{"id":208954,"date":"2004-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004"},"modified":"2018-09-01T21:58:48","modified_gmt":"2018-09-01T16:28:48","slug":"bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7467 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN.R. Vairamani and Anr. \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(WITH C.A. NO. 4463\/2004)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese two appeals are interlinked in the sense that identical
\nissues in law are involved. We shall indicate the factual position in
\nC.A. No.7467 of 2003 as basically the impugned judgment in the said
\ncase is the foundation of the judgments impugned in C.A. No.4463 of
\n2004.\n<\/p>\n
\tFactual background in C.A. No.7467 of 2003 is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tUndisputedly, respondent No.1 was the landlord and on the basis
\nof a lease agreement, the appellant-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’) occupied the premises. The
\nlease was operative from 1.4.1958 to 31.5.1978. A petrol pump was set
\nup in the leased property. It is to be noted that the lease dated
\n7.10.1960 was executed between the Erstwhile Burmah Shell Oil Storage
\nand Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (in short ‘Burmah Shell’) the
\nPredecessor-in-title of the tenant and respondent No.1. In view of the
\nBurmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976, the
\ncurrency of the lease agreement was extended and on expiry of the
\nperiod a request was made by the tenant for extending the currency of
\nthe lease agreement.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the landlord a letter of refusal was sent. The
\nlandlord filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court taking the
\nstand that since he was not willing for renewal of the lease deed in
\nfavour of the tenant, it was liable for eviction. The tenant took the
\nstand that certain benefits under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants’
\nProtection Act, 1921 (in short the ‘Tenants Act’) were available to it.
\nIn any event, without taking recourse to the remedies available under
\nthe said Act a writ petition could not have been filed.  A learned
\nSingle Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 23.8.1999
\npermitting the landlord to take appropriate proceedings in the proper
\nCourt or forum. It was noted that what was impugned was not any order
\nbut a letter of the tenant. \tThough reliance was placed by the
\nlandlord on the decision of this court in Hindustan Petroleum
\nCorporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Dolly Das (JT<\/a> 1999 (3) SC 61), the High
\nCourt held that where the landlord had rejected the request for
\nextension, the only remedy available was to take appropriate
\nproceedings to evict the tenant by moving the appropriate Court. \tIt
\nwas held that the matter could not have been agitated in the writ
\npetition. The landlord filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of
\nthe Madras High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court came to
\nhold that since no factual controversy was involved, therefore, in the
\nbackground of what has been said in Hindustan Petroleum’s case (supra)
\nthe order of eviction was to be passed and accordingly allowed the writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the course
\nadopted by the Division Bench is clearly erroneous. Decision in
\nHindustan Petroleum’s case (supra) had no application to the facts of
\nthe case. Under the Tenants Act certain benefits are available to the
\ntenants, more particularly, in view of what is said in Sections 3 and 9
\nof the Tenants Act. The statutory remedies available could not have
\nbeen permitted by the High Court to be by-passed by filing a writ
\npetition. In any event, in Hindustan Petroleum’s case (supra) there was
\nno provision parallel to either Section 3 or 9 of the Tenants Act. The
\nratio in the said decision has, therefore, no application. It was
\npointed out that in terms of Section 2(4)(ii) of the Tenants Act the
\nexpression ‘tenant’ includes “any such person as is referred to in sub-
\nclause (i) who continues in possession of the land after the
\ndetermination of the tenancy agreement.” Obviously, that refers to a
\nstatutory tenant.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is to be noted that in the other case i.e. C.A.No.4463\/2004,
\nlearned Single Judge allowed the prayer of the landlord by following
\nthe decision in the case of the other landlord (respondent No.1 in
\nC.A.No.7467\/2003). The Division Bench affirmed the view of the learned
\nSingle Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to learned counsel for the landlord in each case there
\nwas no factual controversy involved, there was no removal of the lease
\npossible in view of what has been stated in Hindustan Petroleum’s case
\n(supra) and, therefore, the High Court was justified in directing
\neviction.\n<\/p>\n
We find that the High Court in none of the two cases before it
\nconsidered the effect of various provisions of the Tenants Act, more
\nparticularly, Sections 3 and 9 thereof. The provisions read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Sec.3-Payment of compensation on ejectment- Every
\ntenant shall on ejectment be entitled to be paid as
\ncompensation the value of any building, which may
\nhave been erected by him, by any of his predecessors-
\nin-interest, or by any person not in occupation at
\nthe time of the ejectment who derived title from
\neither of them and for which compensation has not
\nalready been paid. A tenant who is entitled to
\ncompensation for the value of any building shall also
\nbe paid the value of trees which may have been
\nplanted by him on the land and of any improvements
\nwhich may have been made by him.\n<\/p>\n
9. Application to court for directing the landlord to
\nsell land. – (1)(b)(i) Any tenant who is entitled to
\ncompensation under Section 3 and against whom a suit
\nin ejectment has been instituted or proceeding under
\nSection 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act,
\n1882, taken by the landlord, may, within one month of
\nthe date of the publication of the Madras City
\nTenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1979 in the
\nTamil Nadu Government Gazette or of the date with
\neffect from which this Act is extended to the
\nmunicipal town, township or village in which the land
\nis situate or within one month after the service on
\nhim of summons, apply to the court for an order that
\nthe landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to
\nbe fixed by the court, the whole or part of, the
\nextent of land specified in the application.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause\n<\/p>\n
