{"id":230223,"date":"2008-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-06T15:44:23","modified_gmt":"2017-08-06T10:14:23","slug":"yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n                           WP ( C ) No. 2223 of 2006\nYugeshwar Pandit                         ....                 Petitioner\n\n                                       Versus\n\n Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd, Ranchi and ors... Respondents\nCoram :             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n\nFor the petitioner\/appellant (s) : M\/s Manoj Pd,Chetan Krishna Nages\n                                   & Shalina Parween, Advocates.\nFor the respondent: Mr. Rajiv Ranja, Advocate.\n\nCAV on 21.10.2008                          Pronounced on   20\/11\/2008\n\n20\/11\/2008<\/pre>\n
.         Petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing<\/p>\n
the order dated 30.3.2006 ( annexure 7) whereby and where-under the<\/p>\n
claim of the petitioner for allotment of residential quarter on a long term<\/p>\n
lease (LTL) basis has been rejected by the respondents.<\/p>\n
2.            The petitioner was an employee of the respondent HEC and<\/p>\n
was allotted a residential quarter No. CD 18 at Sector III, Dhurwa, Ranchi.<\/p>\n
              On    14.1.2004,   the     respondent    company    issued   an<\/p>\n
advertisement vide Circular No. 2\/2004 offering allotment of residential<\/p>\n
quarters to its employees on long term lease basis. In response thereto, the<\/p>\n
petitioner applied for allotment and on 28th May, 2004 and deposited Rs.<\/p>\n
3,10, 200\/- by way of premium payable for allotment of a ground floor<\/p>\n
quarter.\n<\/p>\n
              The respondent Management offered him quarter no. CD<\/p>\n
15\/8. Though the offer of the quarter was accepted by the petitioner but<\/p>\n
the delivery of possession of the quarter was not given by the respondents<\/p>\n
to him. Instead, the Management allotted the quarter to the occupant who<\/p>\n
was in forcible occupation of the said quarter. Later, on being informed<\/p>\n
that CD 403\/III at Sector III has fallen vacant after the earlier occupant had<\/p>\n
vacated the quarter, the petitioner submitted his representation seeking
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
delivery of possession of the aforesaid quarter. Though by letters dated<\/p>\n
29.11.2005 and 30.12.2005 (Annexures 5 series) the concerned authorities<\/p>\n
of the respondents assured the petitioner of allotment of the said quarter,<\/p>\n
but again the assurance was not fulfilled and the quarter was allotted to<\/p>\n
some other person. Instead, the Management offered another quarter no.<\/p>\n
CD 559 at Sector III. It was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent<\/p>\n
Management that if the petitioner accepts the offer of quarter no. CD\/559,<\/p>\n
then the allotment would be given to him soon after the stay granted by<\/p>\n
the High Court in another writ petition is vacated.\n<\/p>\n
            By his letter dated 29.3.2006( annexure 6) the petitioner<\/p>\n
accepted the offer for allotment of quarter no. CD 559. Yet, instead of<\/p>\n
allotting the quarter to the petitioner, the respondents by their impugned<\/p>\n
order dated 30.3.2006 ( annexure 6) rejected the petitioner’s claim for<\/p>\n
allotment of the quarter and directed him to collect his premium amount.<\/p>\n
            The grievance of the petitioner is that he having accepted the<\/p>\n
offer of the respondent Management for allotment of a residential quarter<\/p>\n
on LTL basis and in token of such acceptance,         having deposited the<\/p>\n
premium amount of Rs. 3,10,200\/-, the contract is deemed to have<\/p>\n
concluded by and between the petitioner and the Management and the<\/p>\n
respondent Management is bound to offer the quarter to the petitioner, but<\/p>\n
the respondent Company has now retracted from its obligation under the<\/p>\n
contract on account of the fact that by reason of a revised decision of the<\/p>\n
Management, the amount of premium has been enhanced from Rs.<\/p>\n
3,10,200\/- to Rs. 4,90,000\/- and it is only to obtain unjustified financial<\/p>\n
benefit and with malafide motives that the allotment of the quarters has<\/p>\n
now been denied to him. Such denial of allotment of the quarter to the<\/p>\n
petitioner is totally discriminatory, unjustifiable and smacks of an ulterior
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
motive. Further, grievance of the petitioner is that ever since the date of the<\/p>\n
deposit of the premium amount on 28.5.2004 which he had withdrawn<\/p>\n
from his GPF account and the house rent allowance he has been suffering<\/p>\n
loss on interest on the amount and further more, he is now being<\/p>\n
threatened with forcible eviction of the quarter in his occupation and his<\/p>\n
retiral dues have also been illegally withheld by the respondents.<\/p>\n
