{"id":204552,"date":"1957-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957"},"modified":"2016-03-30T10:53:34","modified_gmt":"2016-03-30T05:23:34","slug":"patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957","title":{"rendered":"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR  204, \t\t  1958 SCR  871<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N H Bhagwati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD., PATNA.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALI RAI &amp; ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/11\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR  204\t\t  1958 SCR  871\n\n\nACT:\n       Industrial  Dispute-Dischage of employee-Permission  granted\n       by  Industrial Tribunal-Powers of Labour Appellate  Tribunal\n       to   interfere-Question\t of    law-Appealability-Industrial\n       Disputes\t Act,  1947  (14  Of 1947),  s.\t 33-The\t Industrial\n       Disputes (Appellate) Tribunal Act, 1950 (48 of 1950), s. 7.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       The appellant made an application before the Industrial Tri-\n       bunal under s. 33 Of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,\tfor\n       permission to dismiss the respondents, its employees, on the\n       ground  of  misconduct  under  cl.  17  (b)  (viii)  of\tthe\n       appellant's Standing\n       872\n       Orders, but subsequently, on a reconsideration of the facts,\n       made  another application praying instead for permission\t to\n       discharge  the respondents under cl. 14(a) of  the  Standing\n       Orders.\t The  Industrial  Tribunal found  that\tthe  second\n       application  was\t bona fide made by the appellant  with\tthe\n       honest  motive  of  exercising its right\t to  discharge\tthe\n       respondents  instead  of visiting upon them the\tpenalty\t of\n       dismissing  them,  and granted the appellant  permission\t on\n       payment\tto  the respondents of one month's pay in  lieu\t of\n       notice.\t The Labour Appellate Tribunal, on appeal,  was\t of\n       the opinion that having once alleged misconduct against\tthe\n       respondents the appellant could not be allowed to adopt\tthe\n       expedient of terminating their services by giving notice for\n       the  requisite period, by means of a fresh application,\tand\n       after considering whether the appellant had made out a  case\n       under  cl. I7(b)(viii) of the Standing Orders, came  to\tthe\n       conclusion  that the respondents had not been guilty of\tany\n       misconduct,  and held that the Industrial Tribunal erred\t in\n       granting\t the permission to discharge the  respondents.\t On\n       appeal to the Supreme Court:-\n       Held, that in an application under s. 33 of the\tIndustrial:\n       Disputes\t Act, 1947, the relevant consideration was  whether\n       the  employer  was guilty of any unfair labour  practice\t or\n       victimisation, and unless the Tribunal came to a\t conclusion\n       adverse\tto the applicant it would have no  jurisdiction\t to\n       refuse  the permission asked for to discharge the  employee.\n       Accordingly,  in\t view  of the  finding\tof  the\t Industrial\n       Tribunal that the application was bona fide, no question\t of\n       law  arose  out\tof  its order,\tand  the  Labour  Appellate\n       Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1956.<br \/>\n       Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated<br \/>\n       September  13,  1954, of the Labour  Appellate  Tribunal\t of<br \/>\n       India (Calcutta Bench) in Appeal No. Cal-87 of 1953.<br \/>\n       H.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor&#8211;General of India,<br \/>\n       J.   B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the<br \/>\n       appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>       P. K. Chatterjee, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>       1957.   November 5. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered<br \/>\n       by<br \/>\n       BHAGWATI J.-This appeal with special leave arises out of\t an<br \/>\n       application   made  by  the  appellant  to  the\t Industrial<br \/>\n       Tribunal, Bihar under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes  Act,<br \/>\n       1947  (hereinafter  referred  to\t as  &#8220;&#8216;the  Act&#8221;),  seeking<br \/>\n       permission to discharge the respondents from its employ.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t   873<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       The respondents were in the employ of the appellant and were<br \/>\n       staying\tin a two storeyed house in the city of Patna  which<br \/>\n       had  been rented by the appellant for housing  its  workmen.