{"id":243047,"date":"1998-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998"},"modified":"2018-06-30T16:36:52","modified_gmt":"2018-06-30T11:06:52","slug":"m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998","title":{"rendered":"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.S. BINDRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/09\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nTHOMAS,J.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant had  a steep  rise in the hierarchy of Indian
\nRevenue\t Service  and  was  held  in  great  esteem  by\t his
\nsuperiors until\t the dawn of 1985 which market the beginning
\nof  his\t downfall.  he\tsuddenly  fell\tfrom  grace  as\t his
\nintegrity  was\t eclipsed  by  the  dark  clouds  of  doubts
\nentertained by\this superiors. Consequently at the age of 52
\nhe was asked to quit the department by terming the action as
\n“compulsory retirement”.  If appellant’s stand is correct he
\nwould have  felt the  same way as Cardinal Thomas Wolsey had
\nlamented four  centuries ago when his master Henry VIII king
\nof England  suddenly stripped  him of  his high\t office\t and
\nindicted him  to face  a trial.\t “If I\thad  served  God  as
\ndiligently as  I have done the King, He would not have given
\nme over in my grey hairs”.\n<\/p>\n
     On 9-10-1985, Government of India (Ministry of Finance)
\naxed the  appellant down  by serving  an order of compulsory
\nretirement. Though  he challenged  the order  before Central
\nAdministrative\t Tribunal   (New   Delhi   Bench)   he\t was
\nunsuccessful. Hence  he has  filed this\t appeal\t by  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
     A resume  of facts which led to the said necking off is
\nthe following:\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant joined  Indian Revenue  Service in  the\tyear
\n1958 and  was absorbed\tin the\tExcise Department.  He has a
\nquick rise  in the  ladder which  in 1980 reached him to the
\nlevel of  Director Enforcement\tand  in\t 1983  as  Appellate
\nCollector of  Customs and  Excise since\t he  earned  a\thigh
\nstandard of  reputation by  then as “a very good officer all
\nround”. As  he proved to be efficient and trustworthy he was
\nentrusted with\tthe high  sensitive post of Director of Anti
\nEvasion Wing  in 1984  which post  he held  till June  1985.
\nDuring the  said period\t a series  of raids was conducted by
\nAnti Evasion  Squad headed  by the  appellant and a whopping
\nsum of escaped excise duty was unearthed through such raids.
\nThis became  the subject  matter of extensive media coverage
\nand praises were showered on the department for carrying out
\nsuch daring  operation in  big business\t houses and hoarding
\nplaces. But  the above\traids became  the commencement\tof a
\nvolte face in the official career of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     A Screening  committee which  considered the  cases  of
\nseveral officials  of the  Revenue Department  found that in
\nthe interest  of the  department some  officials  should  be
\nweeded out. On 9-4-1985, the committee delved into the files
\nrelating to  such persons including the appellant and in the
\ncase of\t appellant they focussed on three specific instances
\nwhich are the following:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Pursuant  to search\t made in  the premises of M\/s. Orkay
\nSilk Mills  Ltd. adjudication proceedings were initiated and
\nin the\tend a  penalty and  fine of  Rs.10 crores  have been
\nimposed on  the said  Mills. But  certain derelictions\twere
\nnoted as against the appellant in the above operations. They
\nare:\n<\/p>\n
     (a) The order of adjudication ran into nearly 100 pages
\n     and it  was passed on the day following the last day of
\n     the hearing.  It indicated\t that the  order  must\thave
\n     already been  got ready  even before  the\thearing\t was
\n     complete.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) A  penalty  of\t Rs.50\tlakhs  was  imposed  on\t the
\n     proprietor of  the Mills  without issuing\ta show cause
\n     notice on him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) Huge  sums of duty have been demanded in respect of
\n     unaccounted production  in the  factory  without  fully
\n     going through  the\t claims\t of  the  party\t that  those
\n     accounts were wastage claimed by him.
\n     (2) Important cases relating to M\/s. Golden Tobacco Co.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
were lying  unattended for a very long time and instructions
\nwere issued by the Deputy Director Shri Bhattacharjee to the
\nunits under  him to  keep further investigation in abeyance.
