mill who was in de jure possession of the
\nmill as an effect of the order of stay dated 09.7.1971 obtained in Writ
\nPetition No. 4193 of 1971 filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging
\nthe constitutional validity of the Ordinance.  Under the terms of the
\norder of stay, operation of the Ordinance was stayed and possession of
\nthe mill was restored to the erstwhile owner.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff heavily
\nrelied on the photocopies of the order-sheets of the writ petition No.
\n4193 of 1971 filed in the Allahabad High Court.  An attempt has been
\nmade to show that the order obtained by the erstwhile owner of the
\nSugar Mill on 09.7.1971 staying operation of the Ordinance had been
\nvacated by the High Court on 29.7.1974 on the application of the
\nReceiver who was experiencing various difficulties in managing and
\nrunning the Sugar Mill. The learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff
\ncontended that as the stay against Ordinance\/Act passed on 09.7.1971
\nstood vacated on 29.7.1974, the Sugar Mill would be deemed to have
\nstood transferred to and vested in the Corporation on the ‘appointed
\nday’ 03.7.1971. The orders for supply of sugar were placed on
\n02.2.1979 and 09.2.1979 by the plaintiff after the stay against
\nOrdinance had been vacated by the High Court on 29.7.1974. On
\nbehalf of the respondent plaintiff, it is,  therefore, submitted that for
\nthe acts and omissions of the Receiver the Corporation, in whom the
\nSugar Mill stood vested, could not have been allowed to repudiate its
\nliability towards the breach of contract committed by the Receiver.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the outset, it is necessary to put straight the factual position
\nwhich is discernible on a careful perusal of the proceedings of the writ
\npetition in the High Court in which the constitutional  validity of the
\nAct\/Ordinance was challenged.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the respondent plaintiff, an attempt was made to
\nproject that the order dated 09.7.1971 granting stay against the
\nOrdinance\/Act, stood vacated on 27.9.1974 on the application of the
\nReceiver who prayed for unfettered right to manage the Sugar Mill.  In
\nthe additional documents filed by the parties before us, a copy of the
\napplication filed by the receiver seeking vacation of stay and
\nphotocopies of the order-sheets of the High Court in the writ petition
\nhave been produced.  The Receiver had filed an affidavit on 16.5.1974
\nin the High Court of Allahabad in which prayer was made to vacate the
\ninterim order of stay.\n<\/p>\n
 On behalf of respondent plaintiff, reliance is placed on the
\norder-sheet recorded in the writ petition on 29.7.1974.  It reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
‘Hon. Gulati J.\n<\/p>\n
29.7.1974.\t\t ‘Application dated 17.3.1974 allowed.
\nList the writ for hearing on 16.9.1974.’ <\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the above
\nquoted order, the date of the application mentioned as 17.3.1974
\nshould be correctly read as 17.5.1974 as according to him the hand-
\nwritten figure 3 showing the month should be read as 5. We find that
\nnothing turns on the fact whether the application which was allowed on
\n29.7.1974 was of date 17.3.1974 or 17.5.1974.  After 29.7.1974, the
\nwrit petition stood adjourned to several dates for hearing. The order-
\nsheet of 22.5.1976 reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
‘Hon. Sapru J.,<\/p>\n
22.5.1976 ‘An application to vacate the stay order has been
\nfiled on 10.5.1976. A counter affidavit has been filed
\nwithin three weeks. The rejoinder affidavit may be filed
\nby 07th of July, 1976. List it for orders on 08.7.1976.’ <\/p>\n
Office Report dated 07.07.1976 reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
Misc. 5657\/76 dated 10.5.76 (to vacate stay)<\/p>\n
In compliance of court’s order dated 20.5.1976, neither counter nor
\nrejoinder affidavit has been filed. Put up for further orders.\n<\/p>\n
On 08.7.1976, as directed earlier, the case was listed before
\nthe Division Bench which recorded the following order :-
\n‘Hon. Yashoda Nandan J.,
\nHon. H. N. Seth J., <\/p>\n
8.7.1976 ‘We are informed that the application for vacating the stay
\norder is part-heard before a Bench consisting of Hon. C.P.S. Singh and
\nHon. Mahrotra JJ. List this application before the bench concerned at
\nan early date.’<\/p>\n
\tFrom the above quoted subsequent orders, it appears that the
\nparties were repeatedly taking time to file additional pleadings and
\ncounters but no orders on application for vacating stay was passed.