3                  Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondent Management denying and disputing the entire claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that though vide letter<\/p>\n
dated     8. 5.2004, (annexure 2) the respondent Management had<\/p>\n
provisionally allotted Quarter no CD No. 15 \/8 on long term lease of 30<\/p>\n
years, extendable to 90 years, in stages of 30 years each, to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
on the terms that the petitioner should deposit the fixed premium amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. 3,10,200\/- within the stipulated date; the offer itself was conditional<\/p>\n
and it was categorically stated in the letter that if due to “unforeseen<\/p>\n
circumstances” and even after the deposit of the premium amount if the<\/p>\n
quarter is not physically handed over to the petitioner, then the premium<\/p>\n
amount will be     refunded to him without interest and no alternative<\/p>\n
quarter will be provided to him in lieu of the offered quarter. The said<\/p>\n
quarter at the relevant time was in occupation of one S.K. Pandey. It is<\/p>\n
further contended that even though the petitioner had deposited the<\/p>\n
premium amount after accepting the offer of the aforesaid quarter, but<\/p>\n
since even to the petitioner’s knowledge, the quarter was in occupation of<\/p>\n
another person, the allotment of the quarter could not be completed in<\/p>\n
favour of the petitioner by delivery of the possession of the same to him.<\/p>\n
             As regards the petitioner’s claim that the respondent<\/p>\n
Management had offered Quarter no. CD 559\/III, the               stand of the
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents is that the respondents had never offered the aforesaid<\/p>\n
quarter No. CD 559\/III to the petitioner under the LTL scheme. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents would explain that as matter of fact, the<\/p>\n
petitioner being an employee of the company, was allowed to occupy<\/p>\n
quarter No. CD. 18\/III on normal allotment basis. The petitioner by his<\/p>\n
letter dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure 5 )        had expressed his physical<\/p>\n
inconvenience for residing in the allotted quarter no. CD 18\/III situated<\/p>\n
on the top floor of the building and had requested for change of the<\/p>\n
quarter and had desired for allotment of CD 403\/III in exchange. In<\/p>\n
response, the concerned authority of the respondents had informed the<\/p>\n
petitioner that his request for allotment of quarter No CD. 403\/III has<\/p>\n
been rejected by the allotment committee, although the committee had<\/p>\n
decided to allot CD 559 \/III to the petitioner. Learned counsel explains<\/p>\n
further that though in the letter ( annexure 6), the Manager (Estate) of the<\/p>\n
respondent Company had conveyed to the petitioner that long term lease<\/p>\n
scheme was not in operation on account of the stay order passed by the<\/p>\n
High Court and that on vacation of the stay order, the said CD 559\/III<\/p>\n
shall be regularized to the petitioner under the LTL scheme          if it is<\/p>\n
declared under the LTL zone, but such communication was totally without<\/p>\n
authority vested in the Manager by the Management and hence, it does<\/p>\n
not create any right in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel adds<\/p>\n
further that   though the stay order of the High Court has since been<\/p>\n
vacated, but since CD 559\/III did not fall under the LTL zone, the same<\/p>\n
cannot be offered to any person much less the petitioner under the said<\/p>\n
scheme.\n<\/p>\n
4.                 From the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are:
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
                   (i) In response to the advertisement issued by the<\/p>\n
respondent Management for allotment of residential quarters to its<\/p>\n
employees under LTL Scheme, the petitioner              had submitted his<\/p>\n
application in acceptance of the offer by fulfilling the requisite conditions<\/p>\n
namely deposit of the premium amount of Rs. 3,10,2000\/- for allotment of<\/p>\n
a ground floor quarter on 28.4.2004.\n<\/p>\n
                   (ii) The respondent Management had offered CD 15 \/8<\/p>\n
to the petitioner on long term lease basis. However, the possession of the<\/p>\n
allotted quarter was not delivered to the petitioner on the ground that it<\/p>\n
was under occupation of some other person.\n<\/p>\n
                   (iii) Subsequently, by letter ( annexure 6),           the<\/p>\n
Management had initially offered to allot quarter No. CD 559\/III to the<\/p>\n
petitioner by way of normal allotment in exchange of the quarter which<\/p>\n
was already in his occupation, but with the assurance that such allotment<\/p>\n
would be regularized under long term lease if declared under LTL zone<\/p>\n
after vacation of the stay order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                   (iv) The petitioner accepted this offer by his letter dated<\/p>\n
