{"id":196376,"date":"2009-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-29T05:46:42","modified_gmt":"2018-07-29T00:16:42","slug":"vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V.M. Kanade<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n    Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi                          ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n            vs.\n    The Daily Publications,\n    (A Division of Nalanda Exports\n    Pvt.Ltd.) & Anr.                                   ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Ms.Jane Cox for the Petitioner.\n    Mr.R.V. Paranjpe for Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n                        ig               CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          DATED : JULY 1, 2009<\/p>\n
    ORAL ORDER :-\n<\/p>\n
    1          By    this    petition,      the       petitioner                is<\/p>\n
    challenging the judgment passed by the Labour Court<\/p>\n
    dated    15th   November,   2008   whereby      the       application<\/p>\n
    filed by the applicant             petitioner herein                  under<\/p>\n
    Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for<\/p>\n
    the     recovery    of   the   amount     mentioned              in       the<\/p>\n
    statement annexed to the application is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    The Labour Court held that the applicant could not<\/p>\n
    claim benefits beyond the terms of settlement under<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Act. Brief facts<\/p>\n
    are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
    2           The respondent no.1 who was private limited<\/p>\n
    company registered under the Companies Act, was in<\/p>\n
    the business of publishing the newspaper                           known as<\/p>\n
     The Daily . It is the case of the applicants<\/p>\n
    petitioner      herein      that        since     May         2000,           the<\/p>\n
    respondents had stopped paying them earned wages on<\/p>\n
    one   pretext    or   the    other.      The     union,         therefore,<\/p>\n
    filed the complaint of unfair labour practice vide<\/p>\n
    Complaint (ULP) No.582 of 2000 before the Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court by orders dated<\/p>\n
    28.6.2000,      4.9.2000,     and       6.10.2000        directed             the<\/p>\n
    respondents     to    pay   the    earned       wages      and       by last<\/p>\n
    order dated 6.10.2000, the respondents were directed<\/p>\n
    to    pay   entire    arrears      of    earned       wages.          In      the<\/p>\n
    meantime, the Wage Board had passed an order in May<\/p>\n
    2000 for payment of wages as laid down by the Wage<\/p>\n
    Board. The respondents, however, did not make any<\/p>\n
    payment either by the direction of the Wage Board of<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
    by the orders passed by the Industrial Court and as<\/p>\n
    a   result,      Complaint            was       filed     by      the       petitioner<\/p>\n
    herein     vide       Misc.Complaint               No.282\/2000                in      which<\/p>\n
    process        was        issued        against            the           respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter, the outstanding wages of October 2000<\/p>\n
    were     paid.       In     the       meantime,          on      31.1.2001,               the<\/p>\n
    respondent company issued a closure notice claiming<\/p>\n
    that     due     to       drop    in        circulation              and        lack        of<\/p>\n
    advertisement revenue, it has decided to close down<\/p>\n
    the    publication               of     daily           newspaper               w.e.from<\/p>\n
    31.1.2001. On 21.1.2001, a settlement was arrived at<\/p>\n
    between the union and the respondents in respect of<\/p>\n
    the terminal dues of the employees. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
    terminal dues and other benefits were paid according<\/p>\n
    to the award of the Bachavat Wage Board and not<\/p>\n
    according to the Manisana Wage Board award which<\/p>\n
    came     into        effect        from          1.4.2000.            Under           these<\/p>\n
    circumstances,            therefore,            the   petitioner              filed         an<\/p>\n
    application before the Labour Court under Section<\/p>\n
    33-C(2)        of     the        Industrial             Disputes             Act        vide<\/p>\n
    Application           No.307\/2002                seeking             a        direction<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
    directing the respondent no.1 to pay them their dues<\/p>\n
    according to the Manisana Wage Board award after<\/p>\n
    deducting   the   amount   received     by     them        under         the<\/p>\n
    Settlement dated 25.1.2002.\n<\/p>\n
    3       This      application    was       opposed             by        the<\/p>\n
    respondent company. It was contended that the Labour<\/p>\n
    Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the<\/p>\n
    matters which were not adjudicated and where there<\/p>\n
    were no existing rights in favour of the workmen.\n<\/p>\n
    It was submitted that the Labour Court could not<\/p>\n
    decide the issue as to whether the settlement which<\/p>\n
    was executed between the union and the company was<\/p>\n
    under coercion and the union was forced to sign the<\/p>\n
    settlement due to undue influence and coercion which<\/p>\n
    was in exercise of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
    4       The Labour Court accepted the contention of<\/p>\n
    the respondent company and held that the application<\/p>\n
    was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
    5          The learned Counsel for the petitioner has<\/p>\n
    relied on number of judgments and submitted that the<\/p>\n
    petitioner was forced to accept the settlement which<\/p>\n
    was executed between the union and the respondent<\/p>\n
    company    since      wages   were       not   paid       for      almost 18<\/p>\n
    months    and    as   a   result,        the   union        had      no      other<\/p>\n
    alternative but to accept the settlement since they<\/p>\n
    are on the verge of starvation for 18 months. It was<\/p>\n
    submitted that the Wage Board had already passed an<\/p>\n
    award     with   effect       from       1.4.2000       and        it      was       a<\/p>\n
    statutory award which was binding on the respondent<\/p>\n
    company.    The Union, therefore, was forced to accept<\/p>\n
    lower wages and was forced to accept the settlement<\/p>\n
    which was contrary to the statutory award. It was<\/p>\n
    submitted, therefore, the Labour Court was competent<\/p>\n
    to decide this issue since there was existing right<\/p>\n
    in favour of the petitioner herein by virtue of the<\/p>\n
    award passed by the Manisana Wage Board which came<\/p>\n
    into effect from 1.4.2000. In support of the said<\/p>\n
    submission, the learned Counsel relied on judgment<\/p>\n
