{"id":30457,"date":"2006-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006"},"modified":"2016-10-07T05:39:07","modified_gmt":"2016-10-07T00:09:07","slug":"chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  8548 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nChairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. Corpn. Ltd. & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT.K. Raju\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent was a Senior Sales Officer (LPG) in the Sales
\nDepartment at Bombay Office of the Appellants.  The Chief Divisional
\nManager of the Cochin Divisional Office under whom the Respondent had
\nbeen working received complaints from All India LPG Distributors
\nFederation (Kerala Circle) alleging financial irregularities on the part of the
\nRespondent.  Allegedly, the Respondent collected diverse amounts from the
\ndistributors purported to be by way of ‘Short Term Hand Loans’.  The same
\nhad not been repaid to some of them.  On or about 27.7.1992, a charge
\nmemo was served upon the Respondent alleging :
\n“That in November 1991 you had taken the loan of Rs.
\n5000\/- from M\/s. Rose Flames, Cochin and the said
\namount was repaid by you only after a period of five
\nmonths i.e. only after show cause notice Ref. C. PERS.
\nSTF dated December 10, 1991 was served on you by
\nCDM, Cochin Divisional Office. At that time you had
\nalso taken one DPR (Differential Pressure Regulator)
\nfrom the aforesaid Distributor which has not been
\nreturned or replaced by you.\n<\/p>\n
You had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000\/- from Jyothi Gas,
\nTripunithura and the said amount was returned only after
\na period of about 2 weeks. You had also taken a DPR
\n(Differential Pressure Regulator) from this Distributor
\nwhich was returned only in February 1992 after a period
\nof more than an year.\n<\/p>\n
You had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000 in July 1991 from
\nM\/s. Krishna Gas, Ernakulam which amount has not been
\nreturned by you. Furthermore, you have also solicited
\nfurther loan from this distributor.\n<\/p>\n
You had also taken a loan of Rs. 1,000\/-from M\/s.
\nCherukara Gas Agencies, Alleppey during July 1991
\nwhich was returned by you after a period of 30 days.
\nYou had demanded a loan of Rs. 10,000\/-from M\/s.
\nSeena Gas who had subsequently given you Rs. 5,000\/-
\non September 7, 1991 which has not been returned by
\nyou till date.\n<\/p>\n
You had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000\/- from M\/s. Maria
\nFlames for finalising a house site which has not been
\nreturned till now. On assuming charge as LPG Sales
\nOfficer in the month of April 1991, you had demanded
\nRs. 5000\/- again from this distributor. When the
\ndistributor explained his difficulties you had demanded at
\nleast Rs. 2000\/- which was not paid by the distributor. On
\n6.11.91 on your visit to the distributor for an inspection,
\nyou demanded an LPG stove which was given to you on
\ncredit which amount has also not been settled by you.
\nYou had taken articles and availed services worth Rs.
\n2487\/- from our dealer M\/s. K.P. Varghese & Sons on
\ncredit. This amount has also not been settled by you so
\nfar.\n<\/p>\n
You had taken supplies of petrol on credit from M\/s.
\nK.K. Abraham, Ernakulam during the period April 1990
\nand a sum of Rs. 2329.90 due for the supplies has not yet
\nbeen paid.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Respondent.  He
\nwas found guilty therein.  The said charges were levelled against him
\npurported to be in terms of Rules 4 and 22 of Part II read with Clauses 4, 6,
\n20, 22, 31 and 37 of Rule A in Part III of the Conduct, Discipline and
\nAppeal Rules for the Management Staff (for short “the Rules”).\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Management in the said departmental enquiry examined Mr.
