{"id":258249,"date":"1996-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996"},"modified":"2018-02-02T23:32:24","modified_gmt":"2018-02-02T18:02:24","slug":"gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: K S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kurdukar S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGULZARI LAL AGARWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE ACCOUNTS OFFICER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKURDUKAR S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nKURDUKAR S.P. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\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
\nS.P. KURDUKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal is directed against the order dated May 17,
\n1995,, in Revision Petition No.393\/94 passed by the National
\nConsumer   Disputes    Redressal   Commission,\t New   Delhi
\n(hereinafter referred  to us  ‘National Commission’).  It is
\nnot disputed  that at the relevant time when the order dated
\n21.1.1994 was  passed by  the State  Commission\t constituted
\nunder the  Consumer Protection\tAct<\/a>, 1986  (for\t short\t“the
\nAct’) was  not having the President since he had retired. No
\nnew President  was appointed on the said State Commission. A
\ncomplaint was  filed by\t the  appellant\t herein\t before\t the
\nDistrict Forum, Bankura as regards inflated telephone bills.
\nA prayer  was made in the said complaint that the respondent
\nherein\tbe   directed  not   to\t disconnect   the  telephone
\nconnection. An\torder was  made by  the\t District  Forum  in
\nfavour of  the appellant  directing the\t respondent  not  to
\ndisconnect  the\t  telephone  connection\t  and  maintain\t the
\ntelephone line\ton condition  that the\tappellant deposits a
\nsum of\tRs. 4,000\/-. The appellant accordingly complied with
\nthe said  order. It  appears that  despited this  order, the
\ntelephone connection  of the  appellant was  disconnected on
\n30.11.1993. The\t appellant thereafter  moved an\t application
\nfor restoration\t and it is common premise that on 25.5.1994,
\nthe telephone  connection was  restored.  The  complaint  as
\nregards the excessive bill of Rs.13,896\/- is still pending.\n<\/p>\n
     2. the  respondent not  being satisfied  with the order
\npassed by  the District\t Forum preferred  an appeal  to\t the
\nState Commission  and the  State Commission  vide its  order
\ndated 21.1.1994\t dismissed the said appeal, holding that the
\norder passed  by the  District Forum  was in consonance with
\nthe  circular  dated  15.10.1992  issued  by  the  Telephone
\nDepartment. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State
\nCommission, the respondent preferred Revision petition under
\nSection 21<\/a>  of the  Act before\tthe National Commission. The
\nnational Commission  after  hearing  the  parties  vide\t its
\nimpugned   order dated\tMay 17,\t 1995 allowed  the  Revision
\nPetition  primarily  on\t the  ground  of  jurisdiction.\t the
\nNational Commission has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “The impugned  order passed  by the
\n     State Commission,\tWest Bengal  had
\n     to be  held illegal and void on the
\n     ground that the said order had been
\n     passed only  by two  Members of the
\n     State   Commission\t   without   the
\n     junction of the President, which is
\n     manifestly\t contrary  to  mandatory
\n     provisions\t contained   in\t Section
\n     14(2A)<\/a> read  with Section 10<\/a> of the
\n     Consumer Protection  Act, 1986. The
\n     said order\t of the State Commission
\n     is hereby\t set  aside. We also set
\n     aside  the\t  interlocutory\t  orders
\n     dated October  14,\t 1993  (Annexure
\n     ‘B’ and  October 19, 1993 (Annexure
\n     ‘C’ passed\t by the\t District Forum,
\n     Bankura as\t being totally devoid of
\n     jurisdiction in  the light\t of  the
\n     recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble
\n     Supreme  court  in\t Morgan\t Stanely
\n     Mutual Fund  vs. Kartik  Das<\/a> (1994-
\n     IIC.P.J. (S.C.7)  where if has been
\n     categorically laid\t down a Consumer
\n     Forum has\tno jurisdiction or power
\n     to pass  any interim  order pending
\n     disposal of  an original  complaint
\n     filed before it”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. It  is this  order passed by the National Commission