(a)(i) of this sub-section, any such tenant as is
\nreferred to in sub-clause (ii)(b) of clause (4) of
\nSection 2 or his heirs, may, within a period of two
\nmonths from the date of the publication of the Madras
\nCity Tenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1973 apply
\nto the court [whether or not a suit for ejectment has
\nbeen instituted or proceeding under Section 41 of the
\nPresidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (Central Act
\n15 of 1882) has been taken by the landlord or whether
\nor not such suit or proceeding is pending] having
\njurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment or in
\nthe city of Madras either to such court or to the
\nPresidency Small Cause Court, for an order that the
\nlandlord under the tenancy agreement shall be
\ndirected to sell for a price to be fixed by the court
\nthe whole or part of the extent of land specified in
\nthe application.\n<\/p>\n
(b) On such application, the court shall first decide
\nthe minimum extent of the land which may be necessary
\nfor the convenient enjoyment by the tenant. The court
\nshall then fix the price of the minimum extent of the
\nland decided as aforesaid, or of the extent of the
\nland specified in the application under clause (a)
\nwhichever is less. The price aforesaid shall be the
\naverage market value of the three years immediately
\npreceding the date of the order. The court shall
\norder that within a period to be determined by the
\ncourt, not being less than three months and not more
\nthan three years from the date of the order, the
\ntenant shall pay into court or otherwise as directed
\nthe price so fixed in one or more instalments with or
\nwithout interest”.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants
\nprovisions similar to Sections 3 and 9 of the Tenants Act were not
\nunder consideration in Hindustan Petroleum’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
\nas to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
\ndecision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are
\nneither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the
\nstatute and that too taken out of their context. These observations
\nmust be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated.
\nJudgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret
\nwords, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for
\njudges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant
\nto explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not
\ninterpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are
\nnot to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V.
\nHorton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The matter cannot, of course, be settled
\nmerely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J
\nas though they were part of an Act of Parliament and
\napplying the rules of interpretation appropriate
\nthereto. This is not to detract from the great weight
\nto be given to the language actually used by that
\nmost distinguished judge.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord
\nReid said, “Lord Atkin’s speech…..is not to be treated as if it was a
\nstatute definition it will require qualification in new circumstances.”
\nMegarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: “One must not, of course,
\nconstrue even a reserved judgment of  Russell L.J. as if it were an Act
\nof Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2)
\nWLR 537) Lord Morris said:\n<\/p>\n
\t“There is always peril in treating the words of
\na speech or judgment as though they are words in a
\nlegislative enactment, and it is to be remembered
\nthat judicial utterances made in the setting of the
\nfacts of a particular case.”\n<\/p>\n
\tCircumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may
\nmake a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal
\nof cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying
\nprecedents have become locus classicus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Each case depends on its own facts and a
\nclose similarity between one case and another
\nis not enough because even a single
\nsignificant detail may alter the entire
\naspect, in deciding such cases, one should
\navoid the temptation to decide cases (as said
\nby Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case
\nagainst the colour of another. To decide
\ntherefore, on which side of the line a case
\nfalls, the broad resemblance to another case
\nis not at all decisive.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t***\t\t***\t\t***
\n\t“Precedent should be followed only so far
\nas it marks the path of justice, but you must
\ncut the dead wood and trim off the side
\nbranches else you will find yourself lost in
\nthickets and branches. My plea is to keep the
\npath to justice clear of obstructions which
\ncould impede it.”\n<\/p>\n
In a writ petition some benefits available to the tenant under
\nthe Tenants Act could not have been diluted. There is some dispute
\nabout the entitlement of the tenant to get protection under the Tenants
\nAct which can be more effectively decided in case action in terms of
\nwhat is required under the Tenants Act is taken by the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
 Once a suit is filed by the landlord for the eviction of a
\ntenant from land the tenant has right to apply to the court within one
\nmonth from the date of the service of summons for the issuance of order
\ndirecting the landlord to sell the whole or part of the extent of land
\nas specified in the application to him for a price to be fixed by the
\ncourt. On making of such an application the court is under a mandatory
\nduty to first decide the minimum extent of the land “which may be
\nnecessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant”. The court must
\nhold enquiry to determine whether the tenant requires the land for his
\nconvenient enjoyment, and if so, what area or portion of the land would
\nbe necessary for his convenient enjoyment. The court may on the facts
\nof a particular case come to the conclusion that the tenant does not
\nrequire any portion of the land and in that event it may reject the
\napplication and decree the suit for ejectment and direct the landlord
\nto pay compensation to the tenant. But if the court finds that the
\ntenant needs the whole or any portion of the demised land for
\n“convenient enjoyment”, the court has to fix the price of the land on
\nthe basis of market value of three years immediately preceding the date
\nof the order. The court may thereupon direct the tenant to deposit the
\namount so determined within a specific period being less than three
\nmonths and not more than three years. If the tenant fails to pay the
\namount so determined, the tenant’s application shall stand dismissed.
