{"id":226527,"date":"2010-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-28T05:53:41","modified_gmt":"2014-05-28T00:23:41","slug":"the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
 _ 1.   D'SO=UZA\n\nA  * -\u00bb2-f SR1 ANANDA SHETTY\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\nOATEO THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2051};\nPRESENT '   \nTHE HON'BLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR,  A  S \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JOSTICS' BOR\u00e9.NRA AV  \nWRIT APPEAL NO.    \n\nBETWEEN :\n\nTHE NEW MANGALORE PORT 'i..'RUST'~, \" V  _ \nPANAMBUR    H. ;\n\nMANGALORS-;5izT.5\u00bbw1'O10:__ _ A \nREP. BYTHE..C.HA'1RIVULN'_    1;. , ...APPELLANT\n\n{BY SR1 SHASHTDHAR  \nM \/SA'KES'.7Yf,<3; c'rg1\u00bb4RAN'*{, ADVS]\n\nAND:\n\nS\/O };ATE..EDWARD D'SOUZA\n. EAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS\n " _NO\\V:'WORK1l\\fG AS A.T.I.\n~. TRAFR1r;..ORRARTMENT\nNEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST\nRANAMBUR, MANGALORE -- 575 010\n AND VRESIDING NEAR MUKAMBIKA STORE\n ~ GANDHINAGAR, RAVOOR\n\u00ab '_ . MANOALORE -- 575 015\n OK. DIST.\n\nS \/ O LATE SR1 THIMMAYYA SHETTY\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\nNOW WORKING AS A.T.I.\n\nTRAFFIC DEPARTMENT\n\nNEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST\n\n \n\n\n\nPANAMBUR, MANGALORE -- 575 010\nAND RESIDING DURGA NAGAR\nKULAI, HOSABETITU\n\nMANGALORE -- 571 176\n\nD.K. DISTRICT\n\nSR1 K. DAYANAN DA\n\nS\/ O LATE SRI RAMANNA\n\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\nNOW WORKING AS A.T.I.\nTRAFFIC DEPARTMENT , \nNEW MANGALORE PORT \nPANAMBUR, MANGALORE -- 5335' 010\n\nAND RESIDING AT KULAI \n\nMANGALORE--574'1___7'6 5\nD. K. DIST  - '\n\n.T1~1ETRAY"F1c_1v1ANAGE'R--1l": A  ._ . \nNEW MANGALQBE P'OR'_i' TRUST  A \n\nPANAMBII--R~\u00bb<4  ~ _   ._ \nMANGALDRE 13,575 01'0.'jj  Y-\n\n. SR1  \n\nAGED Aa3'GIJT;5f6--. ' '\n\nSR1 AJAEEA V V . _ \nAGED AEDLYYY  YEARS\n\n ..vENKA'i"RAD'\n\n' '\u00ab.AQE_D\u00bb.ABQ1J'1' 56 YEARS\n\n._  K\nA AGED AEQUT 63 YEARS\n\n. SR1\u00bb E{.'jBOMMAYYA\n\n.. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS\n\n12.\n\n-SR1 GOPALA MAYYA\nAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS\n\nSR1 KANTHAPPA SHERIGAR\nAGED ABOUT 54\u00bb YEARS\n\nSR1 RUDRAYYA ACHARY\nAGED ABOUT 6} YEARS\n\n \n\n\n\n ,\n ' .AGE.DAf30UT 57 \n\n A 24.  BAVOO\n~   Vv..VAGED2".J3QUT 57 YEARS\n\n  SHETTIGAR\n_  'AGEDABOUT 57 YEARS\n\nE  P. RAMACHANDRAN\n\nI3. SR1 HARISHCHANDRA\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\n14. SR1 JAYARAM ALVA\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\n15. SR} DAMODMQ PK.\nAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS\n16. SR1 SHEKAR\nAGED ABOUT 56 YEARS\n\n17. SR1 BHASKAR N. \nAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS u\n\n1.8. SR1 SUDHAKAR   _  A.\nAGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. =   A}\n\n19. SRI SHANKA_RS_HET1'Y" -- If A\nAGED ABQVUESS YEARS\u00bb\n\n20. SR1  .     \nAGEp_VAE~QUT\u00ab:_\u00a77VV3"EA. S ~  \n\n21. SR1 VASAN TH  .\nAGEDABOUT5? YEARS- _ \n\nDA NAIR\nAGE1;   'YEMS\n\n AGEDABOUT 57 YEARS\n\n27. SR1 AEDUL RAUF\nAGEDABOUT 59 YEARS\n\n \n\n\n\n28.\n29.\n30.\n31.\n32.\n33.\n\n34.\n\n35.\n\n36.\n _ 37.\n\nSR1 RAMESH PUTHRAN\nAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS\n\nSR1 RAMACHANDRA RAO\nAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS\n\nSR1 JOSEPH D'SOUZA\nAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS\n\nSR1 PEUS D'SOUZA\nAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS\n\nSR1 P. SUDHAKAR \n\nAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS\n\nSR1 P.V.K. SHETTYV   :\nAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. '\n\nSR1 KUMAR E'-V  \u00ab I;\nAGED ABQU T354 YEARS .. \n\nSR1 JERO:vIA=D'*SOLIz;\u00ab;'.--  A  ~\nAGED'_ABOUT.:5:9_&'EARS ~  \n\nSR1   RA\n\nAGED 'A15:3O1;T'::-O \n\nSLIDARSETAN\n\n'-AGED. AEOUT \n\nSm Ammpm\n\n" ._ "AGED 'Agog? 55 YEARS\n\nA V _ 39.\n  5740.' _\nA  "AGED ABOUT 54YEARS\n\nA :1" 'V .\n\n42.\n\nSm  L. SHETTY\nAGEDi.ABOUT 55 YEARS\n\nSR1 PURUS}~IO'l'H,AMA KOTIAN\nSR1 MOURICE PERRAO\nAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS\n\nSRI ABDUL HAMEED\nAGED ABOUT 54.\u00bb YEARS\n\n\n\n43. SR1 HARISHCHANDRA T.\nAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS\n\nRESRONDENTS 5 To 43 ARE ALL WORKENG   0\nAS A.T.I., c\/o TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT "\nNEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST\n\nPANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 570 015\n\nD.K. DISTRICT\n\n   . \n<\/pre>\n