\nThe writ petition was placed before various benches between July,
\n1997 to April, 1979. The writ petition challenging the validity of the
\nOrdinance\/Act was dismissed on 3.5.1979 which can be said to be the
\nevent whereupon the interim order of stay of the Ordinance\/Act
\npassed on 09.7.1971 stood automatically vacated.\n<\/p>\n
From the resume of the above facts gathered out from the
\nphotocopies of the proceedings of the writ petition, the fact which
\nconclusively emerges is that the conditional interim stay granted on
\n9.7.1971 in the writ petition challenging constitutional validity of the
\nOrdinance\/Act stood vacated only on the final dismissal of the writ
\npetition on 03.5.1979. As is sought to be projected on behalf of the
\nrespondent, the stay was not vacated on 29.7.1974. On that date,
\nsome other application dated 17.3.1974 (details of which are not clear
\nfrom the proceedings of the writ petition) happened to be allowed. The
\nfurther proceedings in the writ petition clearly go to show that the
\napplication for vacating stay remained pending on 22.5.1976 and
\n08.7.1976.  It was never decided during pendency of the writ petition.
\nThe stay order stood vacated only when judgment was delivered on
\n03.5.1979 and the writ petition questioning the validity of the
\nOrdinance\/Act was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn these facts culled out from the proceedings of the writ
\npetition, it is clear that Receiver entered into alleged contract for
\nSupply of agreed quantities of sugar to the plaintiff respondent on
\n2.2.1979 and 9.2.1979 when stay order dated 9-7-1971 passed in the
\nwrit petition was in operation.\n<\/p>\n
\tNext, we have to consider what is the legal effect of the order of
\nstay passed by the High Court in the writ petition on 09.7.1971. To
\nascertain the legal effect of the stay order passed in writ petition, it is
\nnecessary to reproduce its contents and examine it critically.\n<\/p>\n
O R D E R<\/p>\n
Issue notice.\n<\/p>\n
Till further orders of this Court, the operation of U.P.
\nOrdinance No. 13 of  1971 shall remain stayed so far as the
\nReceiver is concerned. The status quo, as on July 2, 1971, shall
\nbe restored and the petitioner company which admittedly, was
\nrunning the mills on that date, will be put back in possession.
\nThis order will, however, not affect any other proceedings pending
\nand any other orders that may be passed by any competent
\ncourt or authority hereafter. This order will be further subject to
\nthe following condition:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Receiver shall made arrangements for the off season
\nrepairs of the machinery etc. and if he takes advances from
\nBank for this purpose, final orders regarding repayment of the
\nsame would be passed at the time of the final disposal of the
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe amount of money to be spent on the repairs shall not
\nexceed the average amount spent in the last three years.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Receiver  is restrained from removing or disposing of any
\nproperty of the undertaking other than sugar, molasses
\nand waste products.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe  Receiver shall maintain the plant and machinery in good
\nrepairs to ensure the satisfactory running of the factory in the
\ncoming crushing season. The Collector, Deoria, shall, however,
\nhave free access to the factory and will  be consulted by the
\nreceiver in matters of management. It will be open to the
\nCollector to prepare such inventory as he desires. If an
\ninventory is prepared, the Collector shall supply a copy thereof
\nto the Receiver.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe Receiver shall not create any long term or unduly heavy
\nliabilities on the property including the mortgage of fixed
\nassets; any loans that he may raise shall be only for the
\npurpose of capital investment or working capital of the
\nundertaking concerned.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe Receiver shall make no changes in the terms and
\nconditions of any employee, except with the previous
\npermission of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tCopies of this order may be supplied to the counsel for the
\nparties on payment of usual charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
\tFrom the terms and conditions of the above quoted order of stay
\npassed on 9-7-1971, what seems to us is that the operation of the
\nimpugned Ordinance\/Act was partially stayed on specified conditions to
\nregulate the power of the Receiver which was already managing the
\nSugar Mill under section 279(1)(g) read with section 286A of the Act of
\n1950. The legal effect of the order of stay (quoted above) was that the
\nReceiver which was appointed under the Act of 1950, was to continue
\nin management of the Mill on the conditions imposed by the High
\nCourt.  From term no. 3 in the stay order, it is clear that the  Receiver
\nhad only power to carry on day-to-day business of the Sugar Mill  and