29.3.2006. Subsequently, the stay imposed by the High Court in another<\/p>\n
writ petition was vacated. Thereafter, vide a fresh advertisement dated<\/p>\n
12.6.2006 the respondent Management had offered several quarters,<\/p>\n
including CD 559\/III, for allotment under LTL scheme and allotted the<\/p>\n
said quarter to one P.P. Vijay on 21.7. 2006. This fact has not been denied<\/p>\n
by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
5.                 During the pendency of the present application, the<\/p>\n
petitioner had superannuated from service on 31.7.2006, while all along<\/p>\n
waiting for the allotment of the aforesaid quarter under the LTL scheme.
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
6.                  The above facts and circumstances clearly indicate that<\/p>\n
there is utter lack of transparency and fairness on the part of the<\/p>\n
respondent Management in dealing with the petitioner’s claim. When the<\/p>\n
respondents had initially offered CD 15\/8 to the petitioner under LTL<\/p>\n
scheme,   the respondent Management knew very well that the quarter<\/p>\n
was not vacant and it was in possession of another person and yet, the said<\/p>\n
quarter was offered for allotment to the petitioner        giving him an<\/p>\n
impression that it would be vacated and soon after eviction of the<\/p>\n
occupant, delivery of possession of the quarter would be delivered to him<\/p>\n
under the scheme. Instead of taking prompt and appropriate measures for<\/p>\n
eviction of the unauthorized occupant, the respondent Management<\/p>\n
continued to linger the matter and ultimately settled the quarter with the<\/p>\n
unauthorized occupant instead       of the petitioner. The correspondence<\/p>\n
exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent Management<\/p>\n
(annexure 5 and 6) would clearly indicate that in place of the original<\/p>\n
quarter no. 15\/8,     the Management had offered CD 559\/III to the<\/p>\n
petitioner under the LTL scheme. The argument advanced by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents seeking to explain that the said offer was not<\/p>\n
under the LTL scheme and it was only allotment by way of exchange of<\/p>\n
the quarter which was in occupation of the petitioner under the normal<\/p>\n
allotment procedure is not convincing at all. A plain reading of Annexures<\/p>\n
5 and 6 would abundantly indicate that though the petitioner sought for<\/p>\n
another quarter in exchange of the one in his occupation, his request for<\/p>\n
the desired quarter was refused and instead,      quarter no. 559\/III was<\/p>\n
offered to him, though under normal allotment basis, but with the<\/p>\n
stipulation that the allotment of the said quarter would be regularized in<\/p>\n
due course under LTL scheme after vacation of the stay order of the High
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in a pending writ petition. The obvious inference is that even if the<\/p>\n
quarter no. 559\/III was offered to the petitioner in exchange for the<\/p>\n
quarter presently in his occupation, yet the possession of quarter no.<\/p>\n
559\/III was not promptly delivered to the petitioner and the only hitch at<\/p>\n
the relevant time was the stay order of the High Court in the pending writ<\/p>\n
petition. Admittedly, the stay order was vacated, but instead of completing<\/p>\n
the process of allotment of the said quarter to the     petitioner in terms of<\/p>\n
the assurance given under annexure 6, the respondent Management<\/p>\n
proceeded to issue a fresh advertisement fixing a higher rate of premium<\/p>\n
and allotted   the quarter to some other person ignoring the repeated<\/p>\n
requests of petitioner for allotment of the quarter. Such allotment of the<\/p>\n
quarter to another person instead of the petitioner was made even at the<\/p>\n
time when the petitioner was under employment of the respondents. The<\/p>\n
respondents have not offered any justifiable reason\/ground for refusing<\/p>\n
allotment of quarter to the petitioner even though the offered quarter was<\/p>\n
vacant and the formalities of allotment could have been completed by<\/p>\n
delivering possession of the quarter to the petitioner. The plea taken by the<\/p>\n
respondents that quarter no. CD 559\/III did not fall under LTL zone is<\/p>\n
contradicted by the fact that the very same quarter was subsequently<\/p>\n
advertisement for allotment under LTL scheme even during the pendency<\/p>\n
of the writ petition soon after vacation of the stay order passed in a<\/p>\n
pending writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
7.                  In the light of the above conduct of the respondents,<\/p>\n
the contention of the petitioner that issuance of letter (annexure 7) rejecting<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s claim for allotment of quarter under LTL scheme is with<\/p>\n
mala fide and oblique motives, appears to have a reasonable basis. The<\/p>\n
petitioner’s contention that he has been arbitrarily discriminated by the