[BY SR1 NARAYAN BEAT FOR M \/S S4UE.jEa\u00abl’RAQ 8:  ‘  ‘<\/p>\n
COMPANY, ADVS FOR R1 TC) 3 A .. ._
\nSR1 C JAGADISH, ADV.  816′?) 0<\/p>\n
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS____”F.ILED U’\/S4 OF THE
\nKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT *R.RAY’1NG To”SET ASIDE
\nTHE ORDER PASSED 11\\?T?HE.1w;.j_RVNo;y’ ~36\u00ab’L_78\/2000 DATED
\n02\/01\/2007.    v<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL \u00e9jommo-._”‘o’:-4.6′ EQR PRELIMINARY
\nHEARING T1::H_S i3A1″,.CI~I’IEF ,m;sT1cE” DELIVERED THE<\/p>\n
FOLLOWINCAELV 5..\n<\/p>\n
J.s.KH1\u00a7HAR., C;~J;’7{og?gi1}\u00a76′ <\/p>\n
  issiie; is subject matter of consideration<\/p>\n
 ‘iri”the-vvpreSent.__appeal, is the seniority of respondent<\/p>\n
N’os’.”71 to  60.01-‘lV’he seniority list was in the first instance<\/p>\n
fudravtrn.  96.06.1996, wherein respondent Nos. 1 to 3<\/p>\n
A not been given the bene\ufb01t of seniority in the cadre<\/p>\n
   Tally Clerks with effect from the year 1980. T he<\/p>\n
 aforesaid respondents assailed the order dated<\/p>\n
26.06.1996 by filing W.P.Nos.19908 to 910 of 1996.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid writ petitions came to be disposed of, by<\/p>\n
3%” 3%”\n<\/p>\n
A in V ‘  f Regtllations’).\n<\/p>\n
4. During the course of hearing, two
\ncontentions have been advanced at the hands_:’the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant.<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not eligible for”pr\ufb02or_n,oltionV  ii”
\nthe post of Tally Clerk in the year <\/p>\n
could not have been granted_tl1eV bene\ufb01t  seninriityi with * in<\/p>\n
reference to the year  “Secondly, itliiat the
\nexamination\/selectionu\u00e9l in the year<\/p>\n
1980 itself  .l3eei;;1f V’ as such, no<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t coiilri b\u00e9;gra3:.tedi’in3tte .1 r’e’spo:ndent Nos. 1 to 3 with
\nreference  1the’ysel:ection’process held in the year 1980.\n<\/p>\n
5. in =..plInsofar   raised at the hands of<\/p>\n
theappellant”‘  concerried, the same have to be<\/p>\n
  the basis of New Mangalore Port Trust
\n flfiecrnitment, Seniority and Prornotion)<\/p>\n
V –V Regiilatiepnslll 1980 [hereinafter referred to as ‘l98O<\/p>\n
it is acknowledged by the learned<\/p>\n
 counsel for the appellant, that the 1980 Regulations<\/p>\n
‘4 hyvere relevant for determining the conditions of eligibility<\/p>\n
for promotion to the post of Tally Clerks. Entry 36 to<\/p>\n
  fjj ‘ .\n<\/p>\n
the Schedule appended to the 1980 Regulations, lays
\ndown the eligibility conditions for promotion. Agsgper
\nentry 36, 10% of the posts of Tally Clerks
\nfilled up by way of a departmental
\nto Class–lV employees of the
\nsaid 10% departmental promotli0:\ufb02il”–.quott:{.,<\/p>\n
qualifications and eligibility been<\/p>\n
prescribed:\n<\/p>\n
” (b) 10% bitheyvacancies'”i1’1″‘the grade of Tally
\nClerk; iwill..Vbe’?’1jese1_Ve’d_ior’bcir1g filled by class IV
\nemployees :jborne\u00ab.otnl_’ the” regular establishment of
\ntlr1e”Po1″ft sifi;bje’ct”–.to ltlxe\ufb02 following conditions,
\nrialnely-V”.   l  l<\/p>\n
(i) ‘=,Selectioi1.g’ would be made through a
\n‘Departmental’ examination or test confined
\nto “‘s1__1ch class IV employees who fulfil the<\/p>\n
 1 ~ijequirerI’1’ent of minimum educational
\n_  -qualifications, namely Matriculation or
\n  ‘vequiyalent quali\ufb01cations:\n<\/p>\n
‘-_r(ii)l ‘ A7)-‘l’l1ge’ maximum age for this examination or
