{"id":47529,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-12T19:58:25","modified_gmt":"2019-01-12T14:28:25","slug":"bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde<\/div>\n
                       -:   1   :-\n\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n              WRIT PETITION NO.2152 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    1. Bombay Hospital Trust,\n\n       a charitable trust registered under\n\n       the provisions of Bombay Public\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n       Trusts Act, 1950 with its registered\n\n       office at 12, New Marine Lines,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n       Mumbai--400 020.\n\n    2. S.V.Muzumdar,\n                       \n       a trustee of Bombay Hospital Trust\n\n       having its office at 12,\n                      \n       Marine Lines, Mumbai--400 020.\n\n    3. S.De, the Manager (Legal) of\n\n       Petitioner No.1 abovenamed\n      \n\n\n       with his office at 12, New Marine\n   \n\n\n\n       Lines, Mumbai--400 020.                       : Petitioners\n\n           V\/s.\n\n\n\n\n\n    1. State of Maharashtra.\n\n    2. The District Collector, Mumbai\n\n       City (Entertainment Tax Branch)\n\n\n\n\n\n       with his office at Old Custom House,\n\n       3rd Floor, S.B.S. Marg, Fort,\n\n       Mumbai--400 001.\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::\n                               -:   2   :-\n\n    3. Divisional Commissioner,\n\n         Konkan Division, Mumbai City,\n\n         Entertainment Branch,\n\n         Old Secretariat,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n         Annex Building,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n         Next to University, 1st floor,\n\n         M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai.\n\n    4. Principal Secretary and Officer\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n         on Special Duty (Appeals), Revenue\n\n         and Forests Department.                          : Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                                ...\n\n    Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar i\/b.Kanga & Co., for the petitioners.\n                          \n    Mr.N.P.Pandit, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents.\n\n                                ...\n                         \n                                   CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.&\n                                           S.A. BOBDE, J.\n\n                                   Date of Reserving    ): 19.11.2008\n                                   the Judgement.       )\n      \n\n\n                                   Date of Pronouncing): 18.12.2008\n   \n\n\n\n                                   the Judgement.     )\n\n\n    JUDGEMENT (Per S.A.Bobde, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
    1.     By    this   Petition, the petitioner no.1, which                is     a<\/p>\n
    public      charitable     trust, and others have questioned               the<\/p>\n
    liability      to   pay    entertainment duty in respect            of     the<\/p>\n
    cable    television net-work in the premises of the Hospital<\/p>\n
    and    have    prayed for setting aside the        orders        demanding<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                  -:    3    :-\n<\/p>\n
    such duty and confirming the demand.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 is a<\/p>\n
    public charitable trust which runs the Bombay Hospital and<\/p>\n
    Medical     Research         Centre      without any motive            of     earning<\/p>\n
    profit.       A    cable      operator in the area is said                   to     have<\/p>\n
    offered its basic service of 32 channels free of charge as<\/p>\n
    a    special case for one year, to be renewed                       subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
    In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have installed about<\/p>\n
    150    television        sets with cable connection in some                       rooms<\/p>\n
    and    in   common waiting areas where               relatives\/friends                 of<\/p>\n
    patients       wait      in    the       hospital.       According           to      the<\/p>\n
    petitioners,<\/p>\n
                        the hospital does not charge any special fee<\/p>\n
    from    the    patients        in      respect of    the      television            sets<\/p>\n
    installed         by     it.       It,       however,    appears         from        the<\/p>\n
    Information        Booklet        of the hospital that the               rooms       are<\/p>\n
    classified        in    terms of the facilities              and      conveniences<\/p>\n
    available in it, including features such as television.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     The District Collector of Mumbai City                      (Entertainment<\/p>\n
    Tax    Branch) raised a demand of entertainment duty on                              the<\/p>\n
    petitioners        for cable connections in respect of each T.V.<\/p>\n
\n\n    in    the hospital by way of a monthly entertainment tax                               of\n\n\n\n\n\n    Rs.15\/-     from       May    1998 to March 2000           and      Rs.30\/-         from\n\n    April, 2000, on the basis of a survey.                     Thereafter, though\n\n    a    personal      hearing was offered by the 2nd respondent                           to\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n                              -:    4    :-\n\n    the    petitioners,      the    petitioners         did    not      attend        the\n\n    hearing.       The    2nd   respondent         passed      an      order       dated\n\n    11.12.2003      levying entertainment tax from April 2003 till\n\n    November      2003.     Thereafter, in Writ Petition                  No.193        of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n    2004    filed by the petitioners, this Court granted liberty\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    to    the petitioners to file an appeal under section 10A of\n\n    the    Bombay      Entertainments        Duty Act,      1923,       hereinafter\n\n    referred      to    as the \"Act\".        After hearing, the             appellate\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    authority,      i.e.     the       Divisional       Commissioner,            Konkan\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Division, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the demand.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     A    revision preferred by the petitioners                   before        the<\/p>\n