<br \/>\n       On  November 20, 1952, an occurrence took place in the  said<br \/>\n       house  wherein  the  respondents\t were  involved.    Written<br \/>\n       reports\tof  the said occurrence were sent on  November\t21,<br \/>\n       1952, to the appellant&#8217;s Chief Engineer and the\trespondents<br \/>\n       were  placed under suspension the same day.   An\t industrial<br \/>\n       dispute\twas  then  pending between the\tparties\t i.e.,\tthe<br \/>\n       appellant  and its workmen before the  Industrial  Tribunal,<br \/>\n       Bihar,  and the appellant therefore made an  application\t to<br \/>\n       the  said Tribunal under s. 33 of the Act for permission\t to<br \/>\n       dismiss\tthe respondents on the ground of misconduct as\tper<br \/>\n       cl.  17(b)(viii)\t of the appellant&#8217;s  Standing  Orders.\t On<br \/>\n       November 27, 1952, the respondents also made an\tapplication<br \/>\n       before the said Tribunal under s. 33A of the Act inter  alia<br \/>\n       on  the\tground that their suspension by\t the  appellant\t as<br \/>\n       aforesaid was a breach of s. 33 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       On  December  6,\t 1952, the appellant  made  an\tapplication<br \/>\n       before  the said Tribunal stating that on a  reconsideration<br \/>\n       of  the\tfacts of the case of the respondents  the  original<br \/>\n       prayer for permission to dismiss the the respondents was not<br \/>\n       being  pressed,\tand  for the ends of justice  it  would\t be<br \/>\n       sufficient  if  the  appellant  was  granted  permission\t to<br \/>\n       discharge  the respondents under cl. 14(a) of  the  Standing<br \/>\n       Orders  instead of the original prayer for  dismissal  under<br \/>\n       cl.  17(b)(viii) thereof. This application was  resisted\t by<br \/>\n       the   respondents.    The  Industrial   Tribunal,   however,<br \/>\n       entertained the same and after hearing the parties duly made<br \/>\n       its  award  on  May 14, 1953,  dismissing  the  respondents&#8217;<br \/>\n       application  under  s.  33A  of the  Act\t and  granting\tthe<br \/>\n       appellant  permission to discharge the respondents from\tits<br \/>\n       employ with effect from the date of the order on payment\t to<br \/>\n       the respondents of one month&#8217;s pay in lieu of notice  within<br \/>\n       15 days therefrom.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The respondents carried an appeal against the said order\t of<br \/>\n       the Industrial Tribunal granting the appellant&#8217;s application<br \/>\n       under s. 33 of the Act before the Labour Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\n       of India, Calcutta.  A<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">       874<\/span><br \/>\n       preliminary  objection was taken on behalf of the  appellant<br \/>\n       before  the  Labour Appellate Tribunal that  no\tsubstantial<br \/>\n       question of law was involved and as such the appeal was\tnot<br \/>\n       maintainable.   The  Labour Appellate Tribunal  was  of\tthe<br \/>\n       opinion\tthat the appellant had alleged\tmisconduct  against<br \/>\n       the  respondents\t and  could not be  allowed  to\t adopt\tthe<br \/>\n       expedient of terminating their services by giving notice for<br \/>\n       the requisite period or payment of salary in lieu of  notice<br \/>\n       and  that the Industrial Tribunal, therefore, ought  not\t to<br \/>\n       have entertained the application for amendment of the prayer<br \/>\n       of the original application in which the appellant wanted to<br \/>\n       dismiss\tthe respondents for misconduct.\t This according\t to<br \/>\n       the Labour Appellate Tribunal was a substantial question\t of<br \/>\n       law  and\t it therefore entertained the appeal.\tThe  Labour<br \/>\n       Appellate Tribunal thereafter considered whether the  appel-<br \/>\n       lant  had  made\tout a case under  cl.  17(b)(viii)  of\tthe<br \/>\n       Standing\t Orders\t and  came  to\tthe  conclusion\t that\tthe<br \/>\n       respondents had not been guilty of any misconduct within the<br \/>\n       meaning of that clause and that therefore the order made\t by<br \/>\n       the Industrial Tribunal granting permission to the appellant<br \/>\n       to  terminate the services of the respondents was liable\t to<br \/>\n       be  set aside.  