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
concerned authorities of the respondent company is also not without basis.<\/p>\n
The petitioner has been made to suffer mental agony, harassment and<\/p>\n
denial of legitimate expectations created under the terms of the contract,<\/p>\n
besides monetary loss on interest on the principle premium amount which<\/p>\n
he had withdrawn from his GPF and deposited with the respondents in<\/p>\n
May, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
8.                 Having considered the above facts, it remains however<\/p>\n
to be noted that the scheme for allotment of the quarter under LTL scheme<\/p>\n
was admittedly for a stipulated limited period, and as informed by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, there is no such further scheme under<\/p>\n
offer. Furthermore, the petitioner has already retired from service in July,<\/p>\n
2006 and therefore he being no more under employment of the respondent<\/p>\n
company, he cannot claim entitlement for allotment of the quarter under<\/p>\n
any LTL scheme which is exclusively meant for the existing employees of<\/p>\n
the company. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner’s prayer for a<\/p>\n
direction to the respondents to allot him a quarter under LTL scheme<\/p>\n
cannot possibly be accepted. Nevertheless, considering the amount of the<\/p>\n
wrong which the petitioner suffered on account of the irresponsible callous<\/p>\n
conduct of the concerned authorities of the respondent Management and<\/p>\n
in all fairness, it would be appropriate that the respondent Management<\/p>\n
should pay a reasonable compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, I<\/p>\n
hereby direct that the respondent Company shall refund the entire<\/p>\n
premium amount deposited by the petitioner, along with interest @ 12 per<\/p>\n
cent per annum calculated from the date of receipt of the premium<\/p>\n
amount, till the date of issuance of the impugned letter ( annexure 7)<\/p>\n
dated 30.3.2006. The respondent shall also pay a sum of rupees fifty<\/p>\n
thousand to the petitioner by way of compensation for the          loss and
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
detriment suffered by him on account of the negligent conduct of the<\/p>\n
concerned authorities of the respondents. The respondent no. 2 is directed<\/p>\n
to ensure that the above order for payment of the amount to the petitioner<\/p>\n
is carried out and complied with within three months from the date of<\/p>\n
receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
                   Furthermore, the respondents shall,         within the<\/p>\n
stipulated period as mentioned above, pay the entire retiral dues of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and till such time the payment is not made, shall allow the<\/p>\n
petitioner to continue in occupation of the quarter presently in his<\/p>\n
occupation on payment of the fixed monthly rent as applicable to the type<\/p>\n
of the quarters allotted to the employees under normal allotment.<\/p>\n
                   With these observations and directions, this application<\/p>\n
is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ( D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)<\/p>\n
Ambastha\/AFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP ( C ) No. 2223 of 2006 Yugeshwar Pandit …. Petitioner Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd, Ranchi and ors… Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK. For the petitioner\/appellant (s) : M\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 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\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-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=\"2008-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-06T10:14:23+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-06T10:14:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2417,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-06T10:14:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 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\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-06T10:14:23+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-06T10:14:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008"},"wordCount":2417,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008","name":"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-06T10:14:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugeshwar-pandit-vs-heavy-engineering-corpn-ltd-on-20-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yugeshwar Pandit vs Heavy Engineering Corpn.Ltd. on 20 November, 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:\/\/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\/230223","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=230223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230223\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}