{"id":194880,"date":"1998-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998"},"modified":"2017-09-02T20:22:45","modified_gmt":"2017-09-02T14:52:45","slug":"ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/04\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nTHOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant claims to be still in the service of National
\nInsurance Company  Limited (respondent)\t as  a\tprobationary
\nInspector on  a contention  that the  order  passed  by\t the
\nrespondent on  13.31982 terminating  his probation is bad in
\nlaw. He succeeded in the trial court where he filed the suit
\nfor a  declaratory decree  and also  in the  first appellate
\ncourt, but he was non-suited by the High Court in the second
\nappeal filed by the respondent. Hence he has come up in this
\nCourt with this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant was  appointed as  Inspector on\tprobation at
\nKhalidabad under  the Gorakhpur\t branch\t of  the  respondent
\nCompany with effect from 19.91980, initially for a period of
\ntwelve months  subject to  certain conditions.\tOn 13.3.1982
\nrespondent-company served  upon him  thirty days  notice  of
\ntermination of\this service  on the  premise that appellants
\nfalled to achieve the targeted premium amount.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant\tfiled\tthe  suit   in\tthe  Munsif’s  Court
\nGorakhpur for  a decree\t declaring that\t the said  notice of
\ntermination is\tillegal and void and that he continues to be
\nin service of the Company with all the benefits flowing from
\nthe post. Respondent-company contested the suit by filling a
\nwritten statement  in which  it was  contended, inter  alia,
\nthat the  suit is  not maintainable  under Section 34 of the
\nSpecific Relief\t Act (for  short `the  Act’)  and  that\t the
\nnotice of termination of the appellant is legal and valid.\n<\/p>\n
     However, respondent-company  did not participate during
\nevidence stage\tand hence the trial court proceeded with the
\nsuit ex-parte and a decree was passed in terms of the plaint
\non 25.1.1991.  Appellant took  out execution  proceedings in
\nwhich he  claimed a  sum of Rs. 1,02,861\/- as arrears of pay
\ndue  to\t  him  from  the  date\tof  notice  of\ttermination.
\nRespondent resisted  the execution  by putting-forth various
\ncontentions including  that the\t decree in unenforceable and
\nvoid as\t the  same  was\t passed\t without  jurisdiction.\t The
\nexecution court has replied all such objections by its order
\ndated 7.9.1991.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent challenged the said order by means of a writ
\npetition  filed\t  under\t Article   226\tand   227   of\t the
\nConstitution. High  Court of  Allahabad dismissed  the\twrit
\npetition holding  that the  decree was\tpassed\tby  a  court
\nhaving jurisdiction  and, that\tthe  suit  was\tmaintainable
\nunder Section 34 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It was thereafter that the respondent-company preferred
\na first\t appeal before\tthe Court  of  Civil  Judge  (Senior
\nDivision) Gorakhpur  challenging the  decree  of  the  trial
\ncourt. When  that appeal  was  dismissed  respondent-company
\npreferred  a   second  appeal\tbefore\tthe  High  Court  of
\nAllahabad. Four questions were formulated by the respondent-
\nCompany in  the second\tappeal and pressed them into service
\nas substantial\tquestions of law. They are : (1) Whether the
\ntermination order  is violative of the contractual term that
\none month’s  notice or\tpay in lieu thereof is sine qua non;
\n(2) whether  appellant is  entitled to reinstatement without
\nentering upon a finding that there was statutory violation ;
\n(3) whether the suit is barred under the Industrial Disputes
\nAct; (4)  whether the suit is barred under section 34 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     High Court\t did not  permit the  respondent-Company  to
\npursue with the last two questions on the premise that those
\nquestions were finally decided in the writ petition and such
\ndecision will  operate as  a bar  of res-judicate.  However,
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court proceeded to consider
\nthe other  two questions  and held  that non-payment  of one
\nmonth’s pay  in lieu  of the  notice would  not vitiate\t the
\ntermination order  and that  at any  rate, appellant  is not
\nentitled  to   continue\t  as   a   Probationary\t  Inspector.