\n~_t’.est will be 40 years [45 years for the
\nScheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes
\nA  employees):\n<\/p>\n
(iii) At least five years, service in Class IV
\n establishment will be essential: and<\/p>\n
(iv) The maximum number of recruits by this
\nmethod would be limited to 10% of the
\nVacancies in the Cadre of Tally Clerks
\noccurring in a years, un\ufb01lled vacancies will
\nnot be carried over to the next year.”<\/p>\n
wvew<\/p>\n
6. We shall have to determine the eligibility of<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.1 to 3 based on the conditions., of<\/p>\n
eligibility delineated hereinabove. Insofar
\ncontention advanced by the learned  the
\nappellant is concerned, it was <\/p>\n
Clause {3} extracted herein-a_.bove,_V_lto  for <\/p>\n
promotion to the post of   of the
\nClass IV establishmentlnas haveuatleast five
\nyears service. .1Responderit  having been
\nappointed   to the learned
\ncounsellfor  fulfill the aforesaid
\neligibility 1980, when they were<\/p>\n
perrnitted  ‘take’. departrnental examination for<\/p>\n
 “‘-prorenotion to the of Tally Clerks. According to the<\/p>\n
  for the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 to<\/p>\n
3 had  service for a period of four years 11<\/p>\n
 :\ufb01”monthsr—-only on 11.10.1980. Being short of five years
\n  serviee, it is asserted, that there was no justification<\/p>\n
  rmrlhatsoever for the learned Single Judge to accept the<\/p>\n
claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the grant of the<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t of seniority with reference to the year 1980.<\/p>\n
W’*’*’*”5:”\ufb01Q’<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration<\/p>\n
to the first contention advanced at the hands o’f’–.the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant. While <\/p>\n
plea of de\ufb01ciency in five years service, a.s__t_h.e basis of ._ <\/p>\n
ineligibility of the respondents for prornjoti,on,_to: <\/p>\n
of Tally Clerk, learned counsel fordthe’ tasljghas <\/p>\n
been noticed hereinabove,  the-year  service
\nacquired by respondent  ‘Sgtill the date of
\nholding of the  lpe\u00a7:.arnination on<\/p>\n
11.10.1980,.   hands of the<\/p>\n
learnedllcounsfel  by treating the date of
\nthe  as the cut oil” date, in our<\/p>\n
View, is wholly unfustilied. The conditions of eligibility<\/p>\n
 “v’ext”1″acted l’1ereinaboye (from the 1980 Regulations) do<\/p>\n
   the aforesaid determination. In our<\/p>\n
cons_ide_red,l’Fyiew, from the conditions of eligibility<\/p>\n
 ‘extracted hereinabove, it emerges, that a quota limited
\n *1-(lo\/o reserved for promotion to the cadre of Tally<\/p>\n
  “clerks, is determined year wise. This is apparent from<\/p>\n
Clause (4) extracted from the Schedule reproduced<\/p>\n
above. If that is so, the eligibility of respondent Nos. 1<\/p>\n
Ewe we<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
to 3 had to be determined with reference to the year<\/p>\n
1980. Since respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came rtoggbe<\/p>\n
appointed with the Trust on 01.12.1975……3;\ufb01\u00a2’defers
\nsatis\ufb01ed, that they acquired five years hm;
\n01.12.1980. Thus. in our considered’ifilewg’A1″esp.o3identi’<\/p>\n
Nos.l to 3 were eligible under  Regulations’;’forV”*w.p<\/p>\n
promotion during the year  _A referericelirnade at
\nthe hands of the app’ella\u00abnt  1′ holding of the
\ndepartmental examinati.ori,’–..for: eligibility, is<\/p>\n
wholly  \u20ac1aJw,_utherefore hereby<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
8. it  ‘secoi;-d.””-contention advanced by the<\/p>\n
learried ie.coun”se.lLvi”or the appellant, is based on the<\/p>\n
 by the Chairman of the New
\n Trust, wherein it is sought to be
\n  that the process of promotion was
\n13 midstream, for the year 1980. The solitary
\n‘  Jiustiiicatiori for abandoning the process of promotion.<\/p>\n
 has been depicted in the order dated 31.10.2000<\/p>\n
