{"id":47335,"date":"2010-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-23T11:58:35","modified_gmt":"2016-06-23T06:28:35","slug":"union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nLPAOW No. 90 OF 2002    \nUnion of India and ors  \nPetitioners\nVishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; ors \nRespondent  \n!Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate \n^Mr. D. C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Verma, Advocate.\n\nHonble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge\nHonble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge   \nDate: 19.08.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T: \n<\/pre>\n<p>Per: Virender Singh-J<br \/>\nThe respondents (for short to be referred to as petitioners),<br \/>\nin furtherance of a scheme called as Monthly Income Scheme<br \/>\n(MIS) announced by the appellants (respondents in the main<br \/>\nwrit petition), opened four accounts with the Post Office Saving<br \/>\nBank at Mubarak Mandi, Jammu. All these accounts were joint<br \/>\naccounts. As per the Scheme, interest at the rate of 13% per<br \/>\nannum, which was prevalent at the relevant time, started<br \/>\naccruing. For reference, the details of the interest accrued from<br \/>\nthe date of opening of the accounts till their closure is as under:-<br \/>\nS.No. Account No. Date up to which interest<br \/>\npaid<br \/>\nAmount interest already<br \/>\npaid\n<\/p>\n<p>1. 602052 28.02.2000 Rs.47,385.00\n<\/p>\n<p>2. 602378 26.04.2000 Rs.46,410.00\n<\/p>\n<p>3. 602379 26.04.2000 Rs.46,410.00\n<\/p>\n<p>4. 602436 27.04.2000 Rs.22,100.00<br \/>\nTotal : Rs.1,62,305.00\/-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In fact, after the span of 2\/3 years, vide communication<br \/>\nNo.ICO-SB\/1-7\/2000-2001 dated 24.10.2000, the writ<br \/>\npetitioners were forced to close all the four accounts and a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.1,62,305\/- which amount was already paid to the writ<br \/>\npetitioners by way of interest, was ordered to be deducted. In<br \/>\naddition to that, a sum of Rs.25,350\/- as interest further<br \/>\naccrued on all the four accounts was also withheld. This gave a<br \/>\ncause of action to the writ petitioners to file the writ petition<br \/>\n(OWP No. 971\/2000) seeking quashment of the communication<br \/>\nNo.ICO-SB\/1-7\/2000-2001 dated 24.10.2000 with a further<br \/>\nprayer to refund Rs.1,62,305\/- alongwith amount withheld to<br \/>\nthe tune of Rs.25,350\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>The stand taken by the appellants before the Writ Court<br \/>\nwas that in an individual account the maximum amount, which<br \/>\ncould be deposited was to the extent of Rs.2.04 lacs and in a<br \/>\njoint account, it was to the extent of Rs.4.08 lacs. Since the<br \/>\npetitioners had deposited Rs.10,80,000\/-, which was in excess<br \/>\nof the permissible limit, they were not entitled to the interest<br \/>\nunder the Scheme beyond the amount of Rs.4.08 lacs and, as<br \/>\nsuch, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,62,305\/- accrued as interest<br \/>\nwas rightly ordered to be deducted while refunding the excess<br \/>\namount. Since the petitioners were also not entitled to any<br \/>\ninterest with regard to these four accounts, Rs.25,350\/- was<br \/>\nalso withheld. In fact, commission paid to the agent was also<br \/>\ndeducted in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Single Judge did not agree with the stand<br \/>\ntaken by the respondents and ultimately found it to be a case of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><br \/>\nno fault from petitioners side as they had not concealed any fact<br \/>\nat the time of opening of the accounts. It was further observed<br \/>\nthat if the agent of the Post Office had committed any fault, the<br \/>\ndepartment was at liberty to recover the amount from the agent,<br \/>\nbut action of deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,62,305\/-<br \/>\nfrom the principal amount of the petitioners was unjustified. On<br \/>\nthe same analogy withholding of Rs.25,350\/- was also held to be<br \/>\nbad. Even deduction of amount on the basis of commission paid<br \/>\nto the agent from the petitioners amount was also considered to<br \/>\nbe wrong. Ultimately the petitioners were held entitled to the<br \/>\nentire amount alongwith interest @ 15 % P.A. Aggrieved of the<br \/>\nsaid order\/judgment, the appellants are before us through the<br \/>\ninstant Letters Patent Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Record reveals that the instant appeal is not formally<br \/>\nadmitted as yet. We, thus, admit it and dispose of.<br \/>\nHeard Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe appellants and Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate<br \/>\nassisted by Mr. Anil Verma, Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents. Writ Court record also perused.