\nwhich is the subject matter of challenge in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Before\twe deal\t with the  rival contentions  raised
\nbefore us,  it would  be appropriate  to  set  out  relevant
\nprovisions of  the Act\tand Rules.  Clause (jj) of Section 2<\/a>
\ndefines : member:-\n<\/p>\n
     “member” includes the President and
\n     a member of the National Commission
\n     or a State Commission at a District
\n     Forum, as the case may be.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Section\t 9<\/a> in  Chapter III  refers to  the  Consumer
\nDisputes Redressal  Agencies and the relevant provisions are
\nas under :-\n<\/p>\n
     9.\t  “Establishment   of\tConsumer
\n     Disputes Redressal Agencies:-
\n     There shall  be established for the
\n     purposes of this Act, the following
\n     agencies, namely, :-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) xxxx  xxxx  xxxx\n<\/p>\n
     (b) a  Consumer dispute s Redressal
\n     Commission\t to   be  known\t as  the
\n     “State Commission”\t established  by
\n     the State\tGovernment if  the State
\n     by notification; and\n<\/p>\n
     (c) xxxx xxxx xxxx\n<\/p>\n
     6. Section\t 13<\/a> prescribes the procedures to be followed
\non receipt of a complaint.\n<\/p>\n
     7.\t Section  14<\/a>  enumerates  the  items  on  which\t the
\nDistrict Forum\tshall issue  an order to the opposite  party
\ndirection him  to do one or more of the following things set
\nout in sub sections 14(1)(a)<\/a> to 14(1)(i)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     8. The  controversy relates to Section 14(2)<\/a> and 14(2A)<\/a>
\nwhich are reproduced herein below :-\n<\/p>\n
     14(2)-Every proceeding  referred to
\n     in\t sub   section\t(1)   shall   be
\n     conducted by  the President  of the
\n     District Forum  and  at  least  one
\n     member thereof sitting together:
\n     Provided that where the member, for
\n     any reason,  is unable  to\t conduct
\n     the   proceeding\t till\tit    is
\n     completed, the  President\tand  the
\n     other  member  shall  conduct  such
\n     proceeding de novo.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14(2A)-Every  order   made\t by  the
\n     District Forum  under  sun\t section
\n     (1)  shall\t  be   signed\tby   its
\n     President and the member or members
\n     who conducted the proceedings;
\n     Provided that  where the proceeding
\n     is conducted  by the  President and
\n     one member\t and they  differ on any
\n     point or  points, they  shall state
\n     the point\tor points  on which they
\n     differ and\t refer the  same to  the
\n     other member  for hearing\ton  such
\n     point or  points and the opinion of
\n     the majority  shall be the order or
\n     the District forum.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. Section\t 16<\/a> deals  with the  Composition of the Sate
\nCommission and it reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “16.  Composition\t of  the   State
\n     Commission:-   (1)\t   Each\t   State
\n     Commission shall consist of –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) a  person who\tis or had been a
\n     Judge of a High Court, appointed by
\n     the Sate  Government, who\tshall be
\n     its President:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (Provided that no appointment under
\n     this clause  shall be  made  except
\n     after consultation\t with the  Chief
\n     Justice of the High Court;)
\n     (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx
\n     (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx
\n     (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx
\n     (4) xxxx xxxx xxxx\n<\/p>\n
     10. Section  18<\/a> deals  with the Procedure applicable to
\nState Commissions and it reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
     “18. Procedure  applicable to State
\n     Commission\t –   The  provisions  of
\n     Sections 12<\/a>,13<\/a> and 14<\/a> and the rules
\n     made thereunder for the disposal of
\n     complaints by  the\t District  Forum
\n     shall, with  such modifications  as
\n     may be  necessary, be applicable to
\n     the disposal  of  disputes\t by  the
\n     State Commission”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11. Chapter  IV of\t the Act  deals\t with  Miscellaneous
\nProvisions.  Section  29<\/a>  refers  to  the  power  to  remove
\ndifficulties. Section  29A<\/a> is  the  relevant provision which
