{"id":22822,"date":"2010-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-17T09:18:08","modified_gmt":"2016-12-17T03:48:08","slug":"sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                   WRIT PETITION No. 3154 OF 2010.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n        Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple, \n\n\n\n\n                                   \n        Aged 52 years, Occupation - Housewife,\n        resident of 34-C, Bhosle Nagar, Nagpur \n        Tq. and District  Nagpur. \n                      ig                                 ....PETITIONER.\n\n\n                                 VERSUS\n                    \n     1. The Divisional Joint Registrar,\n        Cooperative Societies, Nagpur.\n      \n\n\n     2. The District Deputy Registrar,\n   \n\n\n\n        Cooperative Societies, Nagpur\n        Sahakar sadan, Hindustan Colony,\n        Amravati Road, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     3. Chakradhar Swami Nagri Sahakri\n        Pata Sanstha Limited, Nagpur,\n        218, Omnagar, Sakkardara,\n        Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     4. Shri Prabhakar Harishchandraji Bagawe,\n        Resident of Old Nandanwan, Near\n        Hanuman Mandir, Nagpur.\n\n     5. Shri Narendrakumar Krushnaji Diwate,\n        resident of 63, Gurudeonagar,\n        Nagpur.                                      ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                    . \n\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::\n                                                2\n\n\n\n                               ------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                    Mr.  A.H. Patil, Advocate  for Petitioner.\n            Mr. Kankale, Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                Mr. S.G. Shukla,  Advocate for Respondent No.3.\n                               -----------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                              CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,  J. \n<\/pre>\n
    Date of reserving the Judgment. -                     15.10.2010.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    Date of Pronouncement.          -                     25.10.2010.  \n                           \n    JUDGEMENT.   \n                          \n<\/pre>\n
                 By   this   petition   filed   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioner   –   an   Ex-Director   of   respondent <\/p>\n
    no.3-   Cooperative   Credit   Society   has   questioned   her   removal   dated <\/p>\n
    11.03.2010   under   Section   78[1]   of   the   Maharashtra   Cooperative <\/p>\n
    Societies Act, 1960  (hereinafter referred to as “MCS Act” for short)  on <\/p>\n
    account of disqualification and dismissal of her appeal under Section <\/p>\n
    152 of the MCS Act on 24.05.2010.  Respondent no.2 has declared her <\/p>\n
    disqualified under the provisions of Section 73-FF [1][vi] of the MCS <\/p>\n
    Act after noticing that she is working as Pigmy Agent for respondent <\/p>\n
    no.3 Society, and hence there was conflict of interest.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           I have heard Shri A.H. Patil,  learned Counsel for petitioner, <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Shri Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S.G.\n<\/p>\n
    Shukla,   learned   Counsel   for   respondent   no.3.     By  consent   of   parties <\/p>\n
    Rule is made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner <\/p>\n
    has contended that the petitioner is Director and not salaried employee.\n<\/p>\n
    For   salaried   employee,   concept   of   office   of   profit   as   specified   under <\/p>\n
    Section   73FF   [1]   is   relevant,   but   then   as   petitioner   is   Director   of   a <\/p>\n
    Credit Cooperative  Society and such Society is neither  instrumentality <\/p>\n
    of a State or Local Body, the disqualification is not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            According to him, the concept of office of profit in so far as <\/p>\n
    disqualification is concerned, can be pressed into service only if such <\/p>\n
    office   is   held   under   Government,   Municipality   or   Local   Authority   to <\/p>\n
    which  any  pay,   salary  etc.,  are   attached.       The   learned   Counsel   has <\/p>\n
    stated that as the Pigmy agent only earns commission which is neither <\/p>\n
    salary   nor   remuneration,   she   is   not   earning   over   and   above   such <\/p>\n
    commission,   hence   her   disqualification   is   totally   unwarranted.     To <\/p>\n
    explain   scope     of   office   of   profit,   he   has   placed   reliance   upon   the <\/p>\n
    judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at AIR 2001 SC 2583 (Shibu <\/p>\n
    Soren .vrs. Dayanand Sahay), AIR 2006 SC 2119 (Jaya Bacchan .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
    Union of India  ).   Infact learned Counsel for petitioner has placed a <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    brief note in writing on this subject.  To show to this Court the extent of <\/p>\n
    field occupied by Section 73 FF, he has relied upon the Division Bench <\/p>\n
    judgment of this Court reported at  1987 Mh.L.J. 944 = 1988 All India <\/p>\n
    Coop.Tribunal   Journal     1   (Murlidhar   Bhaulal   Malu   .vrs.   Sudhakar <\/p>\n
    Honaji Patil and   another).   He has also urged that the provisions of <\/p>\n
    Section 78[1] and 73 FF of MCS Act, occupy different fields and for said <\/p>\n
    purpose, he has relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court <\/p>\n
    reported   at   2009   (6)   Mh.L.J.   500     (Narayan   Gujabrao   Bhoyar   .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