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, the total deposit of the petitioners under the<br \/>\nMIS is to the tune of Rs.10.80 lacs. But the main thrust of<br \/>\nargument of Mr. Basotra is that it is in contravention of<br \/>\nstatutory rules known as Post Office (Monthly Income Account)<br \/>\nRules, 1987 as there was a limit of the amount to be deposited<br \/>\nin single account as well as joint account. Since the accounts<br \/>\nopened by the petitioners had exceeded the prescribed limit of<br \/>\ndeposit, therefore, they were treated as irregular accounts and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\ngot closed in terms of Rule 14 of 1987 Rules. The petitioners,<br \/>\nthus, were not entitled to any interest accrued on the excess<br \/>\namount. As it was already paid to them, therefore, deducted at<br \/>\nthe time of refund of the actual amount exceeding the prescribed<br \/>\nlimit of Rs.4.08 lacs. Mr. Basotra then submits that the<br \/>\npetitioners had, in fact, suppressed all the material facts at the<br \/>\ntime of opening the accounts and the moment it came to the<br \/>\nnotice of the Postal authorities, it swung into action. On the<br \/>\nsame analogy, the amount of Rs.25,350\/- ( amount of interest)<br \/>\nwithheld was also justifiable action on behalf of the appellants<br \/>\nand even the agent commission has also been rightly deducted.<br \/>\nPer contra, Mr. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate, submits that<br \/>\nonce the petitioners had not made any misrepresentation at the<br \/>\ntime of opening the accounts, they cannot be put to any<br \/>\ndisadvantageous position. According to him, the act done by the<br \/>\nagent of the Post Office would be deemed to be the act of<br \/>\nprincipal and once the respondents had allowed the petitioners<br \/>\nto continue with the deposit and used their money, they are<br \/>\nsupposed to pay interest @ 13% P.A. upto the date of refund<br \/>\natleast. According to Mr. Raina, even if the present case is<br \/>\ntested on the touchstone of equity, the petitioners are entitled to<br \/>\nthe interest on their deposit. Mr. Raina then submits that it is<br \/>\nnot only 13% P.A. interest to which the petitioners are entitled,<br \/>\nthey are also entitled to interest upto date as the amount due to<br \/>\nthem is lying with the appellants, may be on account of the stay<br \/>\nof the operation of the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>We are not at all convinced with the submissions<br \/>\nadvanced by Mr. Basotra for a very simple reason that<br \/>\nadmittedly the amount remained deposited with the Post Office<br \/>\ntill the accounts were closed, may be beyond the prescribed limit<br \/>\nof Rs.4.08 lacs. The plea taken by Mr. Basotra about the fault of<br \/>\nthe agent does not stand the test of reasoning as the agent was<br \/>\nengaged by the Postal authorities only and, therefore, all his<br \/>\nactions would be deemed to be an act of the principal. The<br \/>\nPostal authorities just cannot get out of it. In such a situation,<br \/>\nit is not understandable, how the agent commission is deducted<br \/>\nfrom the petitioners. This action, on the face of it, is not<br \/>\nsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, we do not find<br \/>\nany difficulty in holding that the petitioners are entitled to the<br \/>\ninterest accrued upon their deposit with the Post Office, may be<br \/>\nover and above the limit prescribed under the rules. So<br \/>\ndeduction of entire interest amount at the rate of 13% per<br \/>\nannum from the principal amount, in our considered view, is<br \/>\nabsolutely an unfair action, which can not stand the test of<br \/>\nreasoning.\n<\/p>\n<p>What will then be the rate of interest, in fact, is the next<br \/>\nissue for consideration before us. It goes without saying that the<br \/>\npetitioners are entitled to 13% interest per annum on the<br \/>\namount deposited by them within the limit prescribed by the<br \/>\nrules. This is even fairly admitted by Mr. Basotra before us.<br \/>\nHowever, in our view, they are not entitled to the same rate of<br \/>\ninterest on the excess amount remained deposited with the Post<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nOffice for about two years and more. The exact period is subject<br \/>\nto verification of record, which, admittedly, is in possession of<br \/>\nthe appellants and, therefore, this exercise has to be carried out<br \/>\nby the appellants only. For determining the entitlement of the<br \/>\nrate of interest, we asked Mr. Basotra to apprise us about the<br \/>\ninterest rate on saving bank account of post office in the year<br \/>\nwhen the petitioners had operated their accounts. He has<br \/>\nplaced on record the photo-stat copy of the interest rate of<br \/>\nsaving bank account for our perusal. For the year starting from<br \/>\nJanuary, 1999 and ending 28.02.2001, the interest rate on<br \/>\nsaving account is shown as 4.5% per annum and w.e.f.