    of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Amar    Kaur,       Petitioner      vs.        State      of       Punjab          and<\/p>\n
    others, Respondents, reported in 1982 LAB.I.C. 1275.\n<\/p>\n
    She also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
    the case of Central Bank of India, Ltd. And others<\/p>\n
    vs.     Rajagopalan        (P.S.)        and    others<\/a>          reported             in<\/p>\n
    1963(7)       FLR   141    (S.C.).       She    also       relied          on      the<\/p>\n
    Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
    Union    of    India,      representing         the      Central           Railway<\/p>\n
    Administration<\/p>\n
                            vs.    Samuel          Peters         and<\/a>        another,<\/p>\n
    reported      in      1975    II    LLJ    Page       185.       The       learned<\/p>\n
    Counsel       for    the     petitioner         also      relied           on      the<\/p>\n
    judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central<\/p>\n
    Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. And another<\/p>\n
    v.    Brojo    Nath       Ganguly    and       another,          Respondents,<\/p>\n
    reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 and more particularly,<\/p>\n
    paragraphs 90 and 92.\n<\/p>\n
    6          The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
    the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that<\/p>\n
    the Labour Court could not decide the issue whether<\/p>\n
    the settlement which was signed by the union and<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent    no.1       was    under    coercion            or       not.        He<\/p>\n
    submitted that this issue was not incidental to any<\/p>\n
    existing right and as such, therefore, unless there<\/p>\n
    was adjudication by a competent authority on this<\/p>\n
    aspect, the petitioner is not entitled to file an<\/p>\n
    application under Section 33-C(2).\n<\/p>\n
    8        In my view, there is much substance in the<\/p>\n
    submission made by the Counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    In the present case, admitted legal position is that<\/p>\n
    though award was passed by the Wage Board in May<\/p>\n
    2000, the union entered into a settlement with the<\/p>\n
    respondent company on 25.1.2002. It was always open<\/p>\n
    for the union to file an application under Section<\/p>\n
    33-C(2) seeking implementation of the award of the<\/p>\n
    Wage Board wherein wages were directed to be paid<\/p>\n
    with effect from May 2000. However, the Union chose<\/p>\n
    to   enter   into    a   settlement          dated      25.1.2002.              The<\/p>\n
    question,     therefore,         which       is      raised            by       the<\/p>\n
    petitioner    hereby      before       the    Labour          Court         under<\/p>\n
    Section 33-C(2) was            whether the union was forced by<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    the respondent company to enter into a settlement on<\/p>\n
    25.1.2002      is,    in    my     view,     while        exercising              its<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2), the Labour Court<\/p>\n
    cannot be called upon to adjudicate such issues. If<\/p>\n
    it is    only the existing rights or rights which are<\/p>\n
    incidental to the existing                 rights, the Labour Court<\/p>\n
    can    then    in    such   circumstances,              decide         the      such<\/p>\n
    issues which are incidental to the existing rights<\/p>\n
    of the workmen. The Labour Court, therefore, in my<\/p>\n
    view,    was    justified        in       holding       that      it      had       no<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction         to     first         decide          the         workmen s<\/p>\n
    entitlement and to proceed to continue the benefits<\/p>\n
    so    adjudicated      on   that      basis     in      exercise           of the<\/p>\n
    power    under       Section       33-C(2)         of    the        Industrial<\/p>\n
    Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
    9         There cannot be any dispute regarding the<\/p>\n
    ratio of the judgment on which reliance in placed by<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner      in    the      present       case.       Taking          into<\/p>\n
    consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
    of case, the ratio will not apply to the facts of<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
    the present case. The petitioner, therefore, could<\/p>\n
    not   have    filed    straightway          the    application                under<\/p>\n
    Section      33-C(2)      seeking       a   declaration              that        the<\/p>\n
    settlement which was entered into between the union<\/p>\n
    and   the    respondent      no.1       company      was       executed            on<\/p>\n
    account      of   undue     influence        or     coercion             by      the<\/p>\n
    company on the workers on account of non-payment of<\/p>\n
    their wages for a period of 18 months.                          Under these<\/p>\n
    circumstances, therefore, I do not see any infirmity<\/p>\n
    in the order passed by the Court. The petitioners<\/p>\n
    are bound to obtain appropriate declaration from the<\/p>\n
    appropriate       forum     and     thereafter,             approach             the<\/p>\n
    Labour Court under Section 33-C(2).\n<\/p>\n
    10          The   petition,         therefore,            is       dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as<\/p>\n
    to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (V.M. KANADE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:50 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 Bench: V.M. Kanade 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2009 Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi …Petitioner vs. The Daily Publications, (A Division of Nalanda Exports Pvt.Ltd.) & Anr. …Respondents Ms.Jane Cox for […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 - 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\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-29T00:16:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-29T00:16:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1345,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-29T00:16:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 - 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\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-29T00:16:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-29T00:16:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009"},"wordCount":1345,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009","name":"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-29T00:16:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vishram-chandrakant-dalvi-vs-the-daily-publications-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vishram Chandrakant Dalvi vs The Daily Publications on 1 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/196376","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=196376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}