\nResultantly, the High Court reversed the decree of the trial
\ncourt and dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  respondent-company once again
\nconvassed for  acceptance of  the argument  that the suit is
\nnot maintainable  in view  of Section  34 of the Act. But in
\nview of\t the clear finding rendered by the High Court in the
\njudgment dismissing  the writ  petition that such a suit for
\ndeclaration is\tmaintainable before a civil court, the first
\nappellate court did not go into that question.\n<\/p>\n
     In the second appeal, respondent’s counsel repeated the
\ncontention but\tlearned Single\tJudge of the High Court, who
\ndisposed of  the second appeal, did not allow the respondent
\nto re-agitate  the said\t question on  the premise  that\t the
\ndecision rendered  in the  writ petition on that point would
\noperate\t as   res  judicata.  Undeterred  by  such  repeated
\nrepudiation of\tthe  contention,  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent made an endeavour to convince us that the suit is
\nnot maintainable on the same ground.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  well neigh\tsettled that  a decision on an issue
\nraised in  writ petition  under Article 226 or Article 32 of
\nthe Constitution  would also operate as res judicata between
\nthe same  parties in  subsequent judicial  proceedings.\t The
\nonly exception\tis that\t the rule  of res judicata would not
\noperate to  the detriment  or impairment  of  a\t fundamental
\nright. A Constitution Bench of this Court has considered the
\napplicability of  rule of  res judicata\t in writ proceedings
\nunder Article  32 of  the Constitution\tin Daryao & ors. vs.
\nState of U.P. & ors.<\/a> [1962 (1) SCR 574] and it was held that
\nthe  basis   on\t which\t the  rule   rests  is\t founded  on
\nconsideration of  public policy and it is in the interest of
\npublic at large that a finality should attach to the
\nbinding\t decision   pronounced\tby   a\tcourt  of  competent
\njurisdiction and  it is\t also in  the public  interest\tthat
\nindividuals should  not be vexed twice over in the same kind
\nof litigation.\n<\/p>\n
     This was  relterated by  another Constitution  Bench of
\nthis Court  in\tThe  Amalgamated  Coalfields  Ltd.  vs.\t The
\nJanapada Sabha,\t Chhindwara<\/a> [1963  Supple (1)  SCR 172]. The
\nfollowing is  the ratio\t : “Therefore, there can be no doubt
\nthat the  general principle  of res judicata applies to writ
\npetitions filed\t under Art.  32 or Art. 226. It is necessary
\nto emphasise  that the\tapplication of\tthe doctrine  of res
\njudicata to the petitions filed under Art.32 does not in any
\nway impair  or affect  the content of the fundamental rights
\nguaranteed to the citizens of India.\n<\/p>\n
     Though the\t above has  now become\tan a  accepted legal
\nposition [vide\tG.K. Sharam  & ors.  vs. S.D.  Sharma & ors.<\/a>
\n(1986 Supple.  SCC 239),  the contention raised here is that
\nsince the  writ petition was in challenge of an order passed
\nin execution  of a  decree, the\t decisions rendered  in such
\nwrit petition  would only  remain in  the reaim of execution
\nand they  would not  preclude the  parties to  the suit from
\nraising such  issues over  again when the very decree itself
\nis challenged  in appeal.  The\tExplanation  VII,  added  to
\nSection 11  of the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure\tas  per\t CPC
\nAmendment Act 104 of 1976 read thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “The  provisions  of  this\t section
\n     shall apply to a proceeding for the
\n     execution\t of    a   decree    and
\n     references in  this section  to any
\n     suit, issue  of former suit shall b
\n     e\t  construed\tas    references
\n     respectively, to  a proceeding  for
\n     the  execution   of   the\t decree,
\n     question arising in such proceeding
\n     and a  former  proceeding\tfor  the
\n     execution of that decree.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Though the said explanation may not stricto sensu apply
\nto the\ttrial stage,  the principle  couched in it must gain
\napplication thereto. It is immaterial that the writ petition
\nwas  filed  only  subsequently\tbecause\t the  findings\tmade
\ntherein became\tfinal as  no appeal  was filed\tagainst\t the
\njudgement. The\tbasic idea  in the  rule of res judicata has
\nsprouted from  the maxim  “nemo debet  bis vexari pro una at
\neadem causa” (no man should be vexed twice over for the same
\ncause). In   Y.B.  Patil &  ors vs. Y.L. Patil [1976 (4) SCC
\n66] a  three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the effect
\nof a  decision rendered\t in a  writ petition  at  subsequent
\nstages of  the same  its. It  held : ” The principles of res
\njudicata can  be invoked  not only  in\tseparate  subsequent
\nproceedings, they  also get attracted in subsequent stage of
\nthe same  proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a
\nproceeding  becomes  final,  it\t would\tbe  binding  at\t the
\nsubsequent stage of that proceeding.”\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the\tlegal position\tis clear  and the respondent
\ncannot now re-agitate the question regarding maintainability
\nof the\tsuit under  Section 34\tof the Act. However, learned
\ncounsel adopted an alternative contention before us that the
\nsuit is in effect one for specific enforcement of a contract
\nand such a suit is not conceived under Section 14 of the Act
\nand hence  it  is not maintainable. According to the learned
\ncounsel, the  reliefs claimed in the suit, if granted, would
\nresult in  specific enforcement of a contract of employment.