\nfor that purpose, to sell sugar, molasses and waste products.  The
\nReceiver, when  entered into the alleged contract in February, 1979 to
\nsupply sugar to the plaintiff respondent was acting as a statutory
\nReceiver  who was allowed with added conditions to continue in
\nmanagement of the Sugar Mill by the High Court in accordance with
\nsection 279(1)(g) and Section 286-A of the Act of 1950.  Under the
\nterms of the stay order, the status-quo as existing on 2.7.1971 i.e. a
\nday before the ‘appointed day’ was restored and the erstwhile owner
\nwas directed to be put back in possession of the Sugar Mill. The de
\njure possession of the Sugar Mill was thus restored to the erstwhile
\nowner but de facto possession on terms and conditions contained in
\nthe order of stay was allowed to be retained by the  Receiver with right
\nto  manage the Sugar Mill.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next legal question that arises is:  what is the legal effect of
\nvacation of the order of stay on ultimate dismissal of the writ petition
\non 3.5.1979?\n<\/p>\n
\tThe other related question is : what was the position of the
\nReceiver who was managing the Sugar Mill? Whether he was
\nrepresenting the erstwhile owner or the Corporation or he was
\nrepresenting none of them but was representing the Collector who had
\nappointed him under the Act of 1950? For the aforesaid questions, a
\nbrief survey of the provisions of the Ordinance\/Act and the Act of 1950
\nwould be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Act of 1950 prescribes appointment of Receiver on the
\nproperty of the defaulter as one of the modes of recovery of dues as
\narrears of land revenue.  Section 279 (1)(g) reads as under :-
\n“Section 279.  Procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue.-
\n(1) An arrear of land revenue may be recovered by any one or more of
\nthe following processes :\n<\/p>\n
…………..\n<\/p>\n
…………..\n<\/p>\n
(g) by appointing a receiver of any property, moveable or immovable
\nof the defaulter.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 286A of the Act of 1950 is the other relevant Section
\nwhich empowers the Collector to appoint a Receiver for recovery of
\ndues as arrears of land. It reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 286-A. Appointment of Receiver.-(1) Notwithstanding
\nanything in this Act when [an arrears of revenue or any other sum
\nrecoverable as an arrear of revenue] is due, the Collector, may in
\naddition to or instead of any of the processes hereinbefore specified,
\nby order  <\/p>\n
a)\tappoint, for such period as he may deem fit, a receiver  of any
\nmoveable or immovable property of the defaulter;\n<\/p>\n
b)\tremove any person from the possession or custody of the
\nproperty;\n<\/p>\n
c)\tcommit the same to the possession, custody of management of
\nthe receiver ;\n<\/p>\n
d)\tconfer upon the receiver  all such powers, as to bringing and
\ndefending suits and for the realization, management,
\nprotection, preservation and improvement of the property, the
\ncollection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and
\ndisposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of
\ndocuments, as the defaulter himself has or such of those
\npowers as the Collector thinks fit.”\n<\/p>\n
As the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
\nOrdinance\/Act indicates that the legislation is brought into force by the
\nState to acquire such Sugar Mills where because of the
\nmismanagement of the Mills, serious problems are faced by the cane-
\ngrowers and the labour with consequential adverse impact on the
\ngeneral economy of the area where the mills are situated. Under the
\nAct, the scheduled Sugar Mills or undertakings are acquired by the
\nState which stand transferred to and vested in the Corporation from
\nthe ‘appointed day’.   Section 2(a) & (c) of the Act define ‘appointed
\nday’ and ‘Corporation’ respectively.  Section 2(a) & (c) and section 3 of
\nthe Act read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Section 2. Definition.  In this Act, unless the context otherwise
\nrequires  <\/p>\n
(a)\t‘appointed day’ in relation to the undertakings specified in
\nSchedule I means July 3, 1971 and in relation to the
\nundertakings specified in Schedule II means October 28, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t……………..\n<\/p>\n
(c)\t“Corporation” means the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation
\nLimited, a Government Company within the meaning of section
\n617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956).\n<\/p>\n
(d)\t…………………\n<\/p>\n
Section 3. Vesting.  On the appointed day, every scheduled
\nundertaking shall, by virtue of this Act, stand and be deemed to have
\nstood transferred to and vest and be deemed to have vested in the
\nCorporation free from any debt, mortgage, charge or other
\nencumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation (excepting any lien or
\nother obligation in respect of any advance on the security of any sugar