In so far, however, as after  obtaining\tthe<br \/>\n       permission  from the Industrial Tribunal the  appellant\thad<br \/>\n       given  notice  of discharge to the respondents,\tthe  Labour<br \/>\n       Appellate  Tribunal  expressed  its inability  to  give\tthe<br \/>\n       respondents  any substantial relief either in the  shape\t of<br \/>\n       reinstatement or compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The  appellant has come up in appeal before us against  this<br \/>\n       order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Shri H. N. Sanyal, appearing for the appellant, has urged in<br \/>\n       the fore-front the contention that no appeal from the  order<br \/>\n       of  the\tIndustrial  Tribunal lay to  the  Labour  Appellate<br \/>\n       Tribunal\t under s. 7 of the Industrial  Disputes\t (Appellate<br \/>\n       Tribunal)  Act, 1950.  He contended that the said order\twas<br \/>\n       not a &#8220;decision&#8221; within the meaning of that expression in s.<br \/>\n       7  and  even  assuming that it was so,  the  appeal  neither<br \/>\n       involved\t any  substantial  question of law  nor\t was  it  a<br \/>\n       decision in respect of any of the matters specified in  sub-<br \/>\n       s. (1)(b)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t   875<\/span><br \/>\n       of  that\t section.  The answer of Shri P. K.  Chatterjee\t on<br \/>\n       behalf  of  the\trespondents  was that  the  action  of\tthe<br \/>\n       appellant  in the matter of the termination of the  services<br \/>\n       of  the\trespondents  was punitive in  character,  that\tthe<br \/>\n       discharge of the respondents for which permission was sought<br \/>\n       by  the\tappellant  was\ta  punitive  discharge,\t that  such<br \/>\n       discharge  was  by reason of the alleged misconduct  of\tthe<br \/>\n       respondents  falling within cl. 17(b)(viii) of the  Standing<br \/>\n       Orders  and  not\t within\t cl. 14(a)  thereof  and  that\tthe<br \/>\n       substantial  question of law which arose in the\tappeal\twas<br \/>\n       whether\tthe  appellant\tcould  be  allowed  to\tadopt\tthe<br \/>\n       expedient  of terminating the services of  the  respondents,<br \/>\n       without going through the procedure of submitting a  charge-<br \/>\n       sheet to the respondents and holding a proper enquiry in the<br \/>\n       matter  of  those charges, by merely giving notice  for\tthe<br \/>\n       requisite period or payment of salary in lieu of notice\tand<br \/>\n       thus  resorting to el. 14(a) of the Standing Orders  instead<br \/>\n       of  cl. 17(b)(viii) of the same.\t The other answer  made\t by<br \/>\n       Shri  P.\t K.  Chatterjee\t was  that  having  regard  to\tthe<br \/>\n       definition  of  the term &#8220;retrenchment&#8221; to be  found  in\t s.<br \/>\n       2(oo)  of  the Act the discharge of the respondents  by\tthe<br \/>\n       appellant  really amounted to retrenchment and  retrenchment<br \/>\n       being one of the matters specified in sub-s. (1)(b) of s.  7<br \/>\n       of  the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act,  1950,<br \/>\n       the  respondents\t had  a\t right\tof  appeal  to\tthe  Labour<br \/>\n       Appellate Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It is necessary, therefore, to appreciate what was sought to<br \/>\n       be done by the appellant when it made the application before<br \/>\n       the   Industrial\t Tribunal  on  December\t 6,   1952.    This<br \/>\n       application  has\t been  described by  the  Labour  Appellate<br \/>\n       Tribunal\t as  an application for amendment of  the  original<br \/>\n       application  which  had\tbeen  filed  by\t the  appellant\t on<br \/>\n       November 21, 1952, for permission to dismiss the respondents<br \/>\n       from  its  employ  as per el. 17(b)(viii)  of  the  Standing<br \/>\n       Orders.\tIt must be noted, however, that what the  appellant<br \/>\n       purported to do by its application of December 6, 1952, was,<br \/>\n       in  effect,  to substitute another  application\tasking\tfor<br \/>\n       permission to discharge the respondents from its<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">       111<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">       876<\/span><br \/>\n       employ  under  el.  14(a)  of  the  Standing  Orders,   thus<br \/>\n       abandoning  the\trelief\twhich  it had  prayed  for  in\tthe<br \/>\n       original\t application.\tThe application dated  December\t 6,<br \/>\n       1952, was thus, in substance, a new application made by\tthe<br \/>\n       appellant to the Industrial Tribunal, no doubt relying  upon<br \/>\n       the  facts  and\tcircumstances which were  set  out  in\tthe<br \/>\n       original\t application but asking for the permission  of\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial  Tribunal to discharge the respondents  from\tits<br \/>\n       employ  under  cl. 14(a) of the Standing Orders\tinstead\t of<br \/>\n       dismissing  them\t from  its  employ  under  el.