\nJayaraman, Secretary of the Federation.  Other distributors being eight in
\nnumber were also examined.  The said witnesses were also cross-examined
\nby the Respondent.  An enquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary
\nauthority and the latter by an order dated 5.12.1994 imposed a punishment
\nof dismissal of services upon the Respondent.  He performed a statutory
\nappeal thereagainst before the Chairman and the Managing Director of the
\nAppellant-Corporation who was the designated appellate authority.  The said
\nappeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 6.6.1995
\nstating:\n<\/p>\n
“Having come to the conclusion that charges were duly
\nproved and established against Sri Raju, as above, I feel I
\nhave considered the question of punishment.  I feel that
\nany one of eight charges, if proved, against Sri Raju,
\nwould warrant the punishment of dismissal from service,
\nconsidering the position held by him as well as the nature
\nof the misconduct involved.  I have already mentioned
\nabout the admissions relating to charges 7 and 8.  Taking
\nall this into account, I feel that in the interests of the
\nCorporation, it is not proper to retain a person like Sri
\nRaju who is guilty of such misconducts proved against
\nhim in the service of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
In the above circumstances, I conclude that the various
\nsubmissions, averments made by Sri T.K. Raju in his
\nAppeal dated 9.3.1995 do not provide any ground
\nmeriting review of the order passed by the Director
\n(Marketing).\n<\/p>\n
Considering the grave nature of acts of misconducts
\nproved against Sri T.K. Raju, I hold that the order of
\ndismissal of Sri T.K. Raju from Corporation’s services,
\npassed by the Director (Marketing) on 5.12.94 is proper,
\njust and equitable, and I do not, therefore, wish to
\ninterfere with the said Order.”\n<\/p>\n
  \tA writ petition, questioning the legality and validity of the said orders
\nwas filed by the Respondent in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
\nwhich was marked as Original Petition No. 15479 of 1995.  Although the
\nlearned Single Judge held that the principles of natural justice had been
\ncomplied with and there was no violation of the Rules, he was of the opinion
\nthat quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the charges of misconduct
\nlevelled against him and as such remitted the matter back to the appellate
\nauthority for imposing appropriate punishment.  The Appellants as also the
\nRespondent preferred appeals thereagainst.  By a common judgment dated
\n21st December, 2001, the Division Bench disposed of both the appeals.  The
\nDivision Bench relying on or on the basis of decisions of this Court in M\/s.
\nGlaxo Laboratories (L) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and
\nothers<\/a> [AIR 1984 SC 1361], A.L. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment
\nCorporation of India Ltd.<\/a> [AIR 1984 SC 1361], Papachristou v. City of
\nJacksonville [405 US 156] and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3
\nSCC 569], opined:\n<\/p>\n
“8. We find that those charges include the violation of
\nClause 4 Part II apart from other charges and the
\npunishment order also relies on the said clause to impose
\nthe penalty of dismissal from service. It is a fairly settled
\nprinciple of law that when a penal provision is vague, it
\ndenies the equal protection of laws guaranteed under
\nArticle 14. In the light of the above legal principles, the
\nreliance placed on Clause 4 of Part II of the
\nClassification, Control and Appeal Rules for the
\nManagement Staff, the impugned order is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
9. When a disciplinary authority takes a decision
\nregarding the guilt of a delinquent employee, it is taking
\nthe decision objectively on the basis of the materials
\nbefore it. So even if irrelevant considerations have also
\nbeen looked into for forming the conclusion of guilt, the
\nCourt judicially reviewing the action can consider
\nwhether the remaining ground would have been sufficient
\nfor entering the finding of guilt. So, even if the irrelevant
\nconsiderations are excluded, still according to us, the
\nfinding of guilt of the writ petitioner will remain”\n<\/p>\n
 \tHaving said so, it agreed with the opinion of the learned Single Judge
\nand directed :\n<\/p>\n
“11. Now it is for the appellate authority to take a
\ndecision as to what must be the penalty which should be
\nimposed on the delinquent employee. The learned single
\nJudge has suggested a penalty that may be appropriate on
\nthe facts of the case. Going through the judgment, we
\nfeel that the learned Judge only wanted the imposition of
\na penalty commensurate with the misconduct proved
\nother than a penalty resulting in loss of job to him. We