\nThe Screening  Committee held  that Shri Bhattacharjee would
\nhave given such instructions at the behest of the Director.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) One  Ashok Jain and his brother imported components
\nof Honda  cars from  abroad and\t assembled them\t in India in
\nviolation of  Central Excise Laws. On 1-12-1984, officers of
\nthe Anti  Evasion Wing raided the premises  where those cars
\nwere  garaged  and  the\t Jain  Brothers\t were  subjected  to
\ninterrogation. They  were arrested  and produced  before the
\ncourt.\tWhen  they  were  released  on\tbail  the  appellant
\npersisted with the steps and moved for cancellation of their
\nbail order.  In this  operation what  was viewed against the
\nappellant was  that he\thad demanded  Rs.10 lakhs  from Jain
\nBrothers and  when it  was not paid he invigorated the steps
\nagainst those two brothers.\n<\/p>\n
     The Screening  committee after  considering  the  files
\nrelating  to  the  aforesaid  three  instances\t(which\twere
\nrecorded in  a document market by the department as Annexure
\nIV) reached the following conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
     “On the basis of the specific cases
\n     and other\tmaterial at  Annexure IV
\n     hereto,  he   is  found  to  be  of
\n     unreliable integrity  and unfit  to
\n     be entrusted  with any  position of
\n     responsibility  in\t the  Government
\n     service  as   he  has   widely  and
\n     systematically\tindulged      in
\n     extortion of money from the parties
\n     and adopted  methods which have the
\n     effect of\tbringing down the esteem
\n     of the  Government\t in  the  public
\n     eye.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The revenue  Committee upheld  the said  conclusion and
\nthereafter Government  of India passed the order prematurely
\nretiring the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant made  a scathing attack against the aforesaid
\norder mainly on three premises.\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  The\tbig  business  houses  whose  premises\twere
\nsubjected to series of raids were so influenced as to spread
\ncanards about the appellant as part of a retaliatory measure
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) The  Screening Committee was actuated by mala fides
\nas one\tof its members (Shri M.L. Wadhawan) who was a member
\nof Central  Board of Excise and Customs had been inimical to
\nhim on account of serious differences which can be discerned
\nfrom a\tfile (number  of which\tappellant has  cited in\t the
\nSpecial Leave Petition).\n<\/p>\n
     (3) The  conclusion made  against the  appellant by the
\nScreening committee  is\t perverse  in  the  sense  that\t the
\nmaterial on  which that\t conclusion was\t reached could never
\nhave  afforded\t scope\tto  reach  such\t conclusion  to\t any
\nreasonable person. In other words, there was utter dearth of
\nevidence  for  the  Screening  committee  to  conclude\tthat
\nappellant was a case of doubtful or unreliable integrity.\n<\/p>\n
     A two  Judge Bench\t of this  Court has held in Union Of
\nIndia vs.  Col. J.N.Sinha and ors.<\/a> (1970 2 SCC 458) that “If
\nthe appropriate\t authority forms  the requisite opinion bona
\nfide its  opinion cannot  be challenged\t before\t the  courts
\nthough it  is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the
\nrequisite opinion has not been formed or that it is based on
\ncollateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.”\n<\/p>\n
     Approving the  above principle,  a three Judge Bench of
\nthis Court  has laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das and anr. vs.
\nChief District\tmedical Officer\t and anr.  (1992 2  Scc 299)
\nthat five  principles should borne in mind while considering
\na  case\t of  compulsory\t premature  retirement.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary to extract all the five principles here except No.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Principles of natural justice have
\n     no place in the context of an order
\n     of compulsory retirement. This does
\n     not mean  that judicial scrutiny is
\n     excluded altogether. While the High
\n     Court  or\t this  Court  would  not
\n     examine the  matter as an appellate
\n     court, they  may interfere\t if they
\n     are satisfied  that  the  order  is
\n     passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it
\n     is based on no evidence or (c) that
\n     it is arbitrary – in the sense that
\n     no reasonable person would form the
\n     requisite\topinion\t  on  the  given
\n     material; in  short, if it is found
\n     to be a perverse order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This was  reiterated very\tsoon by\t another three Judge
\nBench in  Posts and  Telegraphs Board  and ors.\t vs.  C.S.N.
\nMurthy<\/a> (1992  2 SCC  317) in  which their  Lordships further
\nadded thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “An order\tof compulsory retirement
\n     is not an order of punishment. F.R.
\n     56 (j) authorises the Government to
\n     review the working of its employees
\n     at\t the  end  of  their  period  of
\n     service referred  to therein and to
\n     require the  servant to retire from
\n     service if,  in its opinion, public
\n     interest calls  for such  an order.