\t17(b)(viii)<br \/>\n       thereof.\t  We  do not see how it was not\t competent  to\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial Tribunal to allow the appellant to do so.  If the<br \/>\n       appellant  bad  been  actuated by any  oblique  motives\tand<br \/>\n       wanted  to evade the consequences of its not having  held  a<br \/>\n       proper  enquiry,\t after\tsubmitting a  charge-sheet  to\tthe<br \/>\n       respondents one could have understood the criticism made\t by<br \/>\n       the  Labour Appellate Tribunal in regard to the\tsame.\tThe<br \/>\n       Industrial Tribunal, however, expressly recorded the finding<br \/>\n       that the application for leave to discharge the\trespondents<br \/>\n       from its employ was bona fide and what the appellant did\t by<br \/>\n       making the application dated December 6, 1952, was  actuated<br \/>\n       by an honest motive of exercising its right to discharge the<br \/>\n       respondents  under el. 14(a) of the Standing Orders  instead<br \/>\n       of  visiting upon the respondents the penalty of\t dismissing<br \/>\n       them  from  its employ under el. 17(b)(viii)  thereof.\tThe<br \/>\n       discharge of the respondents was a discharge simpliciter\t in<br \/>\n       exercise\t of the rights of the employer under el.  14(a)\t of<br \/>\n       the  Standing Orders and was not a punitive discharge  under<br \/>\n       el.  17(b)(viii)\t thereof and if it was merely  a  discharge<br \/>\n       simpliciter,  then, no objection could be taken to the  same<br \/>\n       and the appellant would be well within its rights to do so,<br \/>\n       provided,  however, that it was not arbitrary  or  apricious<br \/>\n       but  was\t bona  fide.   The only\t question  relevant  to\t be<br \/>\n       considered  by  the  Industrial Tribunal would  be  that\t in<br \/>\n       taking the step which it did the appellant was not guilty of<br \/>\n       any  unfair  labour  practice  or  victimization.   If\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial Tribunal did not come to a conclusion adverse\t to<br \/>\n       the appellant on these counts, it would have no jurisdiction<br \/>\n       to refuse,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">       877<\/span><br \/>\n       &#8216;the  permission\t asked\tfor by\tthe  appellant.\t  Once\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial  Tribunal  was of opinion  that  the\tapplication<br \/>\n       dated December 6, 1952, and the discharge of the respondents<br \/>\n       for  which . the permission of the Industrial  Tribunal\twas<br \/>\n       sought  were  in\t the honest  exercise  of  the\tappellant&#8217;s<br \/>\n       rights, no question of law, much less a substantial question<br \/>\n       of  law could arise in the appeal filed by  the\trespondents<br \/>\n       against\tthe  decision of the Industrial\t Tribunal  and\tthe<br \/>\n       Labour  Appellate  Tribunal  was clearly in  error  when\t it<br \/>\n       entertained the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In view of the above finding, we do not propose to deal with<br \/>\n       the  contention\tthat  the order passed\tby  the\t Industrial<br \/>\n       Tribunal\t under s. 33 of the Act is not a &#8220;decision&#8221;  within<br \/>\n       the meaning of that term in s. 7 of the Industrial  Disputes<br \/>\n       (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The  argument that the discharge of the\trespondents  though<br \/>\n       patently\t it was a discharge simpliciter was, in\t substance,<br \/>\n       retrenchment within the meaning of the definition  contained<br \/>\n       in s. 2(oo) of the Act is equally untenable, for the  simple<br \/>\n       reason  that the term &#8220;retrenchment&#8221; was for the first  time<br \/>\n       defined\tin  the\t manner in which it has\t been  done  by\t an<br \/>\n       Ordinance promulgated in October 1953 which was followed\t by<br \/>\n       Act  43 of 1953 which was published in the Gazette of  India<br \/>\n       on  December  23, 1953.\tThe Industrial\tTribunal  made\tits<br \/>\n       order granting the permission under s. 33 of the Act on\tMay<br \/>\n       14,   1953,   so\t  that,\t this  definition   of\t the   term<br \/>\n       &#8220;retrenchment&#8221;  could not apply to the facts of the  present<br \/>\n       case.   