\nfeel that the exercise of discretion made by the learned
\nsingle Judge that the penalty should be something other
\nthan dismissal or removal from service cannot be said to
\nbe perverse warranting interference at our hands. We
\nnotice that the writ petitioner is a member of the
\nscheduled caste. There is no allegation that he has taken
\nthe loans etc. for giving undue pecuniary advantage to
\nthe dealers concerned. Nor is there any allegation that
\nthey have gained any advantage by succumbing to the
\ndemands made by the writ petitioner. Therefore, we
\naffirm the discretion exercised by the learned single
\nJudge subject to the modifications and clarifications
\nmentioned, above. Therefore, we remit the matter for
\nfresh decision by the appellate authority in the light of
\nthe observations contained hereinabove. The authority
\nwill be free to take any decision regarding penalty to be
\nimposed on the writ petitioner except the penalty of
\ndismissal or removal from service. The said authority
\nshall take a decision within two months from the date of
\nreceipt of a copy of this judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Appellant inter alia contended that the High Court committed a factual
\nerror in coming to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was passed in
\nterms of Rule 4 of the Rules.  It was urged that the decisions of this Court in
\nKalra (supra) and Glaxo (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Respondent, on the other hand, urged that having regard to the fact that
\nthe Respondent has not caused any financial loss to the company nor has
\ndefrauded the company to any extent, the punishment imposed upon him
\nmust be held to be harsh.  It was further submitted that charges 2 and 6
\ncannot be said to have been proved and in that view of the matter the
\nextreme punishment of dismissal from service is not commensurate with the
\ncharges levelled against the Respondent.  It was argued that as several other
\npunishments could be imposed upon the Appellant which come within the
\npurview of major penalty; there was no reason as to why extreme
\npunishment of dismissal of services was imposed upon the Respondent by
\nthe disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent was a Sales Officer.  In 1990, it is stated, there were
\nextreme shortages of LPG gas cylinders.  He, in his official capacity, was
\ndealing with the LPG Distributors.  In terms of Clause 4 of Part II of the
\nRules, it was expected of an officer of the Corporation not to do anything
\nwhich could be unbecoming of its Management Staff.  Clause 22 of Part II
\nof the Rules categorically debars an employee from raising any loan in the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
“No Management Staff of the Corporation shall, save in
\nthe ordinary course of business with a bank, the Life
\nInsurance Corporation or a firm of standing, borrow
\nmoney from or lend money to or otherwise place himself
\nunder pecuniary obligation to any person with whom he
\nhas or is likely to have official dealings or permit any
\nsuch borrowing, lending or pecuniary obligation in his
\nname or for his benefit or for the benefit of any member
\nof his family.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent admittedly was not only charged under clause (4) of
\nPart III of the Rules , he was also charged for various other misconducts
\nenumerated in different clauses of Part II thereof. The High Court, therefore,
\nwas not justified in proceeding with the matter on the premise that some of
\nthe charges against the Respondent had been framed only in terms of clause
\n(4) of Part II of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Kalra (supra), the misconduct alleged against the delinquent was
\ntrivial.  Report against him was found to be on ipse dixit.  It was held that
\nRule 4(1)(i) did not specify that its violation will constitute misconduct.  It
\nwas opined that the delinquent did not commit any misconduct by violating
\n‘Advance Rules’.  In that situation, it was observed that “how did the
\nquestion of integrity arises passes our comprehension”.  It was held:\n<\/p>\n
“To sum up the order of removal passed by the
\ndisciplinary authority is illegal and invalid for the
\nreasons: (i) that the action is thoroughly arbitrary and is
\nviolative of Article 14, (ii) that the alleged misconduct
\ndoes not constitute misconduct within the 1975 Rules,\n<\/p>\n
(iii) that the inquiry officer himself found that
\npunishment was already imposed for the alleged
\nmisconduct by withholding the salary and the appellant
\ncould not be exposed to double jeopardy, and (iv) that the
\nfindings of the inquiry officer are unsupported by reasons
\nand the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the
\nAppellate Authority suffer from the same vice.