\nSection 14(1)(a)  of the  Act makes it clear that a contract
\nof employment  is not  specifically  enforceable  since\t non
\nperformance of\tcan be\tcompensated by\tmoney, contended the
\ncounsel.\n<\/p>\n
     The said  contention is  based on\ta fallacious premise
\nthat  the   suit  was  for  enforcement\t of  a\tcontract  of
\nemployment. Respondent\twas appointed  on certain  terms and
\npursuant to  such appointment  he worked within the scope of
\nsuch employment.  Termination of  his employment purportedly
\nin terms  of the  same contract\t is  challenged\t by  him  by
\npraying for  a declaration  that such termination is invalid
\nand  therefore,\t  he  continues\t  in  the  same\t employment.
\nMaintainability of a suit cannot be adjudged from the effect
\nwhich the  decree may  cause. It  can be  determined on\t the
\nbasis of  the  ostensible  pleadings  made  and\t the  stated
\nreliefs claimed in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
     Though Specific  Relief Act  widens the  spheres of the
\ncivil  court   its  preamble  shows  that  the\tAct  is\t not
\nexhaustive of  all kinds  of specific  reliefs. “An  Act  to
\ndefine and  amend the  law  relating  to  certain  kinds  of
\nspecific relief.  It is well to remember that the Act is not
\nrestricted to  specific\t performance  of  contracts  as\t the
\nstatute governs\t powers of  the court  in granting  specific
\nreliefs in  a variety  of fields.  Even so, the Act does not
\ncover all  specific reliefs in a variety of fields. Even so,
\nthe Act does not cover all specific reliefs concievable. Its
\npreceding enactment  (Specific Relief Act, 1877) was held by
\nthe courts  in India  as not exhaustive. Vide Ramdas Khatavu
\nvs.  Atlas   Mills  (AIR  1931\tBorn.  151).  In  Hungerford
\nInvestment Trust  Ltd. vs. Haridas Mundhra &<\/a> ors . [1972 (3)
\nSCC 684] this Court observed that Specific Relief Act, 1963,
\nis  also  not  an  exhaustive  enactment  and  it  does\t not
\nconsolidate the\t whole law  on the subject. “As the preamble
\nwould indicate,\t it is\tan Act\t`to define and amend the law
\nrelating to  certain kinds  of specific\t relief. It does not
\npurport to  lay down  the law relating to specific relief in
\nall its remifications.”\n<\/p>\n
     Chapter II\t contains a  fasciculus of rules relating to
\nspecific performance  of contracts,  Section 14 falls within
\nthat chapter  and  it  points  to  contracts  which  are  no
\nspecifically enforceable.  Powers  of  the  Court  to  grant
\ndeclaratory reliefs  are adumbrated in Section 34 of the Act
\nwhich falls  under Chapter  VI of  the Act.  It is  well  to
\nremember that even the wide language contained in Section 34
\ndid not exhaust the powers of the court to grant declaratory
\nreliefs. In  Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy & ors. vs. Konduru
\nSeshu Reddy & ors.<\/a> [1966 Supple. SCR 270] and in M\/s Supreme
\nGeneral Films  Exchange Ltd.  vs. His  Highness Maharaja Sir
\nSrijnath Singhji  Deo of  Maihar &  ors.<\/a> [1975\t(2) SCC 530]
\nthis Court while interpreting the corresponding provision in
\nthe preceding  enactment of  1877 (Section  42) has observed
\nthat “Section  42 merely  gives statutory  recognition to  a
\nwell-recognised type  of declaratory  relief and subjects it
\nto a  limitation, but  it cannot  be deemed to exhaust every
\nkind  of   declaratory\trelief\t or  to\t  circumscribe\t the
\njurisdiction of\t courts to  give declarations  of  right  in
\nappropriate cases falling outside Section 42.”\n<\/p>\n
     The position  remains the\tsame under  the present\t Act
\nalso.  Hence  the  mere\t fact  that  a\tsuit  which  is\t not
\nmaintainable under  Section 14\tof the Act is not to persist
\nwith its  disability of\t non admission\tto civil courts even
\noutside t  he contours\tof Chapter II of the Act. Section 34
\nis enough  to open  the corridors  of  civil courts to admit
\nsuits filed for a variety of declaratory reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
     How the  more important  question is, whether appellant
\nis entitled  to declaration  that he  continues to be in the
\nemployment of respondent-company. High Court held that he is
\nnot because  the contract of employment does not entitle him
\nto continue.\n<\/p>\n
     Terms and\tconditions of  employment of  the  appellant
\nhave been  incorporated in  the letter\tof appointment dated