    Yeotmal  Zilla  Parishad  Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha  and others) <\/p>\n
    and Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at  2003 [3] All MR <\/p>\n
    554 (Narayan Kisanrao Samundre and others .vrs. State of Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    and others).\n<\/p>\n
    5.          He has urged that in  show cause notice, as served upon the <\/p>\n
    petitioner,  there   was   no  reference   to any failure   to  comply with  the <\/p>\n
    legal   requirement   or   any   disobedience   and   hence,   the   inquiry   as <\/p>\n
    conducted on its strength is bad.  Moreover, reply to show cause notice <\/p>\n
    submitted by the petitioner has not been looked into at all and thus <\/p>\n
    there is failure to exercise jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Shri S.G. Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 has <\/p>\n
    relied upon the very same judgment reported   in case of   Murlidhar <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Bhaulal Malu .vrs. Sudhakar Honaji Patil and  another (supra), to show <\/p>\n
    that   importance   is   given   to   duty   of   a   person   as   a   Director   and   his <\/p>\n
    interest  which may be against the society.  He has further urged that in <\/p>\n
    1991   LIC   557   (The   Management   of   Indian   Bank,   Madras   .vrs.     The <\/p>\n
    Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central) Madras and another) as <\/p>\n
    also   in   2001   (1)   CLR   986   (SC)   (Indian   Banks   Association   .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
    Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others)  Pigmy Agents are held to be <\/p>\n
    employees.       The   learned   Counsel   has   urged   that   both   the   lower <\/p>\n
    Authorities have considered  the entire relevant material  and as there is <\/p>\n
    no jurisdictional error, the petition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.2 has supported <\/p>\n
    the impugned orders.  He states that the petitioner is holding the office <\/p>\n
    of   profit   and   show   cause   notice   gave   her   adequate   notice   thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    Earning of commission as Pigmy Agent by such Director may militate <\/p>\n
    with his\/her duties and therefore, action as taken is in accordance with <\/p>\n
    law.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            Perusal of show cause notice dated 14.01.2010 reveals that <\/p>\n
    it expressly mentions Section 78[1] as also Section 73FF [1][vi] of the <\/p>\n
    MCS   Act.     It   is   also   mentioned   that   petitioner   is   collecting   amount <\/p>\n
    towards   daily   deposits,     fixed   term   deposits   and   taking   commission <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
    from   respondent   no.3   Society.       She   was   therefore   called   upon   to <\/p>\n
    furnish her explanation.  The explanation was accordingly furnished by <\/p>\n
    her on 23.02.2010.  That explanation as also reply  of society is looked <\/p>\n
    into and then impugned order has been passed   on 11.03.2010.   The <\/p>\n
    order expressly refers to provisions of Section 73FF [1][vi] of the MCS <\/p>\n
    Act,   and   hence,   I,   do   not   find   any   substance   in   the   grievance   of <\/p>\n
    violation   of   principles   of   natural   justice   or   failure   to   exercise <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            Reliance   upon  the   judgment  in   case  of     Shibu  Soren  .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
    Dayanand Sahay (supra) or in Jaya Bacchan .vrs. Union of India (supra) <\/p>\n
    show   consideration   of   concept   of   office   of   profit,   in   the   light   of   the <\/p>\n
    constitutional   provision.     The   word   “office”   carries   with   it   certain <\/p>\n
    emoluments. It is held to be office, even if the holder thereof chooses <\/p>\n
    not to receive\/draw such emoluments.   The further reference to these <\/p>\n
    judgments   in   present   circumstances   is   not   necessary.     Provisions   of <\/p>\n
    Section 73FF [1][vi] of the MCS Act envisage holding of office of profit <\/p>\n
    in society i.e. not in Cooperative Society registered under the MCS Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The same therefore, cannot be co-related with any Government or any <\/p>\n
    Local   Authority.       The   petitioner   holds   office   of   profit   under   the <\/p>\n
    respondent no.3 Society, in as much as by working as Pigmy Agent, she <\/p>\n
    is earning commission regularly.  Her appointment as Pigmy Agent is in <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
    terms   of   resolution   of   the   Executive   Committee   of   respondent   no.3 <\/p>\n
    dated   16.04.2005.   Resolution   no.6[3],   shows   that   there   were <\/p>\n
    applications made by petitioners and other ladies, and thereafter, her <\/p>\n
    appointment as R.D. Agent of Pigmy Agent is accepted.  The resolution <\/p>\n
    stipulates that they have to place a security deposit with the society and <\/p>\n
    enter into an agreement and the Executive Committee   has   recorded <\/p>\n
    that it is agency of society given to petitioner.  Agreement executed on <\/p>\n
    stamp   paper  of   Rs.50\/-  between   the  Society  and  petitioner  does not <\/p>\n
    mention any date any where, but then it casts some obligation upon the <\/p>\n
    petitioner.   Column made for specifying amount of indemnity bond is <\/p>\n
    left blank therein.  Column showing amount of security deposit is also <\/p>\n