\nTherefore, the order of removal from service as well as
\nthe appellate order are quashed and set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tGlaxo (supra) was also rendered in the fact situation obtaining therein.\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that misconduct is a generic term.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn State of Punjab and Others v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable<\/a> [(1992) 4
\nSCC 54] it was stated: –\n<\/p>\n
“Misconduct has been defined in Black’s Law
\nDictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus:\n<\/p>\n
“A transgression of some established and definite
\nrule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from
\nduty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character,
\nimproper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are
\nmisdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency,
\nimpropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not
\nnegligence or carelessness.”\n<\/p>\n
Misconduct in office has been defined as:\n<\/p>\n
“Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in
\nrelation to the duties of his office, wilful in
\ncharacter. Term embraces acts which the office
\nholder had no right to perform, acts performed
\nimproperly, and failure to act in the face of an
\naffirmative duty to act.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page
\n3026,  the term ‘Misconduct’ has been defined as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention and
\nnot a mere error of judgment.  Misconduct is not
\nnecessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral
\nturpitude.  The word misconduct is a relative term, and
\nhas to be construed with reference to the subject-matter
\nand the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to
\nthe scope of the Act or statute which is being construed.
\nMisconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper
\nconduct.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tMore than one occasion, different courts have taken pains to explain
\nthat Kalra (supra) does not lay down any inflexible rule.  [See Probodh
\nKumar Bhowmick v. University of Calcutta & Ors., 1994 (2) C.L.J. 456,
\nTara Chand v. Union of India and Ors. CWP 5552 \/2000 disposed of on 27th
\nAugust, 2002 (Delhi High Court),  Secretary to Government and Others v.
\nA.C.J. Britto,<\/a> 1997) 3 SCC 387 and Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli
\nand Another<\/a> (2004) 5 SCC 689].\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn the aforementioned situation, the High Court in our opinion
\ncommitted a manifest error in relying upon Kalra (supra) and Glaxo (supra),
\nas we have noticed hereinbefore, that the Respondent was not charged in
\nterms of the Rules alone.  He was charged for violation of several other
\nclauses of the Rules.  The High Court, therefore, was not correct in coming
\nto the conclusion that as some of the charges were vague and indefinite,
\nthus, no punishment could have been imposed on the basis thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe also do not agree with the submission of Mr. Krishnamani that
\ntwo of the eight charges have not been found to be proved.  The charges
\nlevelled against the Respondent must be considered on a holistic basis.  By
\nreason of such an action, the Respondent had put the company in
\nembarrassment.  It might have lost its image.  It received complaints from
\nthe Federation.  There was reason for the Appellant to believe that by such
\nan action on the part of the Respondent the Appellant’s image has been
\ntarnished.  In any event, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division
\nBench came to any finding that none of the charges had been proved.\n<\/p>\n
The power of judicial review in such matters is limited.  This Court
\ntimes without number had laid down that interference with the quantum of
\npunishment should not be done in a routine manner.  [See V. Ramana v.
\nA.P.SRTC and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 338, and State of Rajasthan & Anr. v.
\nMohammed Ayub Naz,<\/a> 2006 (1) SCALE 79].\n<\/p>\n
 \tHaving regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of
\nthe opinion that it cannot be said that the quantum of punishment was wholly
\ndisproportionate to the charges levelled against the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, therefore, committed an error in passing the
\nimpugned judgment which is set aside accordingly.  The appeal is allowed.
\nNo costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 8548 of 2003 PETITIONER: Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. Corpn. Ltd. & Ors RESPONDENT: T.K. Raju DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar […]<\/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-30457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. ... vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 - 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\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. ... vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-07T00:09:07+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\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T00:09:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2747,\"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\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. ... vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T00:09:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. ... vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 - 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\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. ... vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-07T00:09:07+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\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T00:09:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006"},"wordCount":2747,"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\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006","name":"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. ... vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T00:09:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-bharat-pet-vs-t-k-raju-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. … vs T.K. Raju on 24 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/30457","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=30457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}