\n2.12.1980. It contains the following :\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  Initially  h\te  would  be  on
\n     probation for a period of 12 months
\n     and during\t that period  he has  to
\n     achieve a\tpremium of  at least Rs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     75,000\/-  to  become  eligible  for
\n     promotion\t    as\t    Probationary
\n     Inspector, Grade I.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) It appellant falls short of the
\n     said target,  respondent –\t company
\n     reserved its  right to  extent  the
\n     period of\tprobation by  another 12
\n     months   provided\t the   following
\n     conditions are satisfied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  He   should  have  produced  a
\n     premium  amount   of  Rs.\t50,000\/-
\n     during the first 12 months period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) A request should be made by the
\n     appellant\tin   writing   for   the
\n     purpose of getting extension of the
\n     period of probation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) The  company has  discretion to
\n     decide whether  such request should
\n     be granted or not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3) Unless\t a letter appointing him
\n     as Probationary  Inspector (Grade –
\n     I) is issued by the company, before
\n     the   expiry    of\t  the\t initial
\n     probationary period or the extended
\n     probationary period  (as  the  case
\n     may be)  his  service  shall  stand
\n     automatically terminated.
\n     (4) His  service is  also liable to
\n     be terminated without assigning any
\n     reason during  probationary  period
\n     and\/or extended period.
\n     Appellant\t has\tno   case   that
\n     respondent-company has  issued  any
\n     letter    appointing     him     as
\n     “Probationary Inspector (Grade -I)”
\n     before the\t expiry of  the\t initial
\n     period of\t12 months  nor has  he a
\n     case   that   initial   period   of
\n     probation was  further extended  at
\n     any time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  above\t  being\t  the\tadmitted
\n     position, appellant  cannot  get  a
\n     declaration that he continues to be
\n     in service. Hence the conclusion of
\n     the High  Court that  the\tsuit  is
\n     liable to\tbe  dismissed  does  not
\n     warrant any interference.
\n     In the result, we dismiss this appeal. No costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV Vs. RESPONDENT: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/04\/1998 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-194880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, ... on 27 April, 1998 - 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\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, ... on 27 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-02T14:52:45+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\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-02T14:52:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2368,\"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\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, ... on 27 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-02T14:52:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, ... on 27 April, 1998 - 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\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, ... on 27 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-02T14:52:45+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\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998","datePublished":"1998-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-02T14:52:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998"},"wordCount":2368,"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\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998","name":"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, ... on 27 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-02T14:52:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-srivastav-vs-national-insurance-company-on-27-april-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar Srivastav vs National Insurance Company, … on 27 April, 1998"}]},{"@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\/194880","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=194880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}