{"id":209478,"date":"2001-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001"},"modified":"2016-03-16T16:12:32","modified_gmt":"2016-03-16T10:42:32","slug":"bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001","title":{"rendered":"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.C. Lahoti, K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 6149  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nBONGAIGAON REFINERY &amp; PETROCHEMICALS LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSAMIJUDDIN AHMED\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/09\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. Lahoti &amp; K.G. Balakrishnan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; Petrochemicals Ltd. is a<br \/>\nGovernment of India company engaged in the industrial activity of<br \/>\nrefinery and petrochemicals.  On 15th January, 1977, the Central<br \/>\nGovernment took a policy decision, in the interest of rehabilitating by<br \/>\ngiving employment to persons who were displaced from their lands<br \/>\nconsequent upon acquisition for establishment of the  project, that at<br \/>\nleast one person in the displaced family shall be given employment in<br \/>\nany public sector undertaking.\t Ahmed Ali Sarkar, the father of the<br \/>\nrespondent, was such a displaced person.  He appears to have a large<br \/>\nfamily.\t  His two sons, namely, Kazimuddin Ahmed and  Karamat Ali<br \/>\nwere given employment by the appellant respectively in the years<br \/>\n1981 and 1982.\tIn the year 1986, the appellant company require<br \/>\nsome grade-IV staff for which purpose a notification was sent to the<br \/>\nemployment exchange.  Therein it was mentioned that on 17<br \/>\nunreserved posts preference will be given to the candidates whose<br \/>\nland was acquired for the appellant company.  The name of<br \/>\nrespondent was sponsored by the employment exchange.  On 8th<br \/>\nSeptember, 1987, the respondent was offered an appointment on the<br \/>\npost of Material Handling Personnel (MHP).  Before he could take up<br \/>\nthe employment he was asked to fill in an attestation form vide<br \/>\nColumn 21 whereof  it was specifically asked if there were any of his<br \/>\nrelations working with the appellant corporation and to state their<br \/>\nnames and relationship.\t The respondent replied NIL.\tHe solemnly<br \/>\ndeclared at the foot of the form that in the event of any material fact<br \/>\nhaving been found to have been mis-stated or wilfully concealed he<br \/>\nshall be liable to appropriate action.\tOn 21.9.1987 the respondent<br \/>\ngave his joining report which was not accepted by the\tManager<br \/>\n(Personnel and Administration) for reasons recorded in the file.  It<br \/>\nwas found that the factum of his two  brothers having already been<br \/>\ngiven employment under the benevolent scheme promulgated by the<br \/>\nCentral Government was concealed which fact if disclosed, the<br \/>\nrespondent  would not have been offered employment in the preferred<br \/>\ncategory of displaced persons.\tOn 5.10.1987 the respondent was<br \/>\ninformed that his joining report was rejected and the letter of<br \/>\nappointment was withdrawn.  It is stated in the communication dated<br \/>\n5.10.1987 that at the time of interview held on 19.1.1987 the<br \/>\nrespondent was specifically put the question whether any of his family<br \/>\nmembers like brothers etc. are working in BRPL\tand the respondent<br \/>\nhad replied to the interview board members in negative.\t The truth of<br \/>\nhis averments has never been disputed by respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The abovesaid communication dated 5.10.1987 was put in issue<br \/>\nby the respondent by filing a civil writ petition before the High Court of<br \/>\nAssam.\t Vide order dated 26.5.1993 the writ petition was dismissed<br \/>\nby the High Court holding that the respondent was not entitled to be<br \/>\nappointed in the quota in which he had sought for the appointment<br \/>\nand therefore respondent was not entitled to any relief.  The High<br \/>\nCourt also held that in cancelling the appointment there was no<br \/>\nviolation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the<br \/>\nappellant.  The respondent preferred a writ appeal and therein on<br \/>\n27.7.1993 he sought for withdrawal of the writ petition with the liberty<br \/>\nof filing a fresh one on the same subject.  This prayer was allowed by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the respondent thereafter moved the Central<br \/>\nGovernment by raising an industrial dispute and seeking a reference to<br \/>\nIndustrial Court for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, 1947.  On 1.3.1989 the Central Government rejected the<br \/>\nprayer made by the respondent forming an opinion that as the<br \/>\nrespondent had not actually joined the service he had not become the<br \/>\nemployee of the company and he was not a workman entitled to raise<br \/>\na dispute under the I.D. Act.  Belatedly on 6.10.1993, more than  4\u00bd<br \/>\nyears after the decision of the Central Government dated 1.3.1989 the<br \/>\nrespondent sought for  review of the decision dated 1.3.1989.  He also<br \/>\nfiled a writ petition some time in the year 1994 seeking a writ of<br \/>\nmandamus to the Central Government for disposing of his<br \/>\nrepresentation dated 6.10.1993 for review of the order dated<br \/>\n1.3.1989.  On 22.11.1994 a learned Single Judge of High Court of<br \/>\nAssam disposed of the petition by directing the respondents<br \/>\nrepresentation to be disposed of within a period of three months.  On<br \/>\n2.6.1995 the Central Government directed the following dispute to be<br \/>\nreferred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati :-\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether the action of the management of<br \/>\nBongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dhaligaon, P.O. Bongaigaon, Dist. Goalpara is<br \/>\njustified in removing from service Shri Samijuddin<br \/>\nAhmed, workman on the ground that the workman<br \/>\nhas given false information to seek employment<br \/>\nagainst land oustee quota?  If not, to what relief<br \/>\nthe concerned workman is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant laid a challenge to the order of reference dated<br \/>\n2.6.1995 by filing a writ petition in the High Court.  A learned Single<br \/>\nJudge held that the reference was entirely misconceived inasmuch as<br \/>\nthe employment given to the respondent was obtained on concealment<br \/>\nof material facts and hence was withdrawn.  Inasmuch as the<br \/>\nrespondent never joined the employment of the appellant the question<br \/>\nof making a reference to test the validity of termination of  service of<br \/>\nrespondent did not arise.  