\nreads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “29A-  Vacancies\tor  defects   in
\n     appointment   not\t to   invalidate
\n     orders- No act or proceeding of the
\n     District\t forum,\t    the\t   State
\n     Commission\t   or\t the\tNational
\n     Commission\t shall\t be  invalid  by
\n     reason only of the existence of any
\n     vacancy amongst  its members of any
\n     defect    on    the    constitution
\n     thereof”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. Sub-section (2) of Section 30<\/a> deals with the powers
\nof State  Government to\t make  rules.  Sub  section  (2)  of
\nSection 30<\/a> reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “The  State   Government  may,   by
\n     notification,   make    rules   for
\n     carrying\tout    the    provisions
\n     contained in  [clause  (b)\t of  sub
\n     section (2)  and sub-section (4) of
\n     Section  7<\/a>],   sub-section\t (3)  if
\n     Section  10<\/a>,  Clause  (c)\tif  sub-
\n     section (1)  of  Section  13<\/a>,  sub-
\n     section (3)  of Section 14<\/a>, section
\n     15<\/a> and  sub-section (2)  if section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Note  :-\tBracketed  portion   was
\n     incorporated by  Act No.34\t of 1991
\n     with effect from 15.6.1991.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13.  the\tState  government   in\texercise  of  powers
\nconferred by sub-section (2) of section 30<\/a> of the Act framed
\nthe  Rules   which  are\t called\t the  West  Bengal  Consumer
\nProtection rules,  1987. These\trules ere brought into force
\nimmediately. Sub-rules\t(9) and\t (10) of rule 6 are relevant
\nand they read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “6(9)  –  Where  any  such\t vacancy
\n     occurs  in\t  the  office\tof   the
\n     President of  the State  Commission
\n     the  senior   most\t (in   order  of
\n     appointment) member  holding office
\n     for the time being, shall discharge
\n     the  functions   of  the  President
\n     until a  person appointed\tto  fill
\n     such vacancy  assumes the office of
\n     the   President\tof   the   State
\n     Commission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6(10) –  When the\tPresident of the
\n     Sate  Commission\tis   unable   to
\n     discharge his  functions  owing  to
\n     absence,  illness\t or  any   other
\n     cause, the\t senior most  ( in order
\n     of appointment) member of the State
\n     Commission\t shall\t discharge   the
\n     functions of  the\tPresident  until
\n     the  day  on  which  the  President
\n     resumes   the    charge   of    the
\n     functions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14. In  the light\tof the\taforesaid provisions,  it is
\nnecessary to  consider as  to  whether\tthe  impugned  order
\npassed by  the National\t Commission is\tlegal. The  National
\nCommission  held   that\t the   order  passed  by  the  State
\nCommission is  manifestly contrary  to a mandatory provision
\ncontained in  Section 14(2A)<\/a> read with Section 18<\/a> of the Act
\nas it  was made\t by two other members of the said commission
\nwithout the ‘junctions’ of the President.\n<\/p>\n
     15. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe   appellant\t  urged\t  that\t the   impugned\t  order\t  is
\nunsustainable. He  urged that  the National  Commission\t had
\ntotally overlooked  certain provisions\tcontained in the Act
\nand the\t Rules and  erroneously came  the conclusion that in
\nthe absence  of the  President of the State Commission being
\nfunctional, the\t other two  members have  no jurisdiction to
\ndeal  with   the  disputes\/appeal  filed  before  the  State
\ncommission. In\tsupport of  the submission,  Learned Counsel
\ndrew our  attention to\tthe definition of a member contained
\non Clause  (jj) of  Section 2<\/a>  and Sections  14(2A)<\/a>, 18A<\/a> and
\n29A<\/a>. Reliance  was also\t placed in sub-rules (9) and (10) of
\nRule 6.\t Mr. Bhattacharya  urges that  all these  provisions
\nwill have  to be  construed  harmoniously  with\t a  view  to
\npromote the object and spirit of the Act. the impugned order
\npassed by  the National\t Commission is unsustainable and the
\nsame be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     16. Mr.  S.K.Sabharwal, the  learned Advocate appearing
\nfor the\t respondent supported  the impugned  order and urges
\nthat sub-sections (2) and(2A) of Sections 14<\/a> in unmistakable
\nterms indicate\tthat every  proceeding referred\t to in\tsub-
