{"id":190221,"date":"2011-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-31T04:04:41","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T22:34:41","slug":"siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S. Muralidhar<\/div>\n
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                W.P. (C) 199\/1985 & CMs 199\/85, 4333\/91, 5014\/95,\n                             7285\/97, 11272\/01\n\n                                                         Reserved on: August 01, 2011\n                                                         Decision on: August 26, 2011\n\n        SIEL LTD.                                                       ..... Petitioner\n                                    Through:      Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate.\n\n                           versus\n\n\n        THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents\n                       Through:                   None for LRs of R-4\/workman.\n\n\n        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR\n\n        1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be              No\n            allowed to see the judgment?                         Yes\n        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes\n        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                     26.08.2011<\/p>\n
1. Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, formerly known as M\/s. DCM Chemical
\nWorks, a unit of M\/s. DCM Ltd. (formerly known as Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
\nLtd.), filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 30th January 1984, 14th March
\n1984, 28th March 1984, 31st March 1984 and 2nd December 1983 passed by the Labour
\nCourt-I, in ID No. 81 of 1971 and the Award dated 2nd April 1984. The Petitioner has
\nsince been substituted by SIEL Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
2. This Court has heard Ms. Raavi Birbal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and
\nhaving perused the impugned order and the record.\n<\/p>\n
3. The dispute referred to the Labour Court in ID No. 81 of 1971 was the legality of the
\ndismissal of the workman, Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta [since deceased and substituted by his
\nlegal representatives (LRs)] and the relief to which he was entitled. The workman filed a
\nW.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                         Page 1 of 7<\/span>
\n statement of claim stating that he was employed by the management of M\/s DCM
\nChemical Works on 11th June 1954 drawing a salary of Rs. 305 per month and was
\ninstrumental in forming a union in the name and style of Rashtriya Chemical Karamchari
\nSangh, Delhi. He had raised various demands for better service conditions of the
\nemployees. In retaliation, the management issued a charge-sheet against the workman on
\n9th May 1968. Pursuant to an enquiry, the workman was found guilty and dismissed from
\nservice on 9th September 1968. The resultant industrial dispute was referred to the Labour
\nCourt in I.D. No. 81 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
4. The management filed its written statement on 20th January 1972. After completion of
\npleadings issues were framed on 13th March 1972. The workman’s evidence was
\nrecorded on 18th April 1972. The management cross-examined the workman’s witnesses
\nup to 28th May 1973. The workman’s evidence was then closed. The first management
\nwitness was examined on 19th July 1973 and cross-examined on 7th September 1973. The
\nother four management witnesses were examined up to 28th September 1975 and the
\nmanagement evidence was closed on 23rd October 1975. The case was listed for final
\narguments. At that stage on 21st January 1976 the Labour Court took up for consideration
\nthe preliminary issue of fairness of the inquiry. After eight years the said issue was
\ndecided on 2nd December 1983 against the management. The said order is one among the
\nmany has been challenged by the management in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
5. A perusal of the order dated 2nd December 1983 shows that the management was not
\nable to substantiate its contention that the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’) had complied with the
\nprinciples of natural justice. The statement made by the workman in his affidavit that he
\nhad not received any reply to his request made by a letter dated 1st June 1968 to the IO
\nfor a list of witnesses and copy of documents, was not rebutted. In the cross-examination,
\nthe management’s witness admitted to receiving this letter but did not give any reason as
\nto why the letter was not replied to. Even if the said letter was written by the workman in
\nUrdu, the management could have gotten it translated from somewhere. Even in the
\ncross-examination, the IO gave evasive replies. This led the Labour Court to conclude
\nthat the enquiry had not been conducted in a fair manner. Further, the Labour Court
\nfound that in the inquiry proceedings one of the management witnesses, Mr. R.K. Jain
\nwas examined on 20th May 1968, cross-examined by the workman and finally the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                    Page 2 of 7<\/span>
\n evidence was closed. However, at the adjourned hearing of 30th May 1968, the same
\nwitness was examined again by the IO. This examination amounted to establishing the
\ncase of the management which led the Labour Court to conclude that the very purpose of
\nan impartial enquiry had been defeated.\n<\/p>\n
6. This Court is not persuaded to hold that the order dated 2nd December 1983 of the
\nLabour Court suffers from any legal infirmity. It is based on the evidence led before the
\nLabour Court and there is no ground made out for any interference. The reliance placed
\nby Ms. Birbal on the decisions in The Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen AIR<\/a>
\n1961 SC 860 and State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh<\/a> 1977 (2) SCC 491 is misplaced.