\n     Whether the conduct of the employee
\n     is\t such\tas  to\tjustify\t such  a
\n     conclusion\t is  primarily\tfor  the
\n     departmental authorities to decide.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The nature\t of the\t delinquency and
\n     whether it\t is of\tsuch a degree as
\n     to\t   require     the    compulsory
\n     retirement\t of   the  employee  are
\n     primarily\tfor  the  Government  to
\n     decide upon.  The courts  will  not
\n     interfere with the exercise of this
\n     power, if\tarrived at bona fide and
\n     on the  basis of material available
\n     on the record.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (emphasis supplied)
\n     Therefore, judicial  scrutiny  of\tany  order  imposing
\npremature compulsory  retirement is permissible if the order
\nis either  arbitrary or\t mala fide  or if  it is based on no
\nevidence. The observation that principles of natural justice
\nhave no\t place in  the context of compulsory retirement does
\nnot mean  that if  the version\tof the delinquent officer is
\nnecessary to  reach the\t correct conclusion  the same can be
\nobviated on  the assumption  that other materials alone need
\nbe looked into.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  case, appellant made an endeavour to show that
\nthe order  is tainted by mala fides as one of the members of
\nthe Screening  Committee (M.L.\tWadhawan) had  some  axe  to
\ngrind against  him. But we are not persuaded to believe that
\nmerely because\tappellant has  such a version against either
\nthat member or other members of the Screening Committee, the
\nCommittee would\t have gone  against the appellant on account
\nof that\t reason. So  we repell\tthe contention\tbased on the
\nallegation of mala fides
\n     While  viewing  this  case\t from  the  next  angle\t for
\njudicial scrutiny i.e. want of evidence or material to reach
\nsuch a\tconclusion, we\tmay add that want of any material is
\nalmost equivalent  to  the  next  situation  that  from\t the
\navailable materials  no reasonable  man would  reach such  a
\nconclusion. While  evaluating the  materials  the  authority
\nshould not  altogether ignore  the reputation  in which\t the
\nofficer was held till recently.\n<\/p>\n
     The maxim\t“Nemo Firut  Repente  Turpissimus”  (no\t one
\nbecomes dishonest  all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but
\nstill it  is a\tsalutary guideline  to judge  human conduct,
\nparticularly  in   the\tfield  of  Administrative  Law.\t The
\nauthorities should  not keep the eyes totally closed towards
\nthe overall  estimation in  which the delinquent officer was
\nheld in\t the recent  past by  those who were supervising him
\nearlier. To  dunk an  officer into  the puddle\tof “doubtful
\nintegrity” it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere
\nhunch. That  doubt should  be of  such\ta  nature  as  would
\nreasonably and\tconsciously be entertainable by a reasonable
\nman on\tthe  given  material.  Mere  possibility  is  hardly
\nsufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must
\nbe preponderance  of probability  for the  reasonable man to
\nentertain doubt\t regarding that possibility. Only then there
\nis justification  to ram an officer with the label “doubtful
\nintegrity”.\n<\/p>\n
     Here, out of the three instances on which the Screening
\ncommittee relied  to dub  the officer as a case of “doubtful
\nintegrity” the\tfirst is  his action against M\/s. Orkay Silk
\nMills. The  fact is that it was the appellant who headed the
\noperation. A  task  which  unearthed  such  a  huge  sum  of
\nconcealed excise  duty would normally evoke appreciation for
\nhis work.  But what  was noted against him in that affair is
\nthat  he  willfully  created  lacunae  in  the\tconfiscation
\nproceedings for\t providing an escape route to the defaulter.
\nOne is that the confiscation order contains nearly 100 pages
\nand the\t period was  too short\tfor preparing such an order.
\nWhat is\t the inference\tto  be\tdrawn?\tNormally  it  is  an
\nachievement that  an order of 100 pages was made during such
\na short period. So what is then to be thought of against it?
\nIs it  that he\twould have taken too much pain to finish his
\nwork or\t is it that he would have caused it to be written by
\nsomebody else?\tIs there  not a\t clear possibility  that the
\nofficer hearing the adjudication case for several days would
\nhave prepared  its prefatory portion as well as statement of
\nevidence during\t the days when arguments were proceeding and
\nbefore conclusion  of the  hearing, leaving  out the crucial
\ndiscussion to  be dictated  after conclusion of the hearing?
\nThat is\t not an objectionable course. If so, the achievement
\nin preparing  an order\tof confiscation\t within such a short
\nspan should not have been frowned at, instead there is scope
\nto pay admiration fro its promptitude.\n<\/p>\n
     Another lacuna  is that  he imposed  a huge penalty and
\nfine without issuing a show cause notice. To say that he did
\nit  for\t helping  the  defaulter  is  too  far-fetched.\t The
\nappellate authority which may be persuaded to set aside such
\nan order  on that  ground could as well direct the authority
\nto pass\t a fresh  order after issuing the show cause notice.
