{"id":46598,"date":"1978-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978"},"modified":"2016-07-13T08:30:56","modified_gmt":"2016-07-13T03:00:56","slug":"tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978","title":{"rendered":"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1811, \t\t 1979 SCR (1) 739<\/div>\n
Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTAMAL LAHIRI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKUMAR P.N. TAGORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR 1811\t\t  1979 SCR  (1) 739\n 1979 SCC  (1)\t75\n\n\nACT:\n     Bengal Municipal Act (Act XV), 1932 Sections 240(1)(b),\n500(1)(b), 533,\t scope of-Limitation of 6 months period, how\nto reckon  under s.533\tof the\tAct-Whether 6 months means 6\ncalendar months or 180 days.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A notice  dt. 5-12-67  calling upon  the respondent  to\nremove, within 15 days of the date of receipt of it, culvert\nerected without\t the permission from the Municipality by him\nthereby causing\t obstruction or\t encroachment over  the main\nmunicipal  drain,   not\t having\t  been\tcomplied  with,\t the\nBaranagore  Municipality   through  the\t appellant  its\t Law\nAssistant filed\t a complaint  against the  respondent  under\ns.240(1)(b) read  with s.500(1)(b)  of the  Bengal Municipal\nAct, 1932. The respondent's objection to its maintainability\non the plea of bar of limitation under s. 533 of the Act was\nrejected by the trial court, but upheld by the High Court in\nrevision.\n     Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe offence  charged against  the respondent\nconcerned, consists not in the erection of an obstruction by\nhim but in his failure to comply with the direction lawfully\ngiven to  him to  remove that  obstruction that\t the offence\nmust be\t deemed to have been committed by the respondent, if\nat all,\t not on the date of the notice viz. December 5, 1967\nnor on\tany anterior  date but\ton the\texpiry of the period\npermitted to  him for  removing the  obstruction viz. on the\nexpiry of  the 15  days after the receipt of the notice; and\nthat the expression \"6 months\" which occurs in s. 533 of the\nBengal Municipal  Act means  6 calendar\t months and  not 180\ndays. [743E-G]\n     (a) S.  240(1) of\tthe Act confers by its three clauses\nvarious powers\ton the Commissioners. Clause (b) on its true\nreading\t empowers   the\t Commissioners\tto  issue  a  notice\nrequiring any  person to  remove an  encroachment which\t has\nbeen erected  without permission  or which  remains  erected\nafter the  expiry of  the period  covered  by  a  permission\ngranted in  that behalf. Though clause (b) of s. 240(1) does\nnot expressly provide that the Commissioners may permit such\ntime as\t they think fit for the removal of the encroachment,\nit is implicit in the power conferred by that clause that by\na proper  direction of\trequisition  the  Commissioners\t can\nallow for  the removal of the encroachment such time as they\nconsider reasonable in the circumstances of the case. [741F-\nG, 742A-B]\n     (b)  S.  500(1)(b)\t of  the  Act  creates\ta  some-what\nartificial offence  which does\tnot consist  in the original\nAct of\terecting the  obstruction  or  encroachment  but  in\n\"failing to  comply with  any direction lawfully given\" to a\nperson or  \"any requisition  lawfully made upon him\". By the\nterms of  the  very  notice,  in  the  instant\tcase,  which\ncontained the direction or requisition the respondent was at\nliberty to  remove the\tencroachment at\t any time  within 15\ndays after  the receipt\t of  the  notice.  In  other  words,\nfailure to  comply with\t direction or  requisition occur for\nthe first  time within\tthe meaning  of s.  500(1)(b) on the\nexpiry of 15\n740\ndays after  December 5\ti.e. to\t say  after  the  expiry  of\nDecember 20.  Since the offence under s. 500(1)(b) for which\nthe respondent\tis being  prosecuted consists of his alleged\nfailure\t to   comply  with   the  particular   direction  or\nrequisition and\t since such  failure occurred  for the first\ntime after  December 20, the period of limitation prescribed\nby s.  533 of  the Act\tfor instituting the prosecution will\ncommence to run on the expiry of 20th December. [742B-C D-E.\nF]\n     (2) Section  3(27) of  the Bengal\tGeneral Clauses\t Act\n(Act 1),  1899 defines\t\"a month\"  to mean  a month reckoned\naccording to  the British  calender. The expression 6 months\nwhich occurs  in s.  533 of  the  Act  must  accordingly  be\nconstrued to  mean 6  calendar months  and not 180 days. The\noffence being  alleged to  have been committed on the expiry\nof  December  20,  1967\t and  the  prosecution\thaving\tbeen\ninstituted on  June 19,\t 1968, the provisions of s. 533 have\nbeen fully complied with. [743D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 69
\nof 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 22-12-70\tof the\tCalcutta High Court in Crl. Revision
\nNo. 697 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     P.K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das for the Appellant.