\nsection (1)  shall be  conducted by  the  President  of\t the
\nDistrict Forum\tand at\tleast  one  member  thereof  sitting
\ntogether. Sub-section (2A) read with section 18<\/a> require that
\nevery order  made by  the  district  Forum\/State  Commission
\nunder sub-section  (1) shall  be signed by the President and
\nthe Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. In view
\nof  this   mandatory  provision,   counsel  urged  that\t any
\nproceeding conducted  before the  State Commission   in\t the
\nabsence of  the President would be non-est. He further urged
\nthat admittedly\t when the State Commission passed the orders
\non October  14, 1993  and October 19, 1993, the President of
\nthe  State   commission\t was  not  appointed  by  the  State
\nGovernment and, therefore, these orders were rightly held to
\nbe illegal.\n<\/p>\n
     17.  After\t  giving  careful   thought  to\t  the  rival
\ncontentions raised  before us,\twe  are\t of  the  considered
\nopinion that  the relevant  provisions which  we have quoted
\nhereinabove  will  have\t to  be\t construed  harmoniously  to
\npromote the  cause  of\tthe  consumers\tunder  the  Act.  As
\nindicated earlier,  the definition  of member  includes\t the
\nPresident and a Member of a District Forum\/State Commission.
\nIt is  true that  sub-section (2)  of Section  14<\/a> read\twith
\nsection 18<\/a>  require that  every proceeding referred to under
\nsub-section (1)\t shall be  conducted by the President of the
\nDistrict  Forum\/State  Commission  and\tatleast\t one  member
\nthereof sitting together. Section 2A<\/a> is consequential in the
\nsense that  every order\t made by  the State Commission under
\nsub-section (1)\t shall be  signed by  its President  and the
\nMember\tor   Members  who   conducted  the  proceeding.\t The
\nprocedure  applicable\tto  the\t  District  Forum   is\tmade
\napplicable to the State Commission vide Section 18<\/a> with such
\nmodifications as  may be  necessary. Plain  reading of\tsub-
\nsections (2)  and (2A)\tof Section  14<\/a> may  support the view
\ntaken by the National Commission nut if these provisions are
\nread with  Section 29A<\/a> of the Act and sun rules (9) and (10)
\nof Rule\t 6, it\twould be  quite clear that it could never be
\nthe intention  of legislature  to stall\t or render the State
\nCommission non-functional  in the  absence of  the President
\neither having  not been\t appointed in time due to some valid
\nreasons or  if the  President is on the leave due to certain
\nreasons beyond\this control.  (2) and (2A) of Section 14<\/a> and
\nSection 18A<\/a>  of the  Act were brought into force with effect
\nfrom 18-6-1993\twhereas Section 29A<\/a> was made applicable from
\n15.6.1991.  The\t Rules\tof  1987  were\tbrought\t into  force
\nimmediately. The  complaint before the District Forum by the
\nappellant was  filed on\t 14-10-1993.  Therefore,  all  these
\namended provisions  were very  much brought  into force when
\nthe complaint  was filed. Sub-section (2) if section 14<\/a> is a
\npresumptuous provision\twhere the  President  if  the  State
\nCommission is  functional but it would not be correct to say
\nthat  if  the  President  of  the  President  of  the  State
\nCommission id  non-functional because  of one  or the  other
\nreason, the  State Commission would stop its functioning and
\nwait till the President is appointed. In order to avoid such
\na situation,  the State\t Government had framed the Rules and
\nsub-rules  (9)\tand  (10)  quoted  hereinabove\tunmistakably
\nprovide answerable  to such  a situation  as in\t the present
\ncase. The  only harmonious  construction that could be given
\nto sub-sections\t (2) and  (2A) of  section 14<\/a> read with sub-
\nrules (9)  and (10) is that as and when the President of the
\nState Commission  of functional,  he alongwith\tatleast\t one
\nMember sitting\ttogether shall\tconduct the  proceeding\t but
\nwhere the  President being non-functional, sub-rules (9) and
\n(10) of\t rule 6\t will govern  the proceedings.\tSub rule (0)
\nprovides that where any such vacancy occurs in the office if
\nthe President  of the  State Commission, the senior most (in
\norder if  appointment) member  holding office  for the\ttime
\nbeing, shall  discharge the  function of the president until
\nperson is  appointed to\t fill such vacancy. This sub-rule is
\nmade with  a view to make the State Commission functional in
