{"id":216950,"date":"2008-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-08T05:40:22","modified_gmt":"2019-02-08T00:10:22","slug":"borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde<\/div>\n
                       -:    1   :-\n\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n               WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n    Nilesh M. Mahadeshwar\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    a citizen of India, Age 39 years,\n\n    residing at C-711, Shivdarshan,\n\n    Satyanagar Co-operative Housing\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Society, Saibaba Mandir Main Road\n\n    Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092.              : Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n        V\/s.\n\n    1. The Presiding Officer\n                     \n       Central Government Industrial\n\n       Tribunal No.1, Mumbai\n                    \n       Shram Raksha Bhvan,\n\n       Sion, Mumbai 400 022.\n\n    2. The Seamen's Provident Fund\n      \n\n\n       Commissioner, having office at\n   \n\n\n\n       Krupanidihi, 3rd floor,\n\n       Walchand Hirachand Marg,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001.            : Respondents\n\n                        ...\n\n    Mr.Jay Prakash Sawant for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Ms S. Priya for respondent no.2.\n\n                        ...\n\n                                      CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  -:    2    :-\n\n                                                 DATE : AUGUST 12, 2008.\n\n    ORAL JUDGEMENT:\n\n    1.      The     petitioner         has       challenged      the      award       dated\n\n    1.12.2005       of    the Central Government Industrial                      Tribunal\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    No.1,    Mumbai,       holding         that the action of           the      Seamen's\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n    Provident        Fund        Commissioner          in      terminating               the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    petitioner’s service is legal and justified.\n<\/p>\n
    2.   The petitioner was employed as a Junior Assistant with<\/p>\n
    effect     from 25.4.1994.             The appointment order stated that<\/p>\n
    his appointment was purely provisional for a period of six<\/p>\n
    months     and    conditional           upon:    (i) showing          aptitude         to<\/p>\n
    work;\n<\/p>\n
             (ii) punctuality in attendance;                   and (iii) devotion<\/p>\n
    to   duties.         The     petitioner’s services were                liable        for<\/p>\n
    termination at any time without assigning any reason.                                The<\/p>\n
    period     of    six months was to expire on                 24.10.1994.             His<\/p>\n
    services      were terminated with effect from 21.10.1994 i.e.<\/p>\n
    three days before the specified term.\n<\/p>\n
    3.    The     petitioner          prayed for a      reference          before        the<\/p>\n
    appropriate       Government.            The     Government         rejected         his<\/p>\n
    prayer,     inter      alia, on the ground that the                   request        was<\/p>\n
    delayed and he had not completed 240 days.                        He, therefore,<\/p>\n
    approached       this      Court.        In Nilesh      M.      Mahadeshwar            v.<\/p>\n
\n\n    Union     of India & Anr., reported in (2003 III CLR 854),                               a\n\n    Division      Bench     of     this Court held that             the      Government\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:41:01 :::<\/span>\n                                -:    3   :-\n\n    could    not    have    refused to refer the            dispute         since       it\n\n    existed      and merely because he had not completed 240 days,\n\n    it    could    not    be    said that the         dispute      could       not      be\n\n    referred      since the dispute was triable under section                         25H\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n<\/pre>\n
    of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
    to    as the “Act”, even in respect of a workman who has not<\/p>\n
    completed      240    days.      After the order of this Court,                   the<\/p>\n
    Central      Government referred the matter to the                    Industrial<\/p>\n
    Tribunal which decided the same by the impugned award.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    4.     The    Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1                         has\n\n    rejected      the    petitioner's         case on the ground            that      the\n\n    petitioner      was\n                           \n                           employed       in a temporary capacity                for      a\n\n    fixed    period.       His      services     are     not     liable        to       be\n                          \n    terminated      at any time without assigning any reason.                           In\n\n    the    circumstances,        the     termination did         not      amount        to\n\n<\/pre>\n
    retrenchment by virtue of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and<\/p>\n
    the provisions of the Act which deal with retrenchment did<\/p>\n
    not apply to the petitioner’s case.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     Mr.Sawant,      the learned counsel for             the      petitioner,<\/p>\n
    challenged      the    award of the Industrial Tribunal                    on     the<\/p>\n
    ground that the Industrial Tribunal has committed an error<\/p>\n
    of    law    in not treating the petitioner’s                termination            as<\/p>\n
    retrenchment.         According       to    the    learned       counsel,         the<\/p>\n
    Industrial       Tribunal         ought     to     have    held       that        the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                -:    4   :-\n<\/p>\n