\nstock or other stock-in-trade) attaching to the undertaking :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that any such debt, mortgage charge or other encumbrance
\nor lien, trust or similar obligation shall attach to the compensation
\nreferred to in section 7, in accordance with the provisions of that
\nsection, in substitution  for the undertaking :\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that a debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance
\nor lien, trust or similar obligation created after the scheduled
\nundertaking or any property or asset comprised therein had been
\nattached, or a receiver appointed over it, in any proceedings for
\nrealization of any tax or cess or other dues recoverable as arrears of
\nrevenue shall be void as against all claims for dues recoverable as
\narrears of revenue.\n<\/p>\n
\tOne of the consequences of vesting of the sugar mill in the
\nCorporation under section 3 of the Act, as provided in section 4(a), is
\nthat any receiver appointed by the court on the scheduled
\nundertaking\/Sugar Mill shall cease to function from the appointed day.
\nSection 4(a) of the Act reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 4. Certain consequences of vesting.  Notwithstanding
\nanything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and
\nsave as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from the appointed
\nday <\/p>\n
(a)\tevery appointment of  Receiver over any scheduled
\nundertaking by any court shall cease;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t——————–”\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid provision refers to any  ‘Receiver appointed by any
\nthe court’ and not a  Receiver appointed by the Collector under the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1950. The mode of delivery of possession of
\nthe acquired Sugar Mill is contained in section 5. It provides first
\ndelivery of possession of the Sugar Mill by the owner to the Collector
\nwho shall prepare inventory of property, assets, books of accounts,
\nregisters etc., and thereupon shall deliver the possession of the
\nundertaking\/Sugar Mill to the Corporation. Section 5 of the Act reads
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 5. Duty to deliver possession. (1) Where any scheduled
\nundertaking has vested in the Corporation under section 3, every
\nperson in whose possession or custody or under whose control any
\nproperty or asset, book of account, register or other document
\ncomprised in that undertaking may be, shall forthwith deliver the same
\nto the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe Collector may take all necessary steps for securing
\npossession of any such property or asset, book of account, register or
\ndocument, and in particular, may use or cause to be used such force
\nas may be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe Collector shall prepare an inventory of all properties,
\nassets, books of account, registers and documents taken possession of
\nunder this section, so far as practicable in the presence of the occupier
\nor his authorized representative.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tDeliver of possession to the Collector under this section shall
\namount to delivery of possession to the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tWithout prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing sub-
\nsections, any person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be liable to
\naccount to the corporation for any such property or asset, book of
\naccount, register or document which he has failed to deliver to the
\nCollector.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe entry at Serial No. 4 in Column Nos. 2 & 3 of  Schedule I
\nattached to the Act, shows the Sugar Mill named  Maheshwari Khetan
\nSugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Ramkola, District Deoria stands acquired and
\nvested in the Corporation on the appointed day on payment of fixed
\ncompensation of Rs. 11,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1950 and the
\nOrdinance\/Act, it is clear that the Receiver who was in the
\nmanagement of the Sugar Mill on the ‘appointed day’ was not a
\nReceiver appointed by any Court. He was a Receiver appointed by the
\nCollector under the Act of 1950 and on the vesting of the Sugar Mill on
\nthe appointed date 3.7.1971, was in possession and management of
\nthe Sugar Mill not as an agent either of the erstwhile Sugar Mill owner
\nor the corporation. He was a statutory Receiver appointed under
\nsection 279(1)(g) read with section 286-A of the Act of 1950 for the
\npurpose of recovery of dues of the cane-growers in the manner as
\narrears of land revenue.  He was allowed to continue in management
\nof the Sugar Mill by the High Court on the terms and conditions
\nimposed in the order of stay passed during pendency of the writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe liabilities incurred by a statutory Receiver in the course of
\nmanagement of the Sugar Mill are liabilities attached to assets or
\nproperties of the Sugar Mill because neither the erstwhile owner nor