If, therefore, at the relevant period the  discharge<br \/>\n       simpliciter  could not be deemed to be retrenchment  of\tthe<br \/>\n       respondents by the appellant, the decision of the Industrial<br \/>\n       Tribunal\t could not be said to be one in respect of  any\t of<br \/>\n       the  matters  specified\tin sub-s. (1)(b) of  s.\t 7  of\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.  In that<br \/>\n       view  also  no  appeal could lie from the  decision  of\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial  Tribunal  to the Labour Appellate  Tribunal.\t It<br \/>\n       must be observed that neither of these two points was  taken<br \/>\n       by  the\trespondents either in the  proceedings\tbefore\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial Tribunal or the Labour<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">       878<\/span><br \/>\n       Appellate  Tribunal nor was either of them mentioned in\tthe<br \/>\n       statement  of case filed by the respondents in  this  Court.<br \/>\n       They were taken for the first time in the arguments advanced<br \/>\n       before us by Shri P. K. Chatterjee.  We have, however, dealt<br \/>\n       with the same because we thought that we should not  deprive<br \/>\n       tile respondents of the benefit of any argument which  could<br \/>\n       possibly be advanced in their favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>       We  are, therefore, of opinion that no appeal lay  from\tthe<br \/>\n       decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour  Appellate<br \/>\n       Tribunal,   that\t the  Labour  Appellate\t Tribunal  had\t no<br \/>\n       jurisdiction  to\t interfere  with  the  order  made  by\tthe<br \/>\n       Industrial  Tribunal  granting the appellant  permission\t to<br \/>\n       discharge  the respondents under s. 33 of the Act  and  that<br \/>\n       the  decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is liable\t to<br \/>\n       be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>       We  accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decision\t of<br \/>\n       the Labour Appellate Tribunal and restore the order made\t by<br \/>\n       the  Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, on date May 14, 1953.\tThe<br \/>\n       appellant will be entitled to its costs of this appeal  from<br \/>\n       the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 204, 1958 SCR 871 Author: N H Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD., PATNA. Vs. RESPONDENT: BALI [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., ... vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 - 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\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., ... vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\" \/>\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=\"1957-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-30T05:23:34+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\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T05:23:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\"},\"wordCount\":2111,\"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\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\",\"name\":\"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., ... vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T05:23:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957\"}]},{\"@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":"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., ... vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 - 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\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., ... vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-30T05:23:34+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\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957","datePublished":"1957-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T05:23:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957"},"wordCount":2111,"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\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957","name":"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., ... vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T05:23:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patna-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-bali-rai-another-on-5-november-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., &#8230; vs Bali Rai &amp; Another on 5 November, 1957"}]},{"@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\/204552","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=204552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}