\nthe absence  of the  President and  not to  allow the  State
\nCommission  to\t render\t non-functional\t  for  want  of\t the
\nPresident. It  is well\tsettled that  every provision in the
\nAct needs  to be  settled that\tevery provision\t in the\t Act
\nneeds to  be construed\tharmoniously with  a view to promote
\nthe object  and spirit\tof the\tAct but\t while doing  so, no
\nviolence would\tbe done\t to the\t plain language\t used in the
\nsection.  It  is  this\tprinciple  that\t needs\tto  be\tmade
\napplicable while  construing the  provision of\tsub-sections
\n(2) and (2A) of Section 14<\/a> read with sub-rules (9) and (10).\n<\/p>\n
     18. The  West Bengal Government had framed the Rules in
\nthe year  1987 and  the object\tof sub-rules (0) and (10) of
\nRule  6\t  appears  to  use  to\tkeep  the  State  Commission
\nfunctional  in\tthe  absence  of  the  President.  Form\t the
\nimpugned order it appears that the attention of the National
\nCommission was\tnot drawn  to sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule\n<\/p>\n
6. It also appears from the record that the validity of sub-
\nrules (9)  and (10)  of Rule  6 was  never challenged. It is
\nmade clear  that the view which we have taken in this appeal
\nis on the premise that there is no challenge to the validity
\nof the Rules and they hold the field.\n<\/p>\n
     19. Having\t regard to  the composition  of the District
\nForum and  the State  Commission, it is more appropriate and
\ndesirable to  make the\tappointment of\tthe President of the
\nDistrict Forum\tand the\t State Commission  without any delay
\nsince the  complaint under  the Act  involved  fairly  large
\nstokes which require a judicial approach.\n<\/p>\n
     20. In  view of above discussion, we are of the opinion
\nthat the  National Commission  committed an error in holding
\nthat order passed by the two members of the State Commission
\nwithout the junction of the President is “illegal and void.”
\nImpugned order to that extent is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     21. Coming\t to the\t second part of the order as regards
\nthe grant  of interim  order, in  our opinion,\tthe National
\nCommission was\tright in  applying the law laid down by this
\nCourt  in  Morgan  Stanely  Mutual  Fund  vs.  Kartick\tDas<\/a>.
\n1994(II) CPJ  7(SC). The  consumer forum has no jurisdiction
\nor power  to pass  any interim\torder  pending\tdisposal  of
\noriginal complaint  filed before  it. The  impugned order if
\nthis behalf is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     22. In the result. the appeal is partly allowed. The
\nimpugned order holding that the order passed by the State
\nCommission, West Bengal is illegal and void is quashed and
\nset aside. But, however, the rest of the impugned order is
\nconfirmed. In the circumstances, parties are directed to
\nbear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 Author: K S.P. Bench: Kurdukar S.P. (J) PETITIONER: GULZARI LAL AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/09\/1996 BENCH: KURDUKAR S.P. (J) BENCH: KURDUKAR S.P. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-258249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 - 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\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-02T18:02:24+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-02T18:02:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2629,\"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\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-02T18:02:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 - 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\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-02T18:02:24+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-02T18:02:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996"},"wordCount":2629,"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\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996","name":"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-02T18:02:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulzari-lal-agarwal-vs-the-accounts-officer-on-25-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs The Accounts Officer on 25 September, 1996"}]},{"@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\/258249","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=258249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258249\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}