\nEven if the strict rules of evidence do not apply some basic rules of fairness would have
\nto be adhered to. That was clearly lacking in the inquiry, as rightly held by the Labour
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
7. With the enquiry being held to be unfair and invalid, it was incumbent on the
\nmanagement to lead evidence before the Labour Court to show that there was misconduct
\non the part of the workman. After the issue of fairness of the enquiry was decided against
\nit, and more than twelve years after the filing of its written statement, the management
\nfiled a slew of applications. Contending that it had till then led evidence only on the issue
\nof the fairness of the enquiry, it filed an application praying that the Labour Court should
\nfix the case for filing of documents and evidence of the parties on the second issue, i.e.,
\nthe legality of the dismissal of the workman. By the order dated 30th January 1984, the
\nLabour Court dismissed the said application. The said order has also been challenged in
\nthe present petition.\n<\/p>\n
8. The management contended, and this submission was reiterated in this Court, that it
\nhad in para 13 of its written statement reserved its right to add, to alter and\/or to modify
\nthe written statement and to lead such oral and\/or documentary evidence as may be
\ndeemed necessary. This reserving of the right by the management did not by itself mean
\nthat it had actually sought and had been granted permission to adduce evidence.
\nConsequently, the Labour Court concluded that in the absence of any specific plea in the
\nwritten statement, the management could not be allowed to adduce further evidence after
\nthe decision on the preliminary issue being held against the management.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                      Page 3 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 9. The important fact noted by the Labour Court was that while the workman had been
\ndismissed in 1968, the management’s written statement was filed in 1972, and a
\npreliminary issue was framed in 1976, yet no specific application was moved for leading
\nfurther evidence. Such an application was in fact moved only on 20th December 1983.
\nThe only reason for this delay given by Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel appearing for
\nthe Petitioner, is that the management had to await the decision on the preliminary issue
\nbefore seeking to adduce the evidence. This argument is entirely unconvincing and is
\nrejected as such. The management obviously knew what its case was and had led
\nevidence by this time to press its case. It need not have waited till the decision on the
\npreliminary issue. In any event, even for the preliminary issue it had examined a large
\nnumber of documents and five witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
10. Ms. Birbal relied on the decisions in Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory (P)
\nLtd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd.<\/a> 1965 (11) FLR 112; Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its
\nWorkmen AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 295; Workmen of Fire Stone Co. of India v. Management of
\nFire Stone Co. of India AIR<\/a> 1973 SC 1227; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh
\nBudh Singh AIR<\/a> 1972 SC 1031; Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. PP Mundhe<\/a> 1975 Lab I C
\n1441 and Prem Nath Motors Workshop Pvt. Ltd. v. PO, Industrial Tribunal<\/a> 1971 (1)
\nLLJ 167 and submitted that after the preliminary issue was decided against the
\nmanagement it was open to the management to lead evidence on the aspect of misconduct
\nand that this opportunity could not be denied to it.\n<\/p>\n
11. The above submission is without merit. A perusal of the record shows that the entire
\nprocess of examining witnesses was spread over four years. Five management witnesses
\nwere examined and cross-examined and the evidence of the management was closed on
\n23rd October 1975. It can hardly be said that the management did not have sufficient
\nopportunity to lead evidence. It chose to wait for over eight years to seek to lead further
\nevidence. This was clearly an abuse of the process of law. It would have further delayed
\nthe conclusion of the trial which had begun some time in 1971. No comparison can be
\ndrawn with the facts of any of the cases cited by learned counsel for the management.
\nThe Labour Court rightly rejected the said application. No grounds are made out for
\ninterference with the order dated 30th January 1984.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                    Page 4 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 12. The next order that is challenged is the one dated 14th March 1984 by which the
\nLabour Court dismissed an application by the management seeking permission to lead
\nevidence on the question of relief. The Labour Court noticed that the application had
\nbeen filed after the dismissal of the earlier application for leading evidence on 30th
\nJanuary 1984. In the present application, neither did the management give details as to
\nhow the past record of the workman was not good, nor was any proof given regarding the
\nemployment of the workman. Again, no such plea was taken in the written statement.