\nSo it  is unreasonable\tto   conclude that the imposition of
\npenalty was  made calculatedly\tto  have  it  upset  by\t the
\nsuperior authority.\n<\/p>\n
     We feel  that the\ttwo lacunae  ferretted out  from the
\nproceedings relating  to M\/s.  Orkay Silk  Mills are grossly
\ninsufficient to\t reach\ta  conclusion  that  the  delinquent
\nofficer was trying to help the defaulting manufacturer.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  second instance  concerning the  file  of\tM\/s.
\nIndian\tTobacco\t Company  the  inference  made\tagainst\t the
\ndefaulter is  too tenuous.  The minimum\t thing which  should
\nhave been done was to ascertain from Shri Bhattacharjee, the
\nDeputy Director,  the circumstances under which instructions
\nwere issued  by him  to keep  the investigation in abeyance.
\nAttributing a sinister motive to the appellant for what Shri
\nBhattacharjee  had   done  was\t seemingly  unfair,  without
\nadopting such a minimum precaution.\n<\/p>\n
     The third is the case relating to import of spare parts
\nwhich the  Jain Brothers assembled for making Honda cars. In
\nthat case the ostensible role of the appellant was to detect
\nthe offence  through investigation  and then to follow it up
\nseriously,  When   the\tdefaulters  were  granted  bail\t the
\nappellant moved\t for cancellation  of the  bail it  is prima
\nfacie a\t point in  favour of  the  appellant’s\ttenacity  to
\npursue the  steps adopted.  Thus far  the role played by the
\nappellant was that of a dutiful and efficient officer of the
\ndepartment. But\t the reason  for the  Screening committee to
\ndoubt the  integrity of\t the appellant in the aforesaid case
\nis that\t the Jain  Brothers have alleged that one Mr. Kapoor
\ntold them  that appellant was to be paid Rs.10 lakhs to save
\nthem from the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     We perused the statement of Jains. They never said that
\nappellant made\tthe above  demand to  them at  any time. The
\nonly material  before the  Screening committee\twas that the
\ntwo accused  had  stated  that\tKapoor\tgave  them  such  an
\nimpression. It\tmust be noted that nobody had checked up the
\ntruth of  it with  the person to whom it was attributed. The
\nmost unfortunate  feature is  that nobody  has checked it up
\neven with  Mr. Kapoor  who is alleged to have told like that
\nto the\tJain Brothers.\tIf integrity of senior officers, who
\nestablished unblemished reputation and earned encomiums from
\nall concerned till then, is proclaimed as doubtful merely on
\nthe strength  of statements  of persons\t prosecuted by\tsuch
\nofficers, what\tis the\tsafety of such officers more so when
\nthey have  to embark  on hazardous  operations risking their
\nlives against big business houses.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri N.N. Goswami, Senior Advocate arguing for Union of
\nIndia  submitted   to  us  that\t members  of  the  Screening
\nCommittee  are\t very  reputed\t persons  and\thence  their
\nconclusion must\t be given  full weight. It is not a question
\nof doubting  the calibre  of the  members of  the  Screening
\ncommittee. While declining to agree with their conclusion no
\nparticle of  mud is  slung on  any member  of the  Screening
\ncommittee. Even\t if such a conclusion was made by a judicial
\npersonage the  higher court which overrules it does not cast
\nany stigma on the judicial officer concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     We have no doubt that there is utter dearth of evidence
\nfor the\t Screening committee  to conclude that appellant had
\ndoubtful  integrity.   Such  a\tconclusion  does  not  stand
\njudicial scrutiny even within the limited permissible scope.
\nWe, therefore,\tallow this  appeal and\tset aside  the order
\nunder  attack\tincluding  the\t order\tby  which  premature
\ncompulsory retirement  was imposed  on\tthe  appellant.\t The
\ndepartment concerned  shall now\t work out  the reliefs to be
\ngranted to the appellant as sequel to this judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: M.S. BINDRA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/09\/1998 BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 - 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\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-30T11:06:52+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-30T11:06:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2771,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\",\"name\":\"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-30T11:06:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 - 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\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-30T11:06:52+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-30T11:06:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998"},"wordCount":2771,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998","name":"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-30T11:06:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-bindra-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-september-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998"}]},{"@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\/243047","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=243047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}