\nthe Corporation, which later acquired the Sugar Mill, was responsible
\nfor the alleged losses or damages caused to the plaintiff by the alleged
\nbreach of contract committed by the receiver in non-supply of the
\nquantity of sugar.\n<\/p>\n
The general rule is that a  receiver takes the rights, causes, and
\nremedies which were in the individual or estate whose  receiver he is,
\nor which were available to those whose interests he was appointed to
\nrepresent. Ordinarily none of the parties to the suit in which a
\nreceiver was appointed is personally responsible for losses and
\nliabilities incurred in the administration of the receivership, but, except
\nas the  receiver may be personally liable therefor, such losses and
\nliabilities fall on the estate. [See statement of law in Corpus Juris Secundum
\nVol.75 Articles 325 & 187 at pages 833 and 1000, respectively]<\/p>\n
\tIn the present suit, the  Receiver has not been impleaded as a
\nparty-defendant and there is  no claim against him for any misconduct
\ncommitted by him in management of the Sugar Mill.  He is not alleged
\nto be personally liable for the alleged breach of contract.  The liability,
\ntherefore, towards the alleged loss or damage arising from  breach of
\ncontract attaches to the Sugar Mill and can be allowed to  be realized
\nfrom the person in whom the title of Sugar Mill stands vested.\n<\/p>\n
A  statutory Receiver is merely the legal representative of the
\nproperty placed in his hands as such.  In determining his liability the
\ncourt will only determine the liability of the property.  It is not material
\nwhether the liability existed before or has accrued since his
\nappointment.  A contractual liability arising against the receiver during
\nthe course of management of the property for acts or omissions
\ncommitted by him for the benefit of the property, is not merely
\nenforceable against the receiver but is a liability attached to the
\nproperty in his receivership, which can be recovered from the property
\nand through the person in whom the property vests. [See Statement of
\nlaw in Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition Vol.36 at page 742 from the Heading
\nRepresentative of property]<\/p>\n
\tAs is the admitted position, on the coming into force of the
\nOrdinance, the Sugar Mill stood transferred to and vested in the
\nCorporation on the appointed date 3.7.1971. On that date, the
\nReceiver appointed by the Collector under the provisions of 1950 Act
\nwas already holding custody of the Sugar Mill and was managing the
\nsame.   During course of the Writ Petition filed by the owner of the
\nSugar Mill in which the constitutional validity of the ordinance\/Act was
\nchallenged, a stay order, on the limited terms and conditions, was
\npassed on 9.7.1971.  The terms and conditions of the order
\nreproduced above, restored the de jure possession of the Sugar Mill to
\nthe erstwhile owner but de facto possession and management of the
\nSugar Mill was allowed to remain undisturbed with the receiver
\nalthough with limited powers to him. The Receiver was specifically
\nallowed in accordance with term No.3 of the stay order to sell sugar,
\nmolasses and other waste products.  By virtue of the order of stay
\npassed by the High Court, during pendency of the writ petition, the
\nReceiver appointed under the Act of 1950, continued to manage the
\nSugar Mill subject to the ultimate result of the writ petition.  The Writ
\nPetition ultimately came to be dismissed on 3.5.1979 and the stay
\norder containing the terms and conditions (quoted above) passed on
\n9.7.1971 stood automatically vacated. The natural consequence was
\nrestoration of full operation of the provisions of the ordinance\/Act as
\nwas originally passed. In accordance with Section 3 of the Act, the
\nSugar Mill stood transferred and vested in the Corporation from the
\nappointed date 3.7.1971.  On vacation of the stay order with effect
\nfrom the appointed day-3.7.1971, the operation of the Ordinance\/Act
\nwas revived.  The liability arising from breach of contract committed
\nby the Receiver was not of the Corporation. It was an obligation
\nattached to the property of the Sugar Mill which was under the
\nmanagement of the  Receiver, initially under  the 1950 Act and
\ncontinued under the order of stay passed by the High Court.  Since the
\nliability towards breach of contract was attached to the sugar mill
\nunder the management of the Receiver, the Corporation in whom title
\nof the sugar mill stands  vested  under  Section  3  of  the
\nAct cannot avoid the liability – it being a burden on the said property
\nand recoverable from it.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is of no importance or consequence that actual or de facto
\npossession of the property was received by the Corporation under a
\nformal order of Collector, Deoria on 23.5.1979, only after dismissal of
\nthe Writ Petition on 3.5.1979 and consequent discharge of the
\nReceiver.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Ordinance was stayed by the High Court to restore status
\nquo ante existing on 2.7.1971 that is a day prior to appointed date