\nFurther, no plea was taken in the written statement about the gainful employment of the
\nworkman. In the circumstances, this application was also rejected by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
13. The next order challenged is the one dated 28th March 1984 by the Labour Court
\ndismissing the management’s application for amendment of the written statement. The
\nmanagement sought to add para 10A to the written statement stating that the past record
\nof the workman was very bad. This plea had already been rejected by the Labour Court in
\nits order dated 14th March 1984. The management then sought to add para 10B to plead
\nthat the workman was doing business after his dismissal. This again was covered by the
\nearlier orders of the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
14. Ms. Birbal referred to the decisions in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National
\nBuilding Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR<\/a> 1969 SC 1267; Management of Monghyr
\nFactory ITC Ltd. v. PO, Labour Court<\/a> 1978 LIC 1256 and Haridas Ailds Thadani v.
\nGodrej Rustom Kermani AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 319, and submitted that the Labour Court ought
\nto have taken a liberal view of the request of the management to amend its written
\nstatement. However, this submission does not impress this Court. The fact that the
\napplication was filed more than twelve years after the filing of the written statement was
\nitself a sufficient ground for dismissal. Further, it would have the inevitable effect of
\ndelaying the trial which had begun twelve years earlier in 1971. The orders dated 14th and
\n28th March 1984 of the Labour Court also do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
15. The last order dated 31st March 1984 passed by the Labour Court rejecting an
\napplication filed by the management for adjournment of the case on account of the
\ninconvenience of the counsel for the management. The impugned order shows that the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                   Page 5 of 7<\/span>
\n learned counsel for the workman had submitted his arguments on 13th December 1983
\nand the case was fixed for final arguments of the management on 20th December 1983.
\nOn that date, an application was moved which was dismissed by an order dated 30th
\nJanuary 1984 and the case was reserved for award. On 6th February 1984 another
\napplication was filed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 15th February 1984.
\nOn that date also another request was made and the case was again adjourned to 25th
\nFebruary 1984. Yet another adjournment was requested by the management and the case
\nwas adjourned to 1st March 1984. On that date also another adjournment was sought and
\nthe case was fixed for arguments on 6th March 1984. An application was filed on that
\ndate which was dismissed on 14th March 1984 and the case was again adjourned to 16th
\nMarch 1984. On the said date a request for adjournment was made and the case was
\nlisted for 24th March 1984 on which date, another application was filed which was
\ndismissed and the case was posted for 31st March 1984. In the above circumstances, the
\nrequest for adjournment was refused.\n<\/p>\n
16. It does appear that the management was abusing the process of law by filing repeated
\napplications seeking adjournments. In the circumstances, the rejection of the said
\napplication moved for adjourning the case by the management was justified.\n<\/p>\n
17. Turning to the impugned Award dated 2nd April 1984, the record shows that the
\nworkman placed on record the documents Ex. WW2\/1 to WW-2\/35 and W-2\/36 to WW-
\n2\/52. The workman was cross-examined and he stood firm. The stand of the workman
\nwas supported by the affidavit of Sumer Chand Jain, a witness for the workman. As
\nregards the charge of insubordination, again, the evidence adduced by the management
\ndid not support its case. Consequently, the reference was answered in favour of the
\nworkman and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages.\n<\/p>\n
18. This Court is again unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned Award of the
\nLabour Court which is entirely based on an appreciation of the evidence led before it.\n<\/p>\n
19. For all of the aforementioned reasons, there is no ground made out for interference
\nwith any of the impugned orders and the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. It
\nis time to draw the curtain on a long tortuous course of litigation which began forty-three<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                    Page 6 of 7<\/span>
\n years ago with the dismissal of the workman in September 1968. The writ petition is
\ndismissed with costs of Rs. 30,000\/- which will be paid by the Petitioner to the LRs of
\nRespondent No. 4 workman within a period of four weeks from today. The interim order
\nis vacated. All pending applications are disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             S. MURALIDHAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
AUGUST 26, 2011
\nakg<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 199 of 1985                                                 Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 Author: S. Muralidhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) 199\/1985 & CMs 199\/85, 4333\/91, 5014\/95, 7285\/97, 11272\/01 Reserved on: August 01, 2011 Decision on: August 26, 2011 SIEL LTD. ….. Petitioner Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSiel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-30T22:34:41+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T22:34:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2299,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T22:34:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-30T22:34:41+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T22:34:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011"},"wordCount":2299,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011","name":"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T22:34:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siel-ltd-vs-the-lt-governor-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Siel Ltd. vs The Lt. Governor & Ors. on 26 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190221","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=190221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}