{"id":202418,"date":"2002-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002"},"modified":"2017-05-26T00:23:56","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T18:53:56","slug":"shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 (1) ARBLR 409 Delhi, 101 (2002) DLT 355, 2003 (66) DRJ 368<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Mukerjee<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Mukerjee<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>S. Mukerjee, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. These are objections by the petitioner<br \/>\nex-employee praying for setting aside a part of the<br \/>\narbitral award dated 11.1.2000, as passed by Shri J.P.<br \/>\nSharma, Sole Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The background of facts, to the extent necessary<br \/>\nfor appreciating the challenge to the arbitral award, is<br \/>\nthat the petitioner joined the employment of the<br \/>\nrespondent, in the capacity of the &#8220;Chief Modalist&#8221;,<br \/>\ndrawing in those times, a fairly huge salary of Rs.<br \/>\n37,216\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The petitioner&#8217;s case is that he was illegally<br \/>\nsuspended w.e.f. 18.12.96, and then illegally dismissed<br \/>\nfrom service w.e.f. 31.8.98 and that he was not paid his<br \/>\nsalary from December 1996 onwards, despite repeated<br \/>\ndemands.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The respondent had preferred a counter claim on<br \/>\nthe ground of breach of non-completion of agreed tenure<br \/>\nof service as stipulated by the agreement of training<br \/>\ndated 25.10.94, pursuant to which, the respondent claims,<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was obliged to serve for a minimum<br \/>\nperiod of 7 years, failing which he had agreed to<br \/>\ncompensate the respondent, by way of liquidated damages<br \/>\nat Rs. 1 lakh per year of the balance period not<br \/>\nserved\/less-served.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The Ld. Arbitrator, in his award dated<br \/>\n11.2.2000, came to a categorical finding that the<br \/>\ndisciplinary enquiry conducted by the respondent against<br \/>\nthe petitioner, was vitiated by illegality. The Ld.<br \/>\nArbitrator also held that the termination order dated<br \/>\n31.8.98, being based upon the illegal enquiry, is also<br \/>\nillegal. It was further held that the petitioner is<br \/>\nentitled to his salary w.e.f. December, 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. While all these findings were rendered in favor<br \/>\nof the petitioner, however the petitioner is aggrieved of<br \/>\npart of the findings of the Ld. Arbitrator, holding that<br \/>\nthe petitioner would not be entitled to the conveyance<br \/>\nallowance and entertainment allowance for this period.<br \/>\nThe petitioner is also aggrieved of the direction\/finding<br \/>\nof the arbitrator, by which he has assumed a termination,<br \/>\nand\/or through the award, terminated the services of the<br \/>\npetitioner, by simply ordering payment of three months<br \/>\nsalary in petitioner&#8217;s favor, and that too<br \/>\nretrospectively for the period from September to November<br \/>\n1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. The petitioner is also aggrieved of another<br \/>\nfinding returned to the effect that the respondent is<br \/>\nentitled to receive Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation\/damages<br \/>\nfor balance period of four years, less served out of the<br \/>\ntotal agreed period of 7 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The respondent has not filed any objections<br \/>\nagainst the award, and therefore cannot claim to be<br \/>\naggrieved of any of the findings of the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. As regards the contentions of the<br \/>\npetitioner\/objector, I do find a case made out for<br \/>\nsetting aside certain severable parts of the award, which<br \/>\nare liable to be therefore set aside as against the<br \/>\npubic policy of <a href=\"\/doc\/86594\/\">India. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd.<br \/>\nv. General Electric Co.<\/a>  it has been<br \/>\nheld that the application of doctrine of public policy is<br \/>\nwider in the field  of domestic law as compared to the<br \/>\nfield of conflict of laws (refer para 51 at page 885).