    Principal Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals),<\/p>\n
    Revenue      and Forests Department, was also dismissed.                          All<\/p>\n
    the    authorities have held that the petitioners are liable<\/p>\n
    to    pay    entertainment      tax      on   150    connections           in     the<\/p>\n
    hospital.      The said orders are impugned.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     According to the petitioners, they are not liable                            to<\/p>\n
    pay    any    entertainment duty since the petitioner no.1                          is<\/p>\n
    not    a proprietor as defined by the Act and, in any                          case,<\/p>\n
    not    liable since it does not collect any contribution                            or<\/p>\n
    admission fee from any of its patients or visitors viewing<\/p>\n
    the    cable    T.V.,    which is a condition for                the      activity<\/p>\n
    being classified as entertainment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                               -:    5   :-\n<\/p>\n
    6.    The Act defines “entertainment” as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “2(a) “entertainment”                includes                 any<\/p>\n
                       exhibition,       performance,            amusement,<\/p>\n
                       game    or    sport     to which       persons         are<\/p>\n
                       admitted      for payment, or, in the                case<\/p>\n
                       of    television exhibition with the                   aid<\/p>\n
                       of    any    type of antenna with             a    cable<\/p>\n
                       network       attached       to   it      or       cable<\/p>\n
                       television        or       Direct-to-Home          (DTH)<\/p>\n
                       Broadcasting Service, for which persons<\/p>\n
                       are    required to make payment by way of<\/p>\n
                       contribution          or       subscription             or<\/p>\n
                       installation       and connection charges or<\/p>\n
                       any    other     charges      collected         in     any<\/p>\n
                       manner      whatsoever but does not include<\/p>\n
                       magic    show     and       temporary       amusement<\/p>\n
                       including games and rides.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    7.     The first question that may be considered is whether<\/p>\n
    the    exhibition       on the television sets installed by                      the<\/p>\n
    petitioners        is not entertainment because the petitioners<\/p>\n
    do    not    collect charges for such exhibition, from                       their<\/p>\n
    patients      or   visitors nor;         do they make any payment                 to<\/p>\n
    the cable operator, Aasia Industrial Technologies Private<\/p>\n
    Limited, who is said to have donated its basic service to<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                               -:    6    :-\n<\/p>\n
    the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     On a construction of the definition, it appears that<\/p>\n
    the payment made by the petitioners to the cable operator<\/p>\n
    is not relevant.         What is relevant is whether the persons<\/p>\n
    who    watch the television are required to make payment by<\/p>\n
    way    of contribution or subscription or any other charges<\/p>\n
    collected      in    any manner whatsoever.            According           to     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners, the hospital does not charge any special fee<\/p>\n
    from any of its patients or anyone else in respect of the<\/p>\n
    television      sets     installed by them and,             therefore,            the<\/p>\n
    services are provided by the hospital free of charge.                              It<\/p>\n
    is,<\/p>\n
           however, not possible to accept the contention                           that<\/p>\n
    no    charges    are collected for the entertainment at                         all.\n<\/p>\n
    Under    section 2(a), such television exhibition by                          means<\/p>\n
    of    cable    television       is defined as      entertainment                when<\/p>\n
    persons       are    required       to    make   payment          by     way       of<\/p>\n
    contribution        or   subscription, etc.        The provision                does<\/p>\n
    not appear to include only such charges which are made by<\/p>\n
    way    of contribution or subscription specially for                          being<\/p>\n
    permitted       to    view     the       television      exhibition.               It<\/p>\n
    contemplates        payment of “any other charges collected                        in<\/p>\n
    any    manner whatsoever”.           In the present case, though the<\/p>\n
    hospital may not be charging its patients or visitors any<\/p>\n
    amounts specially for viewing the television sets, it can<\/p>\n
    hardly    be    said     that the patients do not               pay      for      the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                -:    7    :-\n<\/p>\n
    facility      as a part of the room charges.                  Barring 10%            of<\/p>\n
    the    treatment which is given free of charges to poor and<\/p>\n
    needy    patients        under section 41AA of the Bombay                     Public<\/p>\n