    blank.  Column for date is also blank.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Provisions of MSC Act no where define the term ’employee’ <\/p>\n
    or ‘workman’ or ‘servant’.  In this  situation it is apparent that in order to <\/p>\n
    find out that whether there is any master-servant relationship or not, <\/p>\n
    recourse may be required to be taken to provision of labour law or civil <\/p>\n
    law.  Control of master and payment of remuneration for work done are <\/p>\n
    the   basic   ingredients.         In   judgment   in   case   of   Indian   Banks <\/p>\n
    Association   .vrs.     Workmen   of   Syndicate   Bank   and   others   (supra) <\/p>\n
    dispute  was  between  Indian   Banks  Association    and Syndicate  Bank.\n<\/p>\n
    The Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the status of Pigmy Agents and <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
    held   that   they   are   workmen   under   Section   2[s]       of   the   Industrial <\/p>\n
    Disputes   Act   and   commission   received   by   them   is   wages.       This <\/p>\n
    judgment, therefore, is applicable even in present facts.   Petitioner by <\/p>\n
    becoming Pigmy Agent of respondent no.3 occupies a position which <\/p>\n
    enables   her   to   receive   commission   for   amounts   collected   by   her   for <\/p>\n
    depositing  it with  respondent  no.3 society. Thus  she  earns  profit for <\/p>\n
    herself because of that position.  In any case she is covered by first part <\/p>\n
    of Section 73FF [1][vi] of the MCS Act, which disqualifies a salaried <\/p>\n
    employee.  These disqualifications are prescribed to maintain purity of <\/p>\n
    cooperative movement.   A person occupying any  position which may <\/p>\n
    place him in conflict with interest of Society, cannot be permitted to <\/p>\n
    administer the society.  The Division Bench of this Court in  Murlidhar <\/p>\n
    Bhaulal   Malu   .vrs.   Sudhakar   Honaji   Patil   and     another   (supra)   has <\/p>\n
    emphasized this aspect only. Actual accrual of conflict is not relevant.\n<\/p>\n
    The   emphasis   placed   by   the   Division   Bench   is   on   neutrality   and <\/p>\n
    impartiality to avoid even likelihood of conflict between interest and <\/p>\n
    duty.   The  object is  held to be  secure independence for members of <\/p>\n
    committee and to ensure that such committee does not include persons <\/p>\n
    who are salaried employees of the Society concerned or  are in position <\/p>\n
    to   influence.     In   present   matter,   the   other   issues   resolved   by   the <\/p>\n
    Division Bench in said judgment are not very relevant.  It can be seen <\/p>\n
    that no lacunae can be found in otherwise complete scheme of Section <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    73 FF [1][vi] of the MCS Act.  Interpretation to advance the object of <\/p>\n
    provision needs to be accepted.  If such assignment or agreement is held <\/p>\n
    out   of   clutches   of   Section   73   FF   [1][vi],   it   will   create   loophole   not <\/p>\n
    envisaged in the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           The contention that, provisions of Section 78[1] of the MCS <\/p>\n
    Act and Section 73FF [1] of the Act operate in independent spheres, is <\/p>\n
    also not  relevant.  It is not the argument of petitioner that she cannot <\/p>\n
    be disqualified under Section 78[1] of the MCS Act.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           In   view   of   this   discussion,   I   find   nothing   wrong   with   the <\/p>\n
    concurrent   findings   reached   by   respondent   no.1   Divisional   Joint <\/p>\n
    Registrar   and   respondent   no.2   District   Deputy   Registrar.     Petition   is <\/p>\n
    therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.  Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n
    Rgd.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:18 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3154 OF 2010. Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple, Aged 52 years, Occupation – Housewife, resident of 34-C, Bhosle Nagar, Nagpur Tq. […]<\/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-22822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 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\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-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=\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-17T03:48:08+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\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T03:48:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1608,\"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\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T03:48:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 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":"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 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\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-17T03:48:08+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\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T03:48:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010"},"wordCount":1608,"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\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010","name":"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T03:48:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-aruna-bhagwant-tiple-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sau. Aruna Bhagwant Tiple vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 25 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\/22822","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=22822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}