<br \/>\nFurthermore even in the context of conflict of laws, the<br \/>\nApex Court has held that contrary to public policy would<br \/>\nmean contrary to fundamental tenets of Indian Law, and<br \/>\ncontrary to morality or justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>9A. The contract of service being one single contract<br \/>\nwith a pay package and a minimum tenure stipulation, the<br \/>\nfinding that the petitioner is not entitled to<br \/>\n&#8220;conveyance allowance&#8221; and &#8220;entertainment allowance&#8221; for<br \/>\nthe duration of illegal enquiry and the duration of<br \/>\nillegal suspension, is contrary to the pubic policy of<br \/>\nIndia, as enshrined by the enacted laws and the law<br \/>\ndeclared by the Supreme Court, which is binding in terms<br \/>\nof Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In the<br \/>\nentire records before the Arbitrator, no provision or<br \/>\ndocument was brought out which, under the service rules,<br \/>\npermitted the forfeiture\/non-payment of the &#8220;conveyance<br \/>\nallowance&#8221; or of the &#8220;entertainment allowance&#8221; component<br \/>\nduring the period of suspension. It is settled law, as<br \/>\ndeclared by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court, in the  <a href=\"\/doc\/1202878\/\">Hotel<br \/>\nImperial, New Delhi and Ors. v. Hotel Workers Union<br \/>\nLabour Law Journal<\/a> 1959 (2) 544 that in the absence of<br \/>\nany provision in the contract stipulating otherwise, the<br \/>\nright of the employer to suspend, would be however<br \/>\nsubject to payment of 100% of the emoluments.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In this view of the matter, the direction by the<br \/>\narbitrator to pay only a part of the total package of<br \/>\nemoluments in relation to the period in question, is<br \/>\nclearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt and therefore against the public policy of India<br \/>\nand as such liable to be set aside to the extent to which<br \/>\nthe Ld. Arbitrator had restricted the relief awarded in<br \/>\nfavor of the petitioner, only to the extent of part of<br \/>\nthe total pay package, and not granted the whole pay<br \/>\npackage for the whole period.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. There is another way of looking at this aspect of<br \/>\nthe matter. Once a finding has been returned to the<br \/>\neffect that the enquiry stood vitiated, and the<br \/>\ntermination rendered illegal on that account, it would<br \/>\nfollow that the petitioner was thereby prevented by the<br \/>\nsuspension order form performing his duties, and from<br \/>\nearning his full emoluments, As such, the moment the<br \/>\narbitrator came to a finding that the action of the<br \/>\nrespondent was illegal, thereupon the petitioner had to<br \/>\nbe placed back in the situation as if the termination<br \/>\norder had not been passed at all. This is all the more<br \/>\nso, since the arbitrator in the award, did not permit he<br \/>\nmanagement to hold an enquiry afresh into the matter. It<br \/>\nis another mater, that even if the arbitrator has so<br \/>\nordered, the petitioner would have still been entitled to<br \/>\nbe treated as if no order of suspension had been passed<br \/>\nat all, and moreover petitioner would have stood then as<br \/>\nentitled to receive more money from the respondent and\/or<br \/>\nwould have stood to suffer less on account of liquidated<br \/>\ndamages\/penalty, because whatever causes petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nservice to last longer, reduces the default period for<br \/>\npenalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. The other aspect on which the award is contrary<br \/>\nto the public policy of India, as enshrined in the<br \/>\nenacted law and the law as laid down by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt, is in relation to the arbitrator himself treating<br \/>\nthe three month&#8217;s notice period to be imagined to have<br \/>\nbeen over in 1998 itself even though the management had<br \/>\nnot issued any communication to that effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. There is an invalidity on the same account, as a<br \/>\ncorollary, in relation to the balance period of the<br \/>\ncounter claim of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. It is well settled that there cannot be a<br \/>\nretrospective notice, even where same is purported to be<br \/>\nissued by the management itself. In any case, there thus<br \/>\ncannot be a notice by a deemed fiction, created through<br \/>\nthe award of the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. A notice of termination had to be issued, if at<br \/>\nall, under the signatures of the competent authority, on<br \/>\nany date after the award, and that would have been<br \/>\napplicable after further three months thereafter, and<br \/>\nwould have given a cause of action for any further<br \/>\ngrievances.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. It is not known whether the management would have<br \/>\nterminated the services, or whether after reading the<br \/>\naward, holding the termination to be illegal, the<br \/>\nmanagement would have become considerable, or would have<br \/>\notherwise changed its decision. then again the date of<br \/>\nsuch a notice, cannot also be based on total assumption.