<br \/>\n01.03.2001 it is slashed down to 3.5% per annum. Mr. Raina<br \/>\nhas also not controverted this fact. Keeping in view the interest<br \/>\nrate and the year in which the accounts of the petitioners were<br \/>\nclosed, the appellants cannot just deny the entitlement of the<br \/>\npetitioners to the interest @ 4.5% per annum atleast, on the<br \/>\nexcess amount remained deposited with them till all the four<br \/>\naccounts were finally closed. Therefore, the appellants can not<br \/>\nescape their liability from refunding the amount to the<br \/>\npetitioners as shall be due to them at the rate of 4.5% per<br \/>\nannum on the excess (limit) amount. We have arrived at this<br \/>\nconclusion presuming that the amount deposited by the<br \/>\npetitioners over and above the prescribed limit was an amount<br \/>\ndeposited in saving bank account of post office fetching 4.5%<br \/>\ninterest per annum, the interest rate prevalent at that point of<br \/>\ntime. This approach of ours will keep the equitable balance<br \/>\nbetween the appellants and the depositors. The same rate of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\ninterest is to be calculated with regard to Rs.25,350\/-, the<br \/>\namount of interest withheld by the appellants vis-`-vis all the<br \/>\nfour accounts. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>The argument advanced by Mr. Raina asking for interest<br \/>\nover interest on the excess deposit right from the passing of the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment, apparently did not attract us, but when<br \/>\nappreciated in its right perspective, we find substance in it. May<br \/>\nbe the operation of the impugned judgment has been ordered to<br \/>\nbe stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2002 observing<br \/>\nthat payment of interest on the excess payment shall remain<br \/>\nstayed, the fact remains that the amount is still lying with the<br \/>\nPostal authorities and generating interest. After all, it is<br \/>\npetitioners money only, on which, they are entitled to the<br \/>\ninterest may be at the rate of saving bank account of Post Office.<br \/>\nFrom 01.03.2001 and onward, rate of interest on saving bank<br \/>\naccount is 3.5 % per annum. This is the position even till date<br \/>\nas stated by Mr. Basotra and also admitted by Mr. Raina,<br \/>\nlearned Senior Advocate. Therefore, in our considered view, the<br \/>\npetitioners are entitled to 3.5% interest Per Annum from<br \/>\n06.02.2002 on the amount actually falls due after calculating it<br \/>\nat the rate of 4.5% per annum till it is refunded within the<br \/>\nstipulated period to be mentioned hereinafter. Ordered<br \/>\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>At the cost of repetition, we may observe here that the<br \/>\npetitioners are also entitled to refund of commission of the agent<br \/>\ndeducted by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The entire exercise of calculation and payment thereof to<br \/>\nthe petitioners shall be completed within a period of four weeks<br \/>\nfrom the date, copy of the judgment\/order is made available to<br \/>\nthe concerned, in default thereof, the petitioners shall be entitled<br \/>\nto the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of<br \/>\nlapse till payment is made.\n<\/p>\n<p>As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result now<br \/>\nsurfaces is that the appeal at hand is partly allowed in the<br \/>\naforesaid terms by modifying the impugned judgment vis-`-vis<br \/>\ninterest part only.\n<\/p>\n<p>Connected CMP(s) also stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>( Mohammad Yaqoob Mir ) ( Virender Singh )<br \/>\nJudge Judge<br \/>\nJAMMU<br \/>\n19.08.2010<br \/>\nNarinder<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPAOW No. 90 OF 2002 Union of India and ors Petitioners Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; ors Respondent !Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate ^Mr. D. C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-23T06:28:35+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-23T06:28:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1869,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-23T06:28:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-23T06:28:35+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-23T06:28:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010"},"wordCount":1869,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010","name":"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-23T06:28:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-vishnu-dutt-sharma-ors-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Ors vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma &amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/47335","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=47335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}