    Trusts      Act and to certain out-patients, it is clear that<\/p>\n
    services in the hospital are not rendered free of charge.\n<\/p>\n
    Undisputably,        the      patients      who   are      admitted          in     the<\/p>\n
    hospital      and    are      provided rooms have to              pay      for      the<\/p>\n
    rooms.       As    observed earlier, it is noteworthy that                          the<\/p>\n
    rooms    are      graded      from Ordinary to       Deluxe           class       with<\/p>\n
    proportionately          increasing        charges on the basis of                  the<\/p>\n
    facilities        and conveniences provided in the rooms                        which<\/p>\n
    include      television, vide the Information Booklet of                            the<\/p>\n
    Bombay      Hospital<\/p>\n
                              & Medical Research Centre.                  It     cannot,<\/p>\n
    therefore,         be    stated      that     charges        for       television<\/p>\n
    exhibition        are    not collected in any manner                  whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
    We    are    of    opinion, therefore, that              the      provision          of<\/p>\n
    television        exhibition      by    means      of      cable       television<\/p>\n
    network      in    the    hospital constitutes             entertainment             as<\/p>\n
    defined under section 2(a).\n<\/p>\n
    9.     The next contention on behalf of the petitioners                              is<\/p>\n
    that    the petitioner no.1 is not a proprietor in relation<\/p>\n
    to    the entertainment within the meaning of section 2(c).\n<\/p>\n
    The    provisions        of    section 2(c), to the             extent        it     is<\/p>\n
    relevant, read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                            -:    8    :-\n\n             \"(c)   \"proprietor\",           in      relation             to       an\n\n<\/pre>\n
                    entertainment, includes any person–\n<\/p>\n
                    (i)     responsible           for      the      management\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                            thereof, or\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                    (ii)    connected in whatsoever manner with\n\n                            the        organisation                 of          the\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                            entertainment,          for       any      duration\n\n                            whatsoever, or\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                    (iii) charged          or entrusted or authorised\n                          \n                            with      the work of admission to                  the\n\n                            entertainment, or\n                         \n                    (iv)    responsible          for,    or for the           time\n\n                            being      in charge of, the management\n      \n\n\n                            of an entertainment, whether or not\n   \n\n\n\n                            he    has      obtained licence, if               any,\n\n                            for      a place of such          entertainment\n\n\n\n\n\n                            under any law for the time being in\n\n                            force;\"\n\n\n\n\n\n    Having   observed     that    the      activity      of     exhibition           on\n\n    television   by   means      of    a    cable    network          amounts        to\n\n    entertainment,    we see no reason why the petitioner                         no.1\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n                                -:   9   :-\n\n    ought      not be treated as a proprietor in relation to                       it.\n\n    It    is    obvious that the petitioners are responsible                       for\n\n    management      of    the entertainment and, in any               case,        are\n\n    connected      to    some    degree      with    the    organisation            of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n    entertainment        and    are charged with and are             responsible\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    for    or for the time being are incharge of the management\n\n    of    entertainment as contemplated by clauses (i) to                        (iv)\n\n    of    sub-section (c) of section 2.             We, therefore,           reject\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    this contention.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    10.     In    the    result, we do not find any            merit        in     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    petition which is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                     CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                     S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 Bench: S.A. Bobde -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2152 OF 2008 1. Bombay Hospital Trust, a charitable trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 with […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-12T14:28:25+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T14:28:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":988,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T14:28:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 - 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\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-12T14:28:25+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T14:28:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":988,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008","name":"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T14:28:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-hospital-trust-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay Hospital Trust vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/47529","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=47529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}