    petitioner’s          termination        was      without         following            the<\/p>\n
    procedure       prescribed       under section 25F of the                    Act.        No<\/p>\n
    notice      or one month’s salary in lieu of notice was                             given<\/p>\n
    and    that,     in any case, the act of not                   re-employing            the<\/p>\n
    petitioner       was     contrary to section 25H of the Act                         since<\/p>\n
    others       had      been   employed           after        the        petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    termination.          It was also contended by Mr.Sawant that the<\/p>\n
    provisions       of the Model Standing Orders framed under                             the<\/p>\n
    Industrial       Employment       (Standing        Orders) Act,              1946,       in<\/p>\n
    particular       standing order nos.2 and 13 apply, as a result<\/p>\n
    of    which     the petitioner’s services could not                        have       been<\/p>\n
    terminated       without     one     month’s notice in                writing         with<\/p>\n
    reasons or wages in lieu thereof.                  The contention advanced<\/p>\n
    before this Court were also advanced before the Industrial<\/p>\n
    Tribunal.          The    Industrial       Tribunal            held        that        the<\/p>\n
    petitioner’s         appointment      was       for   a      fixed       period        and<\/p>\n
    clearly      governed      by    clause     (oo)(bb) of             the      Act      and,<\/p>\n
    therefore,       section     25F     did not apply.               The      Industrial<\/p>\n
    Tribunal      relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court                               in<\/p>\n
    Venugopal       v.     Divisional Manager, LIC,<\/a> reported in (1994)<\/p>\n
    2     SCC   323,     wherein      the Supreme         Court        held      that      the<\/p>\n
    employer       could     terminate        the service in            terms       of     the<\/p>\n
    letter      of appointment unless it was a colourable exercise<\/p>\n
    of     power.      Having       regard     to     the      condition           in      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner’s appointment letter that the services could be<\/p>\n
    terminated         at any stage without assigning any reason, the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                               -:    5   :-\n<\/p>\n
    Industrial       Tribunal applied the ratio of the decision                      of<\/p>\n
    the    Supreme       Court   in     Escorts   Limited      v.       Presiding<\/p>\n
    Officer,       reported in 1997 II SCC 521, wherein it was held<\/p>\n
    that    such a termination would not amount to                 retrenchment<\/p>\n
    and did not apply the provisions of section 25F and 25G of<\/p>\n
    the Act.       The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on<\/p>\n
    a    decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of                      India<\/p>\n
    v.     Satyam     & Ors.,<\/a> reported in 1996 II CLR               1095.        That<\/p>\n
    case     has    no application to the present case              since        that<\/p>\n
    case     involves      the services of a workman who has been                    in<\/p>\n
    continuous       service       of not less than one year.             In     such<\/p>\n
    case,     the    Supreme Court observed that section 25F                   would<\/p>\n
    apply     to<\/p>\n
                    the retrenchment of a workman who has                 been       in<\/p>\n
    continuous service of less than one year.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied on<\/p>\n
    the     decision      of the Delhi High Court in Gopal v.                  MDC    &<\/p>\n
    Anr., reported in 2003 III CLR 1016.             The Delhi High Court<\/p>\n
    relied    on     the decision of the Supreme Court in                 Samishta<\/p>\n
    Dube v.        City Board, Etawah & Anr.,<\/a> reported in 1999 I CLR<\/p>\n
    854, took the view that it cannot be said that the workmen<\/p>\n
    who     had    not    completed     240   days   of     service        had       no<\/p>\n
    industrial       rights under the Act and, therefore, held that<\/p>\n
    section       25G was applicable in such a case.             That case has<\/p>\n
    no     application      to     the facts of the present         case.         The<\/p>\n
    petitioner       has not established any breach of section                    25G<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                    -:    6   :-\n<\/p>\n
    to     the    effect      that       he was not the last           person        to     be<\/p>\n
    employed       in     that      category.      In any     case,        as     observed<\/p>\n
    earlier,       there      is     a    clear and cogent         finding         of     the<\/p>\n
    Industrial          Tribunal          that    the   termination               of      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner’s          services        does not amount         to     retrenchment.\n<\/p>\n
    That finding is a valid finding and section 25G would have<\/p>\n
    no application.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n    7.      It was next contended by the learned counsel for                              the\n\n    petitioner,         relying         on the decision in S.M.             Nilajkar          &\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Ors.     v.    Telecom District Manager, Karnataka,<\/a> reported in\n\n    2003    II CLR 233, that the termination of the petitioner's\n\n    services       could\n                              \n                              be     said to be retrenchment               because        the\n\n    respondent       has      not       shown that he was         appointed          for      a\n                             \n    project       which    came         to an end    simultaneously             with      the\n\n    termination of his services.                  That case greatly differs in\n\n    facts    from       the    present case.         There      the      employer         had\n      \n\n\n    contended       that the workmen were engaged as casual workers\n   \n\n\n\n    in   a project.        He had apparently not adduced any evidence\n\n<\/pre>\n