The order of reference dated 2.6.1995 was<br \/>\ndirected to be quashed.\t The respondent preferred a writ appeal.  By<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 14.10.1999\t the Division Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt has allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge, and held that the dispute should have been<br \/>\nallowed to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal.  The<br \/>\nappellant corporation has filed this appeal by special leave feeling<br \/>\naggrieved  by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench deserves to be set aside.  Documentary evidence filed<br \/>\non behalf of the appellant clearly goes to show that the respondent<br \/>\nhad never entered into the employment  of the appellant. He was<br \/>\noffered an employment under a special scheme whereunder<br \/>\nemployment was available only subject to satisfying certain eligibility<br \/>\nconditions.  The respondent made a material concealment of facts and<br \/>\ntried to secure an employment to which he was not entitled under the<br \/>\nscheme.\t Such material concealment was detected timely and<br \/>\ntherefore his joining report was not accepted by the competent<br \/>\nauthority of the appellant company and the same was turned down.<br \/>\nThis averment made on affidavit and supported by documentary<br \/>\nevidence has not been rebutted by the respondent.  Inasmuch as the<br \/>\nrespondent had not entered the employment of the appellant, referring<br \/>\na dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act based on assumption\tthat<br \/>\nthe respondent had entered the service of the appellant and was then<br \/>\nremoved from service, suffered from material infirmity and was<br \/>\ntherefore vitiated.  The Division Bench was not right in forming an<br \/>\nopinion that the controversy raised by the appellant should have been<br \/>\nleft to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal.\t The Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal cannot go behind the order of reference.  It would have tried,<br \/>\non the terms of the reference, the issue of removal from service, and<br \/>\nnot the issue whether the respondent had at all entered in service.<br \/>\nMoreover, between 1.3.1989 and 2.6.1995 nothing new had happened<br \/>\nso as to warrant a change of opinion by the Central Government.\t It<br \/>\nhas been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that there was still a<br \/>\nlong  queue of persons waiting for employment in the preferred<br \/>\ncategory of displaced persons while the scheme itself has stood<br \/>\nwithdrawn on 16.1.1989. The respondent by seeking an appointment<br \/>\nin the employment of the appellant by making material concealment of<br \/>\nfacts was attempting to deprive someone else of his legitimate claim<br \/>\nfor appointment against limited number of vacancies available and the<br \/>\nCourt should not have extended its helping hand to a non-deserving<br \/>\nclaimant.   Be that as it may we are satisfied that reference of dispute<br \/>\nunder Section 10 of  I.D. Act at the instance of the respondent was<br \/>\nwholly unwarranted and uncalled for.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel for the respondent relied on Workmen of<br \/>\nDimakuchi Tea Estate Vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate<br \/>\nAIR 1958 SC 353 to submit that in view of Section 2 (k) of I.D.Act a<br \/>\ndispute raised by any person even if not a workman stricto sensu is<br \/>\ncompetent.  But we are not impressed.  In the abovenoted case any<br \/>\nperson was an employee appointed on probation and it was doubtful<br \/>\nwhether he was a workman or not.  The case did not relate to a person<br \/>\nnever employed and yet claiming to be workman.\tIt was held that<br \/>\nany person cannot be read without limitation and a person in respect<br \/>\nof which the employer-employee relationship never existed and can<br \/>\nnever possibly exist cannot be the subject matter of dispute between<br \/>\nemployers and workmen.\tThe present case does not satisfy the tests<br \/>\nlaid down vide para 21 of the decision cited so as to warrant the<br \/>\nvalidity of reference being upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench is set<br \/>\naside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored.\t No order as to<br \/>\nthe costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t( R.C. Lahoti )<\/p>\n<p>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t( K.G. Balakrishnan )<\/p>\n<p>September 4,  2001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6149 of 2001 PETITIONER: BONGAIGAON REFINERY &amp; PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: SAMIJUDDIN AHMED DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/09\/2001 BENCH: R.C. Lahoti &amp; K.G. Balakrishnan JUDGMENT: R.C. Lahoti, J. Leave [&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-209478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; ... vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 - 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\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; ... vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-16T10:42:32+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T10:42:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1559,\"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\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\",\"name\":\"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; ... vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T10:42:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; ... vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 - 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\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; ... vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-16T10:42:32+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001","datePublished":"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T10:42:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001"},"wordCount":1559,"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\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001","name":"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; ... vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T10:42:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bongaigaon-refinery-vs-samijuddin-ahmed-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bongaigaon Refinery &amp; &#8230; vs Samijuddin Ahmed on 4 September, 2001"}]},{"@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\/209478","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=209478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}