\n     K.R. Chowdhary for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHANDRACHUD, C.J.\tOn December  5, 1967, the Baranagore
\nMunicipality served a notice on the respondent alleging that
\nhe had\terected an obstruction over the main municipal drain
\nwithout\t the   permission  of\tthe  Administrator   of\t the
\nMunicipality and  calling upon him to remove the same within
\nfifteen days of the date of receipt of the notice. A similar
\nnotice was  sent to  the respondent by registered post which
\nhe received  on December  7. On\t the respondent’s failure to
\ncomply with  the requisition  the Municipality,\t through the
\nappellant who  is  its\tLaw  Assistant,\t filed\ta  complaint
\nagainst him  under s.  240(1)(b) read with section 500(1)(b)
\nof the\tBengal Municipal  Act, XV  of 1932, (“The Act”). The
\nrespondent   took    a\t preliminary   objection   to,\t the
\nmaintainability of  the complaint  on the  ground that since
\nthe prosecution\t was not  instituted within  six months next
\nafter the  commission of  the  offence,\t it  was  barred  by
\nlimitation under  section 533  of the  Act.  That  objection
\nhaving been  rejected by  the trial  court,  the  respondent
\nfiled a\t revisional application\t in the Calcutta High Court.
\nIt will\t not be\t quite accurate to say that the respondent’s
\nobjection, in  the form\t in which  it was  taken by him, was
\nupheld by the High Court, but the High Court did dismiss the
\ncomplaint on  the ground  that it  was barred by limitation.
\nThe judgment of the High Court rests on when
\n741<\/span>
\nthe period  of six  months began  to run than on how the six
\nmonths’ period\tis to  be reckoned.  Being aggrieved  by the
\njudgment of  the High  Court dated  December  22,  1970\t the
\nMunicipality has filed this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 240(1)(b)\tof the\tAct provides  to the  extent
\nmaterial that the Commissioners may issue a notice requiring
\nany person  to remove  any obstruction or encroachment which
\nhe may\thave  erected  upon  any  public  street,  drain  or
\nwatercourse and\t which remains\tso erected  after the period
\ncovered by  any permission given in that behalf has expired.