\n3.7.1971. But on the dismissal of writ petition and automatic vacation
\nof the stay order of the High Court, the operation of the Ordinance\/Act
\nwith all legal consequences flowing from the said law stood restored
\nfrom the appointed date. The trial court and the High Court are
\nperfectly right in holding in their judgments that the order of stay
\npassed in writ petition could have no effect of postponing the
\n‘appointed day; statutorily fixed under section 3 of the Ordinance\/Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe argument advanced on behalf of the corporation cannot be
\naccepted that the Sugar Mill came to be transferred to the Corporation
\nonly when its actual possession was formally obtained from the
\nCollector, Deoria on 23.5.1979 after dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe legal status and position of a receiver appointed by the
\nCourt and a Receiver appointed under in a Statute are different. In the
\ninstant case, the receiver appointed under the Act of 1950 and
\ncontinued by the High Court on terms and conditions contained in the
\nstay order during pendency of the writ petition, was a statutory
\nreceiver and his rights and liabilities were attached to the property for
\nthe management of which he was appointed. The receiver was not an
\nagent of either of the parties.  For his acts and omissions, a third party
\ncould raise a claim against the party in whom the property stood
\nvested and to which the liability was attached.\n<\/p>\n
The suits were filed by the plaintiff claiming losses and damages
\nfor breach of contract committed by the receiver within the prescribed
\nperiod of limitation. On the date of filing of the suits, the receiver was
\nnot in possession of the Sugar Mill as the actual possession of the
\nSugar Mill had been restored to the Corporation. It was, therefore, not
\nnecessary for the plaintiff to implead the receiver as a party to the
\nsuits. The Receiver could not be made personally liable for his acts and
\nomissions in the course of management of the Sugar Mill and which
\nare not alleged to be mala fide.\n<\/p>\n
\tOur conclusion, therefore, is that as none of the parties i.e. the
\nerstwhile owner or the Corporation is personally liable for the breach of
\ncontract committed by the receiver in the course of management of
\nthe Sugar Mill, the contractual liability of the receiver towards the
\nplaintiff is recoverable from the property of the Sugar Mill, and
\ntherefore, through the Corporation in whom the property stands
\nvested under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs a result of the detailed discussion of facts and law as above,
\nboth the appeals stand dismissed with costs and the decrees granted
\nby the trial court are hereby confirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: M. Dharmadhikari, P. P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 357-358 of 1999 PETITIONER: U.P. State Sugar Corporation and another RESPONDENT: M\/s Mahalchand M. Kothari and others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/2004 BENCH: […]<\/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-186876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nU.P. State Sugar Corporation And ... vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And ... on 29 October, 2004 - 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\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And ... vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-15T00:46:51+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\\\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T00:46:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5050,\"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\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\",\"name\":\"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And ... vs M\\\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T00:46:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\\\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And ... vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And ... on 29 October, 2004 - 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\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And ... vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-15T00:46:51+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T00:46:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004"},"wordCount":5050,"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\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004","name":"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And ... vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T00:46:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-and-vs-ms-mahalchand-m-kothari-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P. State Sugar Corporation And … vs M\/S Mahalchand M. Kothari And … on 29 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/186876","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=186876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}