    to prove in support of the contention and further that the<\/p>\n
    project       had    come to an end.           In the     circumstances,              the<\/p>\n
    Supreme       Court    held that the termination of service of                            a<\/p>\n
    workman       engaged in a scheme or project may not amount                             to<\/p>\n
    retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject<\/p>\n
    to the following conditions being satisfied:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                               -:    7    :-\n\n               \"(i)    that    the workman was employed                   in     a\n\n<\/pre>\n
               project or scheme of temporary duration;<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n               (ii)    the employment was on a contract, and\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n               not    as    a daily-wager        simplicitor,             which\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n               provided      inter      alia that      the       employment\n\n               shall    come to an end on the expiry of                      the\n\n               scheme or project;          and\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n               (iii)    the    employment        came        to     an       end\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n               simultaneously        with the termination of the\n\n<\/pre>\n
               scheme or project and consistently with the<\/p>\n
               terms of the contract;\n<\/p>\n
               (iv)    the    workman      ought       to      have        been\n\n               apprised      or    made aware of        the       abovesaid\n\n               terms    by the employer at the               commencement\n      \n\n\n               of employment.\"\n   \n\n\n\n    For   the reasons stated above, the reliance of that                              case\n\n\n\n\n\n    is misplaced.\n\n\n\n    8.    It    was    lastly      contended      by    Mr.Sawant            that       the\n\n\n\n\n\n    termination       was    in    violation of Model             Standing           Order\n\n    no.13.      For    terminating        the service of            a     workman,         a\n\n    notice     of one month in writing with reasons or wages                             in\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:41:02 :::<\/span>\n                              -:   8    :-\n\n    lieu thereof shall be given by the employer.                    There is no\n\n    merit    in    this contention in view of that very                  Standing\n\n    Order    which      provides that no notice of          termination            of\n\n    employment      is    necessary in case of temporary and                  badli\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n    workmen.      It is clear that the petitioner was employed on\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    a    temporary      basis   i.e.    of   an    essentially         temporary\n\n    nature    likely to be finished within a limited period                        in\n\n    accordance      with    the order of appointment.             There is         no\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    material      to    show that the work in which the              petitioner\n\n    was    appointed      was   not likely to be finished              within        a\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    limited period.        The petitioner was appointed as a Junior\n\n    Assistant in the Accounts Department.              From the fact that\n\n    accounts\n                           \n                  continued, it cannot be inferred that the                     work\n\n<\/pre>\n
    for which the petitioner was appointed also continued.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the<\/p>\n
    challenge      to    the award which does not suffer               from       any<\/p>\n
    error of law apparent from the record.               The Writ Petition<\/p>\n
    is,     therefore,      dismissed.       The     rule       shall         stand<\/p>\n
    discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 Bench: S.A. Bobde -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2006 Nilesh M. Mahadeshwar a citizen of India, Age 39 years, residing at C-711, Shivdarshan, Satyanagar Co-operative Housing Society, Saibaba […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBorivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 - 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\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-08T00:10:22+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\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T00:10:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":965,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T00:10:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 - 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\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-08T00:10:22+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\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T00:10:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008"},"wordCount":965,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008","name":"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T00:10:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/borivali-west-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Borivali (West vs The Presiding Officer on 12 August, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/216950","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=216950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}