<br \/>\nFurthermore, that notice had to be actually and validly<br \/>\nissued, and had to be validly served to become<br \/>\nenforceable. For all these reasons, this severable<br \/>\nportion of the award regarding assumed date of notice is<br \/>\nalso set aside, consequence whereof will be that up to the<br \/>\ndate of the award, the petitioner will be entitled to<br \/>\nfull emoluments, and thereafter, the petitioner will be<br \/>\nentitled to his legal remedies to claim salary for<br \/>\nsubsequent period by appropriate proceedings and<br \/>\nrespondent will be entitled to take action as available<br \/>\nto a management.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. Yet another aspect of the award also requires to<br \/>\nbe treated as severable and set aside. This is in<br \/>\nrelation to the counter-claim of the respondent. As and<br \/>\nwhen the services of the petitioner are terminated by a<br \/>\nvalid and actually issued notice, thereafter the balance<br \/>\nperiod, if at all, would be the maximum period which can<br \/>\nbe taken into consideration for purposes of working out<br \/>\nthe demand at Rupees one lakh for each remaining year of<br \/>\nservice, out of the seven years mandatory period. It is<br \/>\nnot known when the notice will be issued, and also that<br \/>\nthe balance period will be. Therefore, the award to this<br \/>\nextent of the counter-claim, which is also severable, is<br \/>\nheld to be contrary the public policy of India, and hence<br \/>\nset aside. Respondent will obviously be  entitled to<br \/>\nraise claim for damage in relation to any period<br \/>\nremaining less served out of total seven year period.<br \/>\nThat claim will be contested or complied by petitioner as<br \/>\nhe may be advised in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>18. In view of the above, the award is made a Rule of<br \/>\nthis Court, to the extent of the findings holding that<br \/>\nthe disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was<br \/>\nvitiated, and the termination order was illegal on that<br \/>\naccount. The relief of full emoluments for the period<br \/>\nDecember 1996 onwards will however operate only up to the<br \/>\ndate of the award. For the subsequent period, the<br \/>\npetitioner has to avail his legal remedies in accordance<br \/>\nwith law. The counter-claim awarded in favor of the<br \/>\nrespondents as well as the findings against the<br \/>\npetitioner, holding that the conveyance allowance and<br \/>\nentertainment allowance, being not payable, as well as of<br \/>\ndeemed termination by petitioner by assumed retrospective<br \/>\nnotice in October, 1998, is treated as severable findings<br \/>\nof the arbitrator which are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>19. Since the payment due to the petitioner, being<br \/>\nRs. 2.77 lakhs under the award, as had been passed (and<br \/>\nnow an ever larger amount, in terms of these orders<br \/>\npassed today), is lying held-up, the petitioner will be<br \/>\nentitled to interest at 15% thereupon from the date the<br \/>\namounts fell due, and up to the date on which the total<br \/>\ndues are actually paid by the respondent to the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>20. The petitioner will also be entitled to costs<br \/>\nwhich are quantified at Rs. 10,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 (1) ARBLR 409 Delhi, 101 (2002) DLT 355, 2003 (66) DRJ 368 Author: S Mukerjee Bench: S Mukerjee JUDGMENT S. Mukerjee, J. 1. These are objections by the petitioner ex-employee praying for setting aside a part of the arbitral [&hellip;]<\/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-202418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-25T18:53:56+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T18:53:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1730,\"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\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T18:53:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-25T18:53:56+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T18:53:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002"},"wordCount":1730,"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\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002","name":"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T18:53:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-david-johnson-vs-givo-ltd-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri David Johnson vs Givo Ltd. on 25 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/202418","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=202418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}