\nThe  notice  dated  December  5,  1967,\t was  given  by\t the
\nMunicipality to\t the respondent\t under this  provision.\t The
\nrelevant part  of section 500(1)(b) of the Act provides that
\nwhoever commits\t any’ offence by “failing to comply with any
\ndirection lawfully  given to him or any requisition lawfully
\nmade upon him” under any of the provisions of the Act, shall
\nbe punished  with  fine\t which\tmay  extend  to\t the  amount
\nmentioned in  the third\t column of  the table following that
\nsection. Section  533 of  the Act  prescribes  a  period  of
\nlimitation  for\t  filing  prosecutions\t under\tthe  Act  by
\nproviding that\tno prosecution\tfor an offence under the Act
\nshall be instituted “except within six months next after the
\ncommission  of\t such  offence”.  The  narrow  question\t for
\ndetermination in  this appeal is whether the prosecution was
\ninstituted in  the instant case within six months next after
\nthe commission\tof the\toffence as required by S. 533 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     For a  proper  appreciation  of  this  question  it  is
\nnecessary to  advert  briefly  to  the\tscheme\tof  the\t Act
\nbecause, without  a proper appreciation and understanding of
\nwhat  in   fact\t constitutes  an  offence  for\tthe  present
\npurposes, it  will be  impossible to resolve the question as
\nto whether  the prosecution is barred by limitation. Section
\n240(1) of  the Act  confers by\tits  three  clauses  various
\npowers\ton   the  Commissioners.   Under  clause   (a)\t the
\nCommissioners may,  without  giving  a\tnotice,\t remove\t any
\nobstruction or\tencroachment which  has been erected without
\nobtaining the  requisite permission. Clause (b), on its true
\nreading,  empowers  the\t Commissioners\tto  issue  a  notice
\nrequiring any  person to  remove an  encroachment which\t has
\nbeen erected  without permission  or which  remains  erected
\nafter the  expiry of  the period  covered  by  a  permission
\ngranted in that behalf. Clause (c) of section 240(1) confers
\nupon the  Commissioners the  power to  remove without notice
\nany materials or goods which have been deposited in a public
\nstreet without the requisite permission or which continue to
\nbe deposited after the permission has expired. The person to
\nwhom a lawful direction has been given or upon whom a lawful
\nrequisition has\t been  made  through  notice  under  section
\n240(1)(b) has to carry out the
\n742<\/span>
\ndirection or  comply with  the requisition,  as the case may
\nbe. Failure  in that  regard  attracts\tpenal  consequences.
\nThough clause  (b) of  section\t240(1)\tdoes  not  expressly
\nprovide that  the Commissioners may permit such time as they
\nthink fit  for\tthe  removal  of  the  encroachment,  it  is
\nimplicit in  the power\tconferred by  that clause  that by a
\nproper direction or requisition, the Commissioners can allow
\nfor the\t removal of  the  encroachment\tsuch  time  as\tthey
\nconsider  reasonable  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case.
\nSection 500(1)(b)  of the  Act creates a somewhat artificial
\noffence which,\tit must\t be remembered,\t does not consist in
\nthe original act of erecting the obstruction or encroachment
\nbut in “failing to comply with any direction lawfully given”
\nto a person or “any requisition lawfully made upon him”.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent having\tbeen allowed  by  the  notice  dated
\nDecember 5,1967\t a period of fifteen days for the removal of
\nthe encroachment  alleged to have been erected by him, it is
\nplain that  within and\tduring that period he could not have
\nbeen prosecuted\t under\tsection\t 500(1)(b)  for\t failure  to
\ncomply with  the direction or requisition. The reason simply
\nis that\t by the terms of the very notice which contained the
\ndirection or  requisition, he  was at  liberty to remove the
\nencroachment at\t any time  within  fifteen  days  after\t the
\nreceipt of  the notice.\t In other  words, failure  to comply
\nwith the  direction or\trequisition occurred  for the  first
\ntime, within the meaning of section 500(1)(b), on the expiry
\nof fifteen  days after December 5, that is to say, after the
\nexpiry of December 20.\n<\/p>\n
     A proper  appreciation of\tthis scheme  will facilitate
\nthe understanding  of the  true position, namely, that since
\nthe offence  under S.  500(1)(b) for which the respondent is
\nbeing prosecuted  consists of  his alleged failure to comply
\nwith the particular direction or requisition, and since such
\nfailure occurred  for the  first time after December 20, the
\nperiod of  limitation prescribed  by S.\t 533 of\t the Act for
\ninstituting the\t prosecution will  commence to\trun  on\t the
\nexpiry of  20th December.  It is  impossible to\t accept\t the
\nsubmission made by the respondent’s counsel that the offence
\nmust be\t deemed to  have been committed when the obstruction
\nor encroachment\t was erected, which of course would be prior
\nto December 5, 1967, when the Municipality served the notice