\nSection 9 confers a privilege on a tenant against whom a suit for
\neviction has been filed by the landlord but that privilege is not
\nabsolute. Section 9 itself imposes restriction on the tenant’s right to
\nsecure conveyance of only such portion of the holding as would be
\nnecessary for his convenient enjoyment. It creates a statutory right to
\npurchase land through the medium of court on the fulfillment of
\nconditions specified in Section 9 of the Tenants Act. It is not an
\nabsolute right, as the court has discretion to grant or refuse the
\nrelief for the purchase of the land. In Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.
\nv. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mull<\/a> (1963 Supp (1) SCR 282) this Court
\nconsidered the question whether the right of a tenant to apply to a
\ncourt for an order directing the landlord to sell the land to him for a
\nprice to be fixed by it under Section 9 of the Tenants Act is a
\nproperty right. The court held, that the law of India does not
\nrecognize equitable estates, a statutory right to purchase land does
\nnot confer any right or interest in the property. The right conferred
\nby Section 9 is a statutory right to purchase land and it does not
\ncreate any interest or right to the property. The tenant’s right to
\nsecure only such portion of the holding as may be necessary for his
\nconvenient enjoyment is equitable in nature. Under the common law a
\ntenant is liable to eviction and he has no right to purchase the land
\ndemised to him at any price as well as under the Transfer of Property
\nAct. The only right of a tenant who may have put up structure on the
\ndemised land is to remove the structure at the time of delivery of
\npossession on the determination of the lease. Section 9 confers an
\nadditional statutory right to a tenant against whom suit for ejectment
\nis filed to exercise an option to purchase the demised land to that
\nextent only which he may require for convenient enjoyment of the
\nproperty. The tenant has no vested right in the property instead; it is
\na privilege granted to him by the statute which is equitable in nature.
\nWhenever an application is made by a tenant before the court for
\nissuance of direction to the landlord for the sale of the whole or part
\nof the land to him, the court is under a mandatory duty to determine
\nthe minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the
\nconvenient enjoyment by the tenant. This determination can obviously be
\nmade only after an enquiry is held by the court having regard to the
\narea of the demised land and the extent of superstructure standing
\nthereon, and the tenant’s need for the land for the beneficial
\nenjoyment of the superstructure which he may have constructed thereon.
\nThe enquiry presupposes that the tenant making the application has been
\nin the occupation of the land and the superstructure wherein he may be
\neither residing or carrying on business, and on his eviction he would
\nbe adversely affected. The policy underlying Section 9 of the Tenants
\nAct is directed to safeguard the eviction of those tenants who may have
\nconstructed superstructure on the demised land, so that they may
\ncontinue to occupy the same for the purposes of their residence or
\nbusiness. Section 9(1)(b) ordains the court to first decide the minimum
\nextent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment
\nby tenant, it therefore contemplates that the tenant requires the land
\nfor the convenient enjoyment of the property. If the tenant does not
\noccupy the land or the superstructure or if he is not residing therein
\nor carrying on any business, the question of convenient enjoyment of
\nthe land by him could not arise. The court has to consider the need of
\nthe tenant and if it finds that the tenant does not require any part of
\nthe land, it may reject the application and direct eviction of the
\ntenant, in that event the landlord has to pay compensation to the
\ntenant for the superstructure.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above position was highlighted in P. Ananthakrishnan Nair and
\nAnr. v. Dr. G. Ramakrishnan and Anr.<\/a> (1987 (2) SCC 429).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn paragraphs 4 and 8 of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Raja
\nD.V. Appa Rao Bahadur (1995 Supp (3) SCC 397) the nature of right on
\nthe successor of a tenant has been indicated. The effect of the
\nacquisition on the operation of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 have
\nbeen dealt with in detail by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
\nBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. P. Kesavan and Anr.<\/a> (2004 (9) SCC\n<\/p>\n
772). The application and relevance of these decisions shall be
\nconsidered in case the landlord moves the appropriate Court and
\ninitiate proceedings as prescribed under the Tenants Act. The impugned
\njudgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is indefensible and is
\nset aside. It is made clear that what would be the position if the
\nproceeding is taken under the Tenants Act, shall be decided by the
\nappropriate Court.\n<\/p>\n
C.A.No.4463 of 2004<\/p>\n
\tThe foundation of the impugned judgment in this case is the
\ndecision of the Division Bench which was assailed in C.A. No.7467 of
\n2003. The impugned judgment has been set aside and directions have been
\ngiven as regards proceedings under the Tenants Act. Those shall also be
\napplicable in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeals are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7467 of 2003 PETITIONER: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. RESPONDENT: N.R. Vairamani and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-208954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat Petroleum Corporation ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 - 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\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-01T16:28:48+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-01T16:28:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3109,\"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\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-01T16:28:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 - 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\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-01T16:28:48+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-01T16:28:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004"},"wordCount":3109,"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\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004","name":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-01T16:28:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-vs-n-r-vairamani-and-anr-on-1-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation … vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/208954","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=208954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}