was, that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not fulfill the<\/p>\n
condition of eligibility for promotion to the post of Tally<\/p>\n
rww<\/p>\n
Clerks. In our conclusion recorded in the first issue<\/p>\n
hereinabove, we have not accepted the aforsesaid<\/p>\n
determination at the hands of the Chairman.
\nprocess of selection was completed  “at
\ndepartmental examination, wherein\u00bb _  —  _ <\/p>\n
to 3 were placed in the orderpof  at dgf  <\/p>\n
other candidates, we are  lltliatdit ‘Was not<\/p>\n
justified for the appellants  the process
\nof selection   heen completed.\n<\/p>\n
Thus   respondent Nos.\n<\/p>\n
1 to    to the post of Tally
\nClerks  “the   artmental examination held<\/p>\n
in thle..yearl”lS7):V8{}\u00a7h.’-aslalso, on the basis of their position<\/p>\n
 in the merits. list in the said selection process.<\/p>\n
  it is noticed from the pleadings<\/p>\n
filed— on; of the appellants, that respondent Nos. 1<\/p>\n
 eventually came to be promoted to the cadre of
\n  Tally: Clerks in 1983, yet the appellant by themselves<\/p>\n
 Eindertook before the Assistant Labour Commissioner<\/p>\n
(in the proceedings held on 16.06.1983] that for the<\/p>\n
purpose of seniority, irrespective of the fact of their<\/p>\n
actual promotion, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would be<\/p>\n
granted the benefit, which was more advantageoiis to<\/p>\n
them. based on the competitive examination<\/p>\n
in 1980. Having acknowledged the afores_aid’,:.A.lit <\/p>\n
not lie in the mouth of the <\/p>\n
benefit of seniority to respo_ndent_vl\\Tos.  3  <\/p>\n
reference to the year 1980.  on of our
\nconclusion recorded   as also
\nherein above, We   contention
\nadvanced by   appellant.\n<\/p>\n
lilo  was advanced at the hands
\nof the learned V   the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 For the “reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no<\/p>\n
    instant Writ appeal and the same is<\/p>\n
accordi’nglc3r__, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
Chief lustice<\/p>\n
Sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
Ifidge<\/p>\n
 hrp<\/p>\n
Index: Y\/N<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010 Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna _ 1. D’SO=UZA A * -\u00bb2-f SR1 ANANDA SHETTY IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE OATEO THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2051}; PRESENT ‘ THE HON’BLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR, A S […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D'Souza on 19 October, 2010 - 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\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D'Souza on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-28T00:23:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-28T00:23:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1285,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\",\"name\":\"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D'Souza on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-28T00:23:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D'Souza on 19 October, 2010 - 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\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D'Souza on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-28T00:23:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-28T00:23:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010"},"wordCount":1285,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010","name":"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D'Souza on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-28T00:23:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-mangalore-port-trust-vs-sri-w-f-dsouza-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The New Mangalore Port Trust vs Sri W F D’Souza on 19 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/226527","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=226527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}