\non the\trespondent. It\tmay perhaps  be that constructing an
\nencroachment or\t obstruction on\t a public  street may itself
\namount to  an offence  under some  provision or the other of
\nthe Act,  but we  need not go into that question because the
\noffence for  which the\trespondent is  being prosecuted does
\nnot consist  in his erecting the encroachment or obstruction
\non a  public street  but in  his failure to remove it within
\nthe
\n743<\/span>
\nperiod allowed\tto him\tby the\tnotice. The error into which
\nthe High  Court fell  was  to  hold  that  the\toffence\t was
\ncommitted on  December\t5,  being  the\tdate  on  which\t the
\nMunicipality gave the notice to the respondent to remove the
\nencroachment. On  that date  no offence indeed was committed
\nbecause, as  stated above,  the offence\t charged against the
\nrespondent  consists   in  his\t failure   to\tremove\t the
\nencroachment within  the time allowed by the Municipality by
\nits notice.\n<\/p>\n
     We must,  therefore, proceed  on  the  basis  that\t the
\nfailure to  remove the\tencroachment having  occurred on the
\nexpiry of  December 20,\t limitation began  to  run  for\t the
\npurpose of  S. 533  on that and not on any earlier date. The
\nonly question which then requires examination is whether the
\nprosecution which was filed on June 19, 1968, was instituted
\nas required  by S.  533, “within  six months  next after the
\ncommission” of\tthe offence.  An argument  was raised in the
\nHigh Court  that “six  months” must be construed to mean 180
\ndays and  not six  calendar months.  The High Court does not
\nappear to  have accepted  that submission.  There  the\tHigh
\nCourt is  right, because  S. 3(27)  of\tthe  Bengal  General
\nClauses Act,  I of  1899, defines  “a month” to mean a month
\nreckoned according  to the  British calendar. The expression
\n“six months”  which  occurs  in\t S.  533  of  the  Act\tmust
\naccordingly be construed to mean six calendar months and not
\n180 days.  The offence, being alleged to have been committed
\non the\texpiry of  December 20,\t 1967, and  the\t prosecution
\nhaving been  instituted on  June 19, 1968, the provisions of
\nS. 533 must be held to have been duly complied with.\n<\/p>\n
     To sum  up, we are of the view that the offence charged
\nagainst the  respondent consists,  not in the erection of an
\nobstruction by\thim, but  in his  failure to comply with the
\ndirection lawfully  given to him to remove that obstruction;
\nthat the  offence must\tbe deemed  to have been committed by
\nthe respondent,\t if at\tall, not  on the  date of the notice
\nviz. December  5, 1967\tnor on\tany anterior date but on the
\nexpiry of  the period  permitted to  him  for  removing\t the
\nobstruction viz.  on the  expiry of  fifteen days  after the
\nreceipt of  notice; and\t that, the  expression “six  months”
\nwhich occurs  in S. 533 of the Act means six calendar months
\nand not 180 days.\n<\/p>\n
     For these reasons we set aside the judgment of the High
\nCourt and  send back  the case to the learned Magistrate for
\ndisposal in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n744<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1811, 1979 SCR (1) 739 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj) PETITIONER: TAMAL LAHIRI Vs. RESPONDENT: KUMAR P.N. TAGORE DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1978 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA […]<\/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-46598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 - 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\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-13T03:00:56+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-13T03:00:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\"},\"wordCount\":1636,\"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\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\",\"name\":\"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-13T03:00:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 - 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\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-13T03:00:56+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978","datePublished":"1978-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-13T03:00:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978"},"wordCount":1636,"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\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978","name":"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-13T03:00:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamal-lahiri-vs-kumar-p-n-tagore-on-13-september-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamal Lahiri vs Kumar P.N. Tagore on 13 September, 1978"